Disaster and emergency management

Disaster and emergency management

Risk mitigation Case study first file is the instructions, second one is the grading rubric and third one is a chapter of our textbook that included p210 to 215 as needed in the assignment

ADMS 3701 – Disaster Risk Management
Assignment 2 – Risk Mitigation Case Study
Due: November 26, 2015
Submission: Electronic – Moodle or e-mail
File Format: Word Document or PDF
Grade: 20%
Length: 5 pages (minimum 3, maximum 7; not including reference list, cover page, etc.)
Format: line spacing 1.5 – 2; font size 10-12 pt; margins 1-1.25 in
Assignment: Prepare a case study of a risk mitigation strategy of your choice (A few options are listed below).
Include the following in your case study:
• A short introduction including the location of the case study; and the hazard and risk being mitigated;
• A description of the mitigation strategy;
• The costs and benefits of the strategy, including the impact on people and property;
• Public and community support and/or opposition to the project.
References:
• Textbook: 1st edition Page 210-215 or 2nd edition page 239-242
• Individual Research
• FEMA Best Practices Portfolio
Options:
• Manitoba: Red River Floodway Project (original build or expansion project)
• Manitoba: Portage Diversion (original design or operation)
• Alberta: Elbow and Highwood River Flood Mitigation Project
• BC: Seismic Mitigation Program
• Tornado safe rooms
• Seismic retrofitting
• Land acquisition and relocation (i.e. buying properties to turn hazard land into another, less risky land use)
• Building codes
• Building entry control
Note: Be sure to appropriately reference and attribute your report. Give due consideration to writing style and presentation (e.g. clear, well-written)
Late Penalty: 5% of total grade/day with a grade of zero after December 7

Name:
Student Number:
Assignment Description: Risk mitigation strategy case study
Consideration/Dimension Insufficient (1-4) Weak (5-6) Mid-range (7-8) Excellent (9-10)
Content – Ability to analyse the research topic and use knowledge to get major ideas across Shows no significant understanding of material. Author shows a poor understanding of the topic. It lacks synthesis of the relevant literature. Author shows a basic understanding of the topic. It synthesizes adequately the knowledge gained. Author shows a deep understanding of the subject. Summarizes and shows insightful synthesis of the literature information.
• A short introduction including the location of the case study; and the hazard and risk being mitigated;
• A description of the mitigation strategy
• The costs and benefits of the strategy, including the impact on people and property
• Public and Community support and/or opposition to the project
Expression – Use of a clear writing
style and formatting to get major
ideas across Writing is largely unintelligible. Document not consistently formatted. Throughout the paper, wording is imprecise or ambiguous. Sentence structure is consistently confusing. Paper is unacceptably sloppy. Only an occasional idea surfaces clearly. Occasional consistency of formatting throughout document. Paper is for the most part clearly worded and unambiguous. Sentence structure is mostly clear. There are a few minor spelling or grammatical errors. General consistency of formatting throughout document. Throughout the paper, wording is clear and unambiguous. Sentence structure is consistently clear and lucid. There are virtually no spelling or grammatical errors. Consistently formatted throughout document.
Citation – Research was thorough and appropriately cited, quoted, and referenced. Thorough research of the subject is not apparent (e.g. lack of reputable and knowledgeable sources). Quotes and sources are frequently not attributed. Reference list is missing.
Thorough research of the subject is not apparent (e.g. lack of reputable and knowledgeable sources). Quotes and sources are frequently improperly cited. Reference list is incomplete.
Research is mostly thorough (a few reputable and knowledgeable sources). Quotes and sources are mostly properly attributed and cited. Reference list is mostly complete. Very thorough research was conducted and is apparent by the selection of knowledgeable sources. Quotes and sources are all properly attributed and cited. Reference list is complete.
Comments:

193
Chapter 8
The Hazards Risk
Management Process
Greg Shaw
Objectives
Te study of this chapter will enable you to:
1. Establish the role/value of a hazards risk management process.
2. Define key terms associated with hazards risk management.
3. State the essential questions of hazards risk management.
4. Describe the Government Accountability Office framework for risk management
and its inherent limitations.
5. Describe an overall framework for accomplishing the comprehensive hazards
risk management process.
6. Explain the content and importance of each component within the hazards
risk management framework.
7. Explain how the hazards risk management process supports comprehensive
emergency management.
Key Terms
Comprehensive emergency management
Hazards
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
194 „ Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters
Hazards risk management
Management
Prevention
Risk
Risk analysis
Risk assessment
Risk communication
Stakeholders
Issue
What process will best inform decision makers in their efforts to balance safety and
security expenditures with the myriad challenges, requirements and opportunities
facing all organizations and communities?
