Search

Abstract: Indicators of natural disaster resilience are factors that impact the ability to cope with and adapt to a natural disaster and climate change events. They can either contribute to or detract from resilience. Existing research has emphasized the importance of quantifying resilience in order to estimate baseline resilience and measure progress toward resilience enhancement. Previous attempts at quantification of resilience have not incorporated place-specific indicators or differential weighting of indicators for prioritization of resilience enhancement actions. Previous research efforts have also not incorporated spatial and temporal contexts when attempting to quantify resilience indicators. This research demonstrates the importance for quantifying resilience place-specific indicators, differential weighting of indicators, and the spatial and temporal contexts of indicators for resilience estimation and quantification through a case study of Sarasota County, Florida. This case study was conducted in four phases: preliminary interviews, plan review, focus group, and spatial analysis. Preliminary interviews were intended to contribute to development of research goals. The plan review process served to identify Sarasota County's planning priorities to determine possible indicators of resilience unique to Sarasota County as well as existing and planned county hazard mitigation strategies. The focus group was concerned with identifying resilience indicators through a workshop with officials from Sarasota County. The spatial analysis portion used findings from all three previous phases to demonstrate spatial patterns of resilience. This research demonstrates that although national resilience quantification metrics are useful, local scale resilience estimates appear more useful if community hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation is the primary goal. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) play a critical role in the reduction of societal loss from natural and human-caused hazards and disasters. The occurrence of hazardous events cannot be prevented but hazard mitigation planning when diligently applied has proven to be an effective tool for enhancing local community resilience and reducing societal losses. HMPs are planning documents that aim to increase community preparedness and resiliency, and decrease vulnerability in the event of a hazard. However, due to a variety of reasons many communities often fail to address criteria that could protect against future societal losses. For instance, minimum requirements, as stipulated by the Disaster Mitigation Act 2000, are all that is needed to qualify for federal mitigation grant funding regardless of plan quality or appropriateness of HMPs to local hazards and risks. Additionally local emergency managers and planners also face constraints like integration of HMPs into comprehensive plans and a standardized tool to evaluate plan quality. In essence most communities in the US have HMPs but lack a method of evaluating the quality and effectiveness of their plans for mitigating hazards. Building on the standard HMP minimum requirements, additional criteria established in prominent hazard literature, and information culled from interviews, this study develops an evaluation matrix to assess local HMP quality. Based on the factors mentioned above, researchers explored the opportunities and constraints to HMP development faced by jurisdictions within our Western Washington study area. Conclusions reveal that available resources, level of sophistication, and political complexities affect the quality of HMP development and the actual implementation of mitigation planning strategies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the United States, there is a disconnect between critical stakeholders in the risk management and risk reduction fields – notably public health, emergency and disaster management, and vulnerability and resilience science. Nationally mandated hazard mitigation plans tend to focus on physical exposure, overlook socioeconomic analysis, and routinely omit public health considerations. At present, there is a lack of research on the intersection of vulnerability studies, risk assessments, and public health risk assessments and healthcare systems. Through the inclusion of stakeholder input and feedback, the case study within this article from the Idaho public health sector develops an objective, science-informed, and data-driven methodology that advances the state of risk assessments. This Idaho Public Health Jurisdictional Risk Assessment (PHJRA) distinguishes itself as an assessment tool that employs a sub-county vulnerability model, and to couple socioeconomic, demographic, and public health indicators allowing multiple stakeholders improved visualization of risk in their jurisdictions. This case study helps define a new method for identifying the risk that remains after mitigation measures are implemented - labeled here as Residual Risk Assessment (RRA). Results demonstrate spatially variable social and health system vulnerability across the study area, in addition to variable mitigation capabilities and residual risk of the health districts. This outcome showcases an RRA driven vulnerability index that carries national or international applicability for disaster management and public health sectors. • Research including vulnerability/risk studies and healthcare systems is lacking. • A method for identifying risk that remains after mitigation occurs is needed. • Results demonstrate spatially variable social and health system vulnerability. • Results show variable mitigation capabilities and residual risk in health districts. • Sub-county vulnerability models with spatial derivation of residual risk are novel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]