A controversial emergency management issue in the city of Petersburg, Va., is hazard mitigation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigation Independent Study defines hazard mitigation as “sustained actions taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. The purpose of hazard mitigation is twofold; to protect people and structures and to minimize the costs of disaster response and recovery.” Petersburg has a mitigation plan and hazard analysis in the city's emergency operations plan, but a frame analysis pointed out several factors for improvement.

In his book Strategic Decision Making: A Best Practice Blueprint, George Wright identifies six steps to conduct a frame analysis. The first step in the frame analysis is to look at downplayed aspects. Annex V of the city's EOP explains public responsibilities such as being aware of hazards to which it is vulnerable; knowing personal mitigation measures; and bringing pressure on those who do not comply with codes, ordinances and regulations. The public has downplayed these responsibilities. Recently when three children were killed in a two-alarm house fire, however, the public spoke up and demanded stronger code enforcement. The key here is that most of the public does not realize that it is responsible for certain aspects of hazard mitigation or understand what the EOP is.

The EOP states that “a public information program should be initiated to increase the citizens' awareness of local hazards, what is being done to mitigate their effects, and what is expected of the citizens. It should provide them with mitigation measures they can take as individuals to protect themselves and their property from the effects of identified hazards.” The key word in this paragraph is should. An effective public-information program has not been set up, but desperately needs to be.

Due to the population and overall low economic status of the city, there is an increased need for more of an emergency response than emergency mitigation and preparation. Police, fire and EMS agencies are too busy responding to day-to-day emergency calls to deliver a successful hazard-mitigation plan to the citizens.

The second step in a frame analysis is finding reference points that are used to measure success. The only definite reference point that can be used to measure success of hazard mitigation is to see how the city responds to a particular hazard or disaster. A few other reference points that could be used involve sending out surveys to the public, having routine inspections of homes and businesses, and testing those who participated in a public-information program on hazard mitigation.

The third step is to find out what the frame emphasizes. In conducting this frame analysis on hazard mitigation it becomes evident that many people wait until the disaster-recovery phase to implement hazard mitigation steps. According to the Petersburg EOP, “the recovery period in the aftermath of an emergency response or a disaster is frequently an excellent time to implement certain kinds of mitigation efforts, such as increasing the size of road culverts or implementing land use ordinances.” Petersburg already has identified in its plan which areas are prone to flooding and other natural hazards. So why wait and put hundreds of lives at risk and millions of dollars in recovery funds?

Hazard mitigation will involve a political battle. People will not to want to leave certain areas that have been deemed as hazardous until it is absolutely necessary — when they become flooded, go up in flames or are otherwise uninhabitable.

Fourth in the frame analysis is finding out what is minimized. When such an emphasis is being placed on hazard mitigation, it is obvious that the other three phases in the emergency management cycle will be downplayed. In explaining and emphasizing the importance of hazard mitigation, it is not meant to say that preparing, recovering and responding to incidents are unimportant. When a particular state or jurisdiction implements a plan for hazard mitigation, there needs to be a plan to make sure that resources aren't pulled from the other three phases in emergency management.

Do others in the same industry segment think about the issue differently? This is the question that is asked in Wright's fifth step of the frame analysis. Due to the way that federal grants are set up, the answer to this question is no; others in the same industry think of hazard mitigation in the exact same way. Implementation of hazard mitigation plans must be reviewed regularly, however, with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program through FEMA, where just the opposite is emphasized.

Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Act allows for disaster-relief funding only after Section 409 hazard-mitigation plans are updated. This seems to be backwards in that the HMGP allows states to wait until after a disaster occurs to make changes to their hazard mitigation plan. Some states actually request funds for Section 404 projects before the Section 409 plan has even been prepared. It seems that localities and states are being rewarded for letting things go wrong to start with and not taking responsibility for known hazards. Change needs to start from the top. A stronger emphasis on hazard mitigation prior to a disastrous event occurring needs to take place. The federal government needs to hold states and localities responsible.