Critical Tinking: Billions of dollars are spent in organizations from all sectors
(private, public, and not-for-profit) and all levels of community, from individuals
and their families to the federal government, on measures to manage risk from
natural, technological, and intentional hazards. Perfect hazard risk management
is unobtainable, and decisions must be made to consider and formulate hazard
risk management interventions in the context of overall organizational/community
priorities. As presented and explained in this chapter, can the hazards risk management
process inform decision makers in establishing priorities that balance competing
needs while devoting limited resources to the most effective and efficient risk
management interventions?
Introduction
Chapter 1 describes the nature, purpose, and application of hazards analysis as a
process and a tool that supports the phases of comprehensive emergency management
(preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery). Tis chapter takes a step
back from hazards analysis as an activity undertaken to understand hazards and the
risks they pose. It focuses on the larger hazards risk management (HRM) philosophy
and framework as an iterative and ongoing process that is intended to inform
decisions dealing with safety, security measures, and sustainability at all levels of
organizations and communities. Te structure of the HRM framework described
in this chapter is adapted from the Emergency Management Australia emergency
risk management process set forth in the Emergency Risk Management Applications
Guide. A much more detailed description and discussion of HRM can be found in
1,000 plus pages of the Federal Emergency Management Agency EMI Emergency
Management Higher Education Project Hazards Risk Management course available
on the Higher Education Project Web Site (FEMA 2004).
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
The Hazards Risk Management Process „ 195
Terminology
As discussed in Chapter 1, there are multiple, and often conflicting, definitions of
terms associated with hazards and HRM. Tese definitions may change over time
to reflect certain areas of emphasis and are not necessarily consistent, even within a
particular discipline or organization.
For example, Te National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) issued the 2004
document, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Programs, which defines mitigation as “activities taken to eliminate or reduce the
probability of the event, or reduce its severity or consequences, either prior to or following
a disaster/emergency” (NFPA 2004: 4). Te 2007 edition of this document
redefines mitigation as “activities taken to reduce the severity or consequences of
an emergency” (NFPA 2007: 4) and introduces the new term, prevention, which
is defined as “activities to avoid an incident or to stop an emergency from occurring”
(NFPA 2007: 5). Following from these definitions, mitigation, as a widely
understood and accepted phase of the long-established framework of comprehensive
emergency management, has been bifurcated into the two phases of prevention
and the newly defined meaning of the term mitigation, which focuses on consequence
management.
To complicate matters further, mitigation is defined in the Department of
Homeland Security–issued National Response Plan of December 2004 in the more
traditional manner as “activities designed to reduce or eliminate risks to persons or
property or to lessen the actual or potential effects or consequences of an incident”
(United States Department of Homeland Security 2004: 68). Te thrust of this
definition, which maintains prevention activities within mitigation, is retained in
the Draft National Incident Management System of August 2007 (FEMA 2007:
21) and the Draft National Response Framework of September 2007 resource Web
site.
Considering this example, differing definitions for the HRM process and terms
contained within the process are to be expected and accepted. To avoid confusion,
these terms should be defined and used consistently. Accordingly, the following
terms related to the HRM process are presented and defined, along with the rationale
for selecting the chosen definition for use in this chapter.
Lacking a widely accepted definition for the term HRM, the term is defined
based upon its three component words: hazard(s), risk, and management.
Consistent with a definition of hazard included in Chapter 1, the definition from
the 1997 FEMA publication Multi Hazard Identification and Assessment is selected
for developing a definition of HRM: “Events or physical conditions that have the
potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural
loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types
of harm or loss” (FEMA 1997: xxv). Defining hazards in this manner is purposeful,
since it is inclusive of all sources of hazards and does not necessarily emphasize
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
196 „ Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters
any one category of natural, technological, or human-induced (intentional/terrorist)
events.
Risk and the more expansive concept of risk management are also subject to
multiple definitions and are often misunderstood or confused with other terms,
such as risk identification, risk assessment, risk analysis, and risk communication.
As discussed later in this chapter, risk management is a function comprised of several
subfunctions that work together for the purpose of informing decision making
at all levels of organizations and communities. Risk, as the foundational term for
risk management, has differing meanings in different disciplines such as medicine,
finance, safety, security, etc. Te selected definition for risk derived from Ansell and
Wharton (1992) is general in nature and applies across these disciplines. Risk is the
product of probability (likelihood) and consequences of an event. Defining risk
in this manner implies that risk can be managed by influencing or the probability
(through mitigation and preparedness actions) and consequences of a disaster
(through mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery actions).
