By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Define mitigation
• Identify how mitigation benefits society
• Demonstrate the economic benefits of mitigation projects

The term "mitigation" refers to those capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to:

• Community-wide risk reduction projects
• Efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource lifelines
• Risk reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism
• Initiatives to reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred

Mitigation creates safer communities and saves money for:

• Individuals
• Government
• Society

Building and maintaining structures that incorporate mitigation strategies saves money for individuals through:

• Improved insurance rates
• Lower post-disaster rebuilding/replacement costs

State, local and Indian Tribal governments that incorporate mitigation strategies avoid or reduce damages to public infrastructure. Society as a whole benefits from improved resiliency because fewer resources are needed for response and recovery.

Studies have documented the cost-effectiveness of mitigation activities. Communities with established hazard mitigation programs and sound building codes experience the greatest benefits. New or remodeled buildings are more likely to incorporate privately-funded mitigation design measures.

During the grant application phase, a Benefit-Cost Analysis is used to estimate savings of a proposed mitigation measure realized during future disaster events.

A Loss Avoidance Study is used to determine mitigation's actual value to society. This type of study looks at mitigation measures and their calculated savings after completed projects have been tested by disaster events.

The Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) completed studies examining hundreds of projects to determine how cost-effective mitigation projects provided value.

• Multihazard Mitigation Council Study
• Congressional Budget Office Study

Multihazard Mitigation Council Study

In 2005, the MMC completed a loss avoidance study using a random sampling of mitigation projects. The Council found that an investment of $3.5 billion saved $14 billion, which translates to $4 saved for every $1 spent.

Congressional Budget Office Study

A study published in September 2007 by the CBO analyzed projects that were funded by FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program to determine the extent to which the projects might reduce expected losses from future natural disasters. The CBO report built on the results of the MMC study. Results from this study showed that the total dollar value of the expected reduction in disaster losses from PDM-funded projects exceeded the projects’ costs. On average, future losses were reduced by about $3 for every $1 spent.

A Loss Avoidance Study (LAS) can be completed for projects after they are finished and have been "tested" by a hazard event. The following are a few examples of LASs:

• Birmingham, Alabama
• Georgia
• Northern California
• Sonoma County, CA
• Oregon
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Birmingham, Alabama

Completed in 2000, an LAS in Birmingham, Alabama, analyzed 735 acquisitions on Village Creek, which was subject to frequent flooding. This study showed that the acquisitions implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at a cost of $36 million had avoided losses of more than $60 million by the completion of the study. This investment yielded a losses avoided ratio of 1.50. Additionally, further acquisitions by FEMA and the City of Birmingham have avoided direct losses of $3.4 million for an investment of $7 million in less than 2 years. These numbers were adjusted to 2004 dollars.

Georgia

In 2010, FEMA partnered with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) to conduct an LAS to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of several mitigation projects. For the study, FEMA and GEMA selected 29 building modification projects consisting of 172 total structures in Chattooga, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, and Gwinnett counties that were completed between 1997 and 2009. All but one project involved residential buildings that had been acquired and demolished. The other project involved the demolition of a school and then rebuilding it outside the 500-year floodplain. The aggregate losses avoided for the 172 buildings were valued at $27,426,369, and the aggregate project investment was valued at $48,885,368 (both values in 2010 dollars), resulting in a losses avoided ratio of 0.56 for all storm events studied.

Northern California

An LAS conducted in Northern California examined the effectiveness of HMA-eligible minor flood control mitigation projects. Six projects were included in the study, which was completed in July 2008. An initial investment of $48.1 million was made for these mitigation projects. The losses avoided from actual events were $46.9 million, based on 2007 dollars. This yielded a 0.97 losses avoided ratio.

Sonoma County, CA

This study examined 205 structures that were elevated to avoid flooding in Sonoma County, California. Completed in April 2008 and based on dollars adjusted to 2007, the findings showed that an investment of $14.2 million resulted in losses avoided of $13.5 million. The losses avoided ratio was 0.96.

Oregon

Low-lying areas between the Coast Range and the Pacific Ocean in southwestern Oregon are particularly vulnerable to severe flooding. The City of Tillamook, which is located in this region, has repeatedly experienced severe floods. In response, the City and County of Tillamook implemented a number of flood mitigation projects to reduce the damage from future floods. The projects consisted of the acquisition, elevation, and relocation of floodprone buildings. The aggregate losses avoided were valued at $3.1 million, and the aggregate project cost was valued at approximately $4.7 million (both values in 2009 dollars), resulting in a losses avoided ratio of 0.66. FEMA estimates that elevation projects are estimated to have an average useful life of 30 years and that acquisition projects have a useful life of 100 years. The majority of the projects were implemented after 2003, which is only 6 years into their useful life.

Washington

The 1996 floods in the State of Washington caused severe damage and were declared a Major Disaster by the President. Following this disaster, local governments, with State and Federal assistance, completed a number of flood mitigation projects to reduce future damage from similar floods. These projects included the Tributary 0170 Drainage Improvement Project in the City of Issaquah and the installation of the Old Stilly Flood Drainage Gate near the City of Stanwood. The flood on January 7, 2009, was similar in size to the 1996 flood, affected both cities, and caused significantly less damage in the vicinity of these two projects than the 1996 floods. Consequently, FEMA partnered with the State of Washington to conduct a loss avoidance study of the two projects. The value of the losses avoided for the two projects combined was $1,204,058, and the total cost of the two projects was $1,245,726 (both values in 2009 dollars), resulting in a losses avoided ratio of 0.97. Localized flood reduction projects are estimated to have an average useful life of 30 to 50 years. Both projects were implemented only 2 years before the 2009 flooding.

Wisconsin

In response to frequent flooding, the local governments in Kenosha, Jefferson, and Crawford counties, with Federal and State assistance, acquired a total of 92 repetitive-loss properties from 1989 to 2008. FEMA calculated the value of the losses that had been avoided by the implementation of the mitigation projects and compared the losses avoided with the acquisition costs. The aggregate losses avoided were valued at $14.5 million, and the aggregate project cost was valued at approximately $11 million (both values in 2009 dollars), resulting in a losses avoided ratio of 1.32.

Loss Avoidance Study Results

The losses avoided ratios for these studied projects range from 0.56 to 1.50. These ratios should rise over time since the projects will result in additional avoided damages from future flood events.

In general, mitigation activities have been found to save money. They promote sound development through rigorous building standards and local governing ordinances such as:

• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances
• Local, State, or International Building Codes
• Wildland/Urban Interface Codes

These ordinances all reduce vulnerability to disasters.

Mitigation speeds recovery. After a disaster, mitigation can reduce post-disaster disruption and allow quicker rebuilding.

To summarize, mitigation:

• Creates safer communities
• Saves money for individuals and communities
• Promotes sound development
• Speeds recovery

In Lesson 2 you learned to:

• Define mitigation
• Identify how mitigation benefits society
• Demonstrate the economic benefits of mitigation projects