The sixth step in conducting a frame analysis is to question whether or not the decision is one involving potential gains or potential losses. The decision to advocate hazard mitigation is a choice involving only gains, or risk averse. Hazard mitigation would help to build a disaster-resistant community and reduce the community's vulnerability to hazardous events. In the event a hazard does occur, the reward of these steps and actions include: saved lives, reduced damage to property, reduced economic losses, minimized social disruption, ability of local government to resume operations quickly, shorter recovery period for the community, and improved attractiveness to individuals and businesses by demonstrating effectiveness in dealing with a disaster.

Having completed a frame analysis, scenario planning will help to drive home the importance of hazard mitigation. Scenario planning could be used in hazard mitigation through several different means including tabletop exercises, drills, functional exercises, and full-scale exercises. Typical outcomes of scenario planning include: confirmation that the idea is sound, or that new strengths need to be added to create more robustness; confirmation that lower-level business choices are sound, or that alternative new options are more robust; recognition that none of the options are robust and therefore contingency planning against unfavorable futures is necessary; and sensitivity to the early-warning elements that are precursors of desirable and unfavorable futures. Perhaps two of the most important of these relating to hazard mitigation in Petersburg are contingency planning against unfavorable futures and sensitivity to the early warning elements that are precursors of desirable and unfavorable futures.

Furthermore scenarios will help to avoid overconfidence in the capabilities of the emergency responders in the city. Scenarios will point out weaknesses and keep responders from becoming complacent as they often times do on a day-to-day basis. Scenario thinking will help to test the quality of judgment.

In going through the steps of response and recovery and attempting to conduct scenario planning the best way to do so will be through a tabletop exercise, simply because often times it takes too long to plan a full-scale exercise. Practicing a drill only focuses on one specific area and does not encompass all that is involved in hazard mitigation. Tabletop exercises will make it easier to prioritize what steps in hazard mitigation need to be taken. The advantages to tabletop exercises are: it requires only a modest commitment in terms of time, cost and resources; it is an effective method for reviewing plans, procedures and policies; and it is a good way to acquaint key personnel with emergency responsibilities, procedures and one another. Once the early events in a scenario occur, the decision maker will be able to anticipate how the future will unfold. Furthermore, scenario planning is a major way of planning plausible futures that downplays mangers' limited ability to make valid best-guess predictions.

Tabletop exercises require only a few major detailed events. In these events introducing multiple event stages is a good way to keep the action moving in the exercise. Keeping the action moving allows for most of the important aspects to be covered in a relatively short amount of time, so as to be able to take most of the facts into consideration. The facilitator of the tabletop exercise plays a key role is sustaining action and keeping everyone involved.

A good tabletop scenario to go through would be when major flooding occurs. For example, the apartments at 135 West Old St. in Petersburg typically have to be evacuated. Many of the residents in these apartments need assistance evacuating due to their health conditions. There are many ways in which this event could be avoided including acquisition, relocation, rebuilding and flood-proofing. A better hazard analysis of this particular situation needs to be conducted. The potential for how bad it can get and the frequency of the event occurring, as well as past occurrences needs to be looked at. A well-thought-out tabletop exercise would help point some of these out and prioritize actions necessary in hazard mitigation.

A compensatory process is important because it allows for low scores in certain areas to be made up for by high scores in other areas. There are five steps to successful compensatory choice. Four of the five steps can be applied to conducting a tabletop exercise for hazard mitigation. First, identify choice alternatives. By conducting a tabletop exercise it is possible to see if any other choices that may not have been considered but should have been. Second, identify the attributes that are relevant. Conducting a tabletop exercise will point out what items are most relevant to consider. Third, for each alternative, assign scores to measure the performance of the alternative on that attribute. And fourth, determine a weight for each attribute to reflect how important that attribute is to the decision maker relative to the other attributes. After conducting the tabletop exercise, personnel should sit down and develop priorities as to what needs must be taken care of and in what order.