Te chosen definition for manage comes from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
“To work upon or try to alter for a purpose.” Other definitions of manage include
words like direct, govern, and succeed, which imply achieving control. Although a
manager of risk strives to achieve control over risks, this is generally not totally achievable
due to uncertainties, unknowns, and other intervening concerns. As stated by
Borge, “Risk management is not, and will never be, a magic formula that will always
give you the right answer. It is a way of thinking that will give you better answers to
better questions and by doing so helps you shift the odds in your favor” (2001: 4). In
dealing with risk, one is seldom or never in complete control, and the best one can do
is work to influence future events in a manner that is perceived as favorable.
Terefore, combining these three definitions with the author’s personal bias,
HRM is defined as: A process that provides a general philosophy and a defined
and iterative series of component parts that can be utilized to establish goals and
objectives and inform decisions (strategic and tactical) concerning the risks associated
with all hazards facing an organization and/or community. Tis definition
of HRM is intended to emphasize each of the three component terms and the
application of the process to all hazards and all phases of comprehensive emergency
management. HRM, as an iterative process, is thus intended to provide an understanding
of hazards and risks and a rational, inclusive, and transparent process for
identifying, assessing, and analyzing hazard risks across all sectors and at all levels
of community to inform decision makers as they allocate limited resources to the
myriad and often competing priorities of their organization/community.
As discussed in the following section, risk management (a more commonly
used term that can be used synonymously with HRM) has gained prominence in
the post-9/11 environment, particularly as a tool for dealing with human-induced
(intentional/terrorist) hazards. Tis predominantly terrorism-focused application
of risk management has evolved to a more HRM all-hazards focus, particularly
with the fallout from Hurricane Katrina and the perceived failures of all levels of
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
The Hazards Risk Management Process „ 197
government to adequately mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover
from the catastrophic events resulting from natural and technological hazards.
Risk Management
In the post-9/11 environment the term risk management has gained prominence,
particularly in the vernacular and practice of Homeland Security. Te Homeland
Security Act of 2002 requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
conduct comprehensive assessments of vulnerability (a component of risk) to the
critical infrastructure and key resources of the United States (White House 2002).
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD) 7: Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization, and Protection, and 8: National Preparedness, both
issued in December 2003, endorse risk management as a way of allocating resources
(White House 2003A, White House 2003B). Te National Infrastructure Protection
Plan issued in July 2006 is based upon three foundational blocks including a “risk
management framework establishing processes for combining consequence, vulnerability,
and threat information to produce a comprehensive, systematic, and rational
assessment of national or sector risk” (United States Department of Homeland
Security 2006: 35). Within the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Chapter 3
is titled “Te Protection Program Strategy: Managing Risk,” and Chapter 7, titled
“Providing Resources for the CI/KR Protection Program,” includes a section titled
“Te Risk-Based Resource Allocation Process.”
Te commitment to a risk management–based approach within DHS was
further demonstrated by the newly appointed Secretary Michael Chertoff in the
months following his confirmation. In his April 26, 2005, address to government
and business leaders at New York University, Secretary Chertoff stated,
Risk management is fundamental to managing the threat, while retaining
our quality of life and living in freedom. Risk management can
guide our decision-making as we examine how we can best organize to
prevent, protect against, respond and recover from an attack . . . For
that reason, the Department of Homeland Security is working with
state, local and private sector partners on a National Preparedness Plan
to target resources where the risk is greatest (Chertoff 2005).
Although terrorism focused, Secretary Chertoff’s remarks can and should be
extended to all hazards and clearly emphasize the importance of risk management
in “guiding” decision making supporting comprehensive emergency management.
Te experiences observed in the next year and a half and the lessons learned during
the 2005 hurricane season only strengthened Secretary Chertoff’s commitment
to risk management as a foundation of Homeland Security. In his December 14,
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
198 „ Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters
2006, address at Te George Washington University, Washington, DC, Secretary
Chertoff stated,
Probably the most important thing a Cabinet Secretary in a department
like this can do as an individual is to clearly articulate a philosophy for
leadership of the department that is intelligible and sensible, not only to
the members of the department itself, but to the American public. And
that means talking about things like risk management, which means
not a guarantee against all risk, but an intelligent assessment and management
of risk; talking about the need to make a cost benefit analysis
in what we do, recognizing that lurching from either extreme forms of
protection to total complacency, that’s not an appropriate way to build
a strategy; and finally, a clear articulation of the choices that we face as
a people, and the consequence of those choices (Chertoff 2006).
Taken together, Secretary Chertoff’s remarks, though separated by time and
events by over 18 months, emphasize several very important points concerning the
purpose and application of risk management:
1. Risk management can “guide” (inform) decision making across the phases of
comprehensive emergency management.