After completing the tabletop exercise, those people involved will need to sit down as a group and write out an effective hazard mitigation plan. It will be important during this time to avoid groupthink. Groupthink occurs when it is the tendency of those involved to concur and individuals who expressed dissenting opinion choose not to, due to the reaction of others in the group. Individuals in the group will need to maintain focus on the facts so as to avoid personalities becoming the focus of certain discussions. Participants should avoid a win-lose approach and realize that all participants will leave happy knowing that their individual views have been heard and all the facts have been considered.

Having a facilitator present during the group discussion may help to encourage all persons to participate. The facilitator should encourage dissension and debate. Methods of dialectical inquiry and devil's advocacy will help to encourage critical evaluation of proposed decisions.

The Petersburg EOP is a good basis for recognition and contingency planning against unfavorable futures. However, to increase its effectiveness, more steps in making the public aware need to take place. Many early-warning elements through technology are available to Petersburg when it comes to natural hazard mitigation, but most of the residents are not aware of them.

There are four phases in building a community hazard mitigation program. The first phase is to organize resources. When organizing resources it is necessary to obtain human resources and support needed to initiate and sustain a successful hazard mitigation program. What will it take for the Petersburg to support hazard mitigation planning and actions, and who must be represented on a team to ensure the success of the process? Going around to community organizations and asking for their ideas and support can go a long ways. If the communication is there and people know what their responsibilities are there is more of a chance for successful actions to take place. If a survey were to be conducted, the majority of Petersburg residents probably don't know that they have a responsibility to take action for hazard mitigation in the city's EOP.

Assessing risks is the second phase of hazard mitigation in emergency management. Overall Petersburg officials done a good assessment of risks in the EOP. This phase measures the potential for a hazard, probability of an event, potential severity of the event, and the potential impact on the community in terms of human and dollar losses.

The results of the risk assessment and the community's current and potential capabilities help to develop the mitigation plan, which is the third phase in building a community hazard mitigation program. In this phase hazard mitigation goals and objectives, identifying possible actions to reduce high-priority risks, and developing and prioritizing strategies takes place. This phase is complete when it is accepted by the local government and approved by FEMA.

The final phase is implementing the mitigation strategy and monitoring progress. This is probably the most difficult phase as writing down ideas on paper is simple. Putting plans into action is not as easy. Everyone can talk the talk but walking the walk is what will make the difference. It is necessary to seek the resources and opportunities to achieve the plan's goals and objectives, and make sure the plan is kept current. People need to know that their opinion and input is important. Many residents don't know how to make their ideas and improvements known, therefore the outreach is going to have to take place on the part of the government and public service personnel.

Ways to reach out to people are to go around to parent and teacher organizations in schools, town forums, talking with the Community Emergency Response Team, and talking with representatives of recreational activities. When talking with these groups and providing public education and awareness, several different avenues may be pursued to inform them. Some examples include: providing hazard maps, Web sites, outreach programs that provide hazard and mitigation information to people, asking business owners to provide hazard mitigation information to employees, mass mailings, notices to residents and property owners in a specific hazard-prone area, print media, radio/TV spots and interviews, presentations at meetings of neighborhood groups, real estate disclosure, information in the public library developed specifically for hazard mitigation, available technical assistance, and school-age and adult education.

Many communities need to better reach out to their residents to let them know what their responsibilities are. Furthermore, programs need to be developed to educate residents on what they can do to help mitigate hazards. Lastly, cities need to take responsibility for the hazards that are known and take action on mitigation of these hazards whether it is acquisition, relocation, rebuilding, or flood proofing. As much as it challenges the current way of doing business, the next time a heavy storm dumps inches of water on the community, it will be much further ahead of the game and tragedy will hopefully have been kept to the absolute minimum.

---

Elizabeth Enos is a volunteer with Manchester (Va.) Volunteer Rescue Squad and a paramedic and shift supervisor in Petersburg, Va. She also teaches EMT-Enhanced classes. Enos is pursing a bachelor's degree in emergency management and an emergency manager certification.

For More Info

Strategic Decision Making by George Wright

Exercise Design Independent Study 139, FEMA, March 2003.

Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Independent Study 393.A, FEMA, June 2006

Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning by David Godschalk, Timothy Beatley, Philip Berke, David Brower and Edward J. Kaiser