2. Risk management is applicable to and across all levels of government (local,
state, federal), all sectors (public, private, and not for profit) and to the
American public.
3. Decisions based upon risk management should include a cost–benefit analysis
(not just monetary costs and benefits but all costs and benefits such as
social, political, public relations, etc.)
4. Communication (clear articulation) is a necessary component of risk
management.
5. Risk management should support strategic planning and management.
Critical Tinking: Stephen Flynn, in his 2004 book America the Vulnerable,
makes the very profound statement concerning understanding and dealing with risk
in the post-9/11 environment: “What is required is that everyday citizens develop
both the maturity and the willingness to invest in reasonable measures to mitigate
that risk” (Flynn 2004: 64). How do we, as everyday citizens, gain this maturity
and willingness to understand the risks facing our organizations/communities and
to accept as reasonable the measures taken to mitigate that risk? What are our roles
and responsibilities as members of our organizations and communities to engage
in a process for managing risk, and what are the roles and responsibilities of our
organizational and community leaders to include us in that process?
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
The Hazards Risk Management Process „ 199
To address these key points, a widely distributed, understood, and accepted
framework for risk management is needed. Recognizing this need, the Government
Accountability Office developed and distributed a Risk Management Framework
displayed in Figure 8.1 (Government Accountability Office 2007: 9).
Te GAO report from which this framework was extracted makes the point
that, “Risk management, a strategy for helping policymakers make decisions about
assessing risks, allocating resources, and taking actions under conditions of uncertainty,
has been endorsed by Congress and the President as a way to strengthen the
nation against possible terrorist attacks” (Government Accountability Office 2005:
5). Te report goes on to state, “GAO developed a framework for risk management
based on industry best practices and other criteria” (Government Accountability
Office 2005: 6). Tis framework, shown in Figure 8.1, divides risk management
into five major phases: (1) setting strategic goals and objectives, and determining
constraints; (2) assessing the risks; (3) evaluating alternatives for addressing these
risks; (4) selecting the appropriate alternatives; and (5) implementing the alternatives
and monitoring the progress made and results achieved.
Given that the GAO has provided an authoritative and relatively widely accepted
framework and approach to risk management, why is an alternative HRM framework
and process required? Te GAO framework as presented is in fact inclusive
of certain components of the HRM process, but goes beyond the intent of HRM
to include risk-based decision making and the implementation and monitoring of
these risk management decisions. Te HRM process, as described in the following
sections, provides a context for risk-based decision making and the identification,
Figure 8.1 Risk management framework.
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
200 „ Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters
assessment, analysis, and presentation of hazard risk data and information. HRM
is intended to support comprehensive emergency management as one input to
informed decision making that attempts to balance safety and security expenditures
with the myriad challenges, requirements, and opportunities facing all organizations
and communities. Te GAO framework also implies that the component
steps are sequential, which they are not. Te steps influence each other throughout
the process and later steps may necessitate the revisiting of earlier steps and revisions
of the results of each step.
A major shortfall of the GAO framework is that it largely ignores the necessity
of continuous risk communication and monitoring and review throughout the overall
process, which can doom the overall process to failure. Te point of emphasis here
is that HRM is an ongoing process that continually examines the impact of organizational
activities to ensure that risks are identified, considered, and understood to
support decisions impacting our vulnerability to those risks. To maximize effectiveness,
any risk management process must continuously communicate strategies and
tactics to manage the adverse impacts of risks throughout the impacted organization/
community.
To improve the risk management process, a set of framing questions and a
framework for HRM are presented and described as a recommended philosophy
and approach to informing safety and security decision making in any sector and
at all levels of organizations and communities.
Hazards Risk Management Framing Questions
Before embarking on the HRM process, and particularly before starting any risk
assessment, the following questions should be asked and answered in a manner
generally understood and acceptable to the audiences impacted by the HRM process
results.
What are the organization’s/community’s strategic goals and objectives, and
considering those goals and objectives:
− What is the scope of our hazards risk management effort?
− What is an acceptable level of risk?
− Who determines what an acceptable level of risk is?
− Can risk be managed?
− What are the interventions (controls/countermeasures) available to manage
risk?
− What combination of risk management interventions (controls/countermeasures)
make sense in terms of non-risk-specific considerations (economic,
social, political, legal)?
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
The Hazards Risk Management Process „ 201
Framework for Hazards Risk Management
Figure 8.2 displays the hazards risk management framework as adapted from the
emergency risk management process set forth in the 2002 Emergency Management
Australia, Emergency Risk Management Applications Guide (Emergency Management
Australia 2004). Te HRM framework includes the general format of the emergency
risk management framework but meets a different purpose, as described in
this section. Te HRM framework includes six steps: (1) establish the context, (2)
identify the hazards, (3) assess the hazards risk, (4) sort the hazards by risk magnitude,
(5) analyze the risks from each hazard, and (6) group and prioritize risks; and
two continual components: communicate and consult, and monitor and review.
Roughly categorized, steps 1 and 2 accomplish hazard identification, steps 3 and 4
hazard risk assessment, and steps 5 and 6 hazard risk analysis. Note that chapters
in this book examine hazard identification and characterization, modeling, spatial
analysis, risk, and vulnerability analysis. We thus view the hazards analysis process
Hazard Risk Management
Communicate and Consult
Monitor and Review
1
Establish the Context
Organizational/community stakeholders objectives
2
Identify the Hazards
Hazards identification
3
Assess the Hazard Risk
Probability
Impact/Consequences
4
Sort the Hazards by Risk Magnitude
Compare hazard risks
Rank hazards by risk
5
Analyze the Risks from Each Hazard
Decompose risks into components
Categorize risk components
6
Group and Prioritize the Risks
Group into like categories
Rank by priority
Consider interventions
Figure 8.2 Hazards risk management framework.
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
202 „ Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters
in the context of hazards risk management and as a process to generate information
for selecting appropriate hazard mitigation strategies.
Te HRM framework is constructed to define an inclusive, iterative, and continuous
process that addresses the HRM framing questions listed above and provides
a foundation for the four phases of comprehensive emergency management (CEM):
preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Inherent in each of the phases of
CEM is the goal of effectively and efficiently managing the myriad hazards that
may adversely impact an organization/community and its ability to achieve its strategic
and tactical goals and objectives. Following the HRM process is intended to
provide the “needs assessment” for comprehensive emergency management, and as
such, establishes a focus and steering direction. Understanding the HRM process is
a key to developing a risk-based, all-hazard emergency management program.
Each component of HRM Process is discussed in this section of the chapter.
Much of the content in this discussion is adapted from Emergency Management
Principles and Practices for Healthcare Systems, authored by Te Institute for Crisis,
Disaster, and Risk Management (ICDRM) at the George Washington University
(GWU) for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)/US Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). Washington, DC, June 2006 (Barbera et al. 2006).
Components of the Hazards Risk Management Process
Communicate and Consult (A Continual
Component of the HRM Process)
Continual communication and consultation within and without an organization/
community provides a means of inclusion and the establishment and management
of realistic expectations for the HRM process and its eventual incorporation into the
organization’s/community’s overall emergency management program. Step 1 in the
HRM process calls for establishing the organizational/community context, involving
stakeholders, and setting objectives. Communication and consultation does not
stop there. Repeating the statement on risk management of Secretary Chertoff of
DHS from earlier in this chapter, he views his responsibilities as a Cabinet Secretary
to include the need to “clearly articulate a philosophy for leadership of the department
that is intelligible and sensible, not only to the members of the department
itself, but to the American public” (Chertoff 2006). Tis role is shared by all leaders
of organizations and communities with risk management responsibilities. To meet
this responsibility the entire HRM process should be open, accessible, and intelligible
to the impacted public.
As a matter of guidance and emphasis for continuous communication and
consultation throughout the HRM process, the 1989 National Research Council
Report, Improving Risk Communication, provides the following statement that
should guide all risk communication. “Risk communication is a process, the success
© Pine, John, Oct 20, 2008, Natural Hazards Analysis : Reducing the Impact of Disasters
CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN: 9781420070408
The Hazards Risk Management Process „ 203
of which is measured by the extent that it, first, improves or increases the base
of information that decision makers use, be they government officials, industry
managers, or individual citizens, and second, satisfies those involved that they are
adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge” (National Research
Council 1989: 74).
It should also be noted that we stress the role of communication and stakeholder
participation in the hazards analysis process in both Chapter 1 and 7 of this
book. Te public has a critical need to know and understand the nature of risks in
the community, and risk communication should be an intentional part of hazard
risk management and the hazards analysis process.
Monitor and Review (A Continual
Component of the HRM Process)
Te HRM process is never actually finished, as it is subject to reanalysis and revision
when changes occur in the internal and external environments. Continuous
monitoring and review of findings from all steps should be conducted to keep the
overall process relevant and on track with the emergency management program.
Drills, exercises, and actual events will test the emergency management program,
and both the positive and negative observations related to system vulnerabilities
should be noted and analyzed. Te HRM process also constitutes a major means of
monitoring and reviewing any findings related to reduced as well as

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!