|
<br />: t; , , , ,::: , : , ' '~", ^ , ,
<br />," I ,~':' ;" "', "d
<br />::::Sf.l.le~ui.n:tr""i'" ..
<br />::::Mlm.'~' .:...... .... .... .l:~1I8 ...
<br />;,;:'CIM.w, ta1:MiIQ6ij;';~:,,:; ,;
<br />n:~I:':':.'i""~1' . ......
<br />;:,!~,~,~~~'''' ,I}'"
<br />..~t4"'AJ'lIIiIIwnF :
<br />~ :.1 ~.1a..:.a t~:o' Mtilr ~: ;
<br />"H' '~j~)""nl I~
<br />:~;: ::;-: :-~: ~".',: ~~;; ~ ~ : ~: ;, I
<br />""H' ':::~~1;d ,n-n" ", I '
<br />
<br />
<br />spending on mitigation, which saw a 387
<br />percent and 147 percent respective increase
<br />above the fiscal 1996 levels (Figure 3).
<br />
<br />Figure 3: State Mitigation Spending by Population Grouping
<br />
<br />This tremendous growth is largely a result of
<br />changing attitudes toward mitigation, as states
<br />continue to embrace proactive strategies aimed
<br />at reducing the cost of disasters. At least half of
<br />the states reported increases in mitigation
<br />spending since fiscal 1992, with the largest
<br />growth occurring in the states of Arkansas,
<br />California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Missis-
<br />sippi, Missouri, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Vermont. Other states continue to
<br />spend a significant amount on mitigation activities.
<br />
<br />The increase in spending can also be attributed to changing attitudes about what
<br />constitutes mitigation. Traditionally, the definition was limited to structural projects
<br />(repairs and retrofitting) undertaken after a disaster.
<br />
<br />However, the emergency management community is now placing more value on pre-
<br />disaster mitigation efforts like property acquisition, the adoption and enforcement of
<br />building codes, and public awareness campaigns. The fiscal 1997 figures therefore
<br />include all types of mitigation measures.
<br />
<br />STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL MITIGATION
<br />
<br />Mitigation can also be categorized as either structural or non-structural. For the
<br />purpose of this report, structural mitigation projects include the construction, repair or
<br />retrofitting of permanent structures intended to better resist the damage caused by
<br />disasters. Non-structural mitigation includes a wide variety of activities, including
<br />public awareness campaigns, building code enforcement and property acquisition
<br />and relocation.
<br />
<br />Non-structural
<br />Mitigation
<br />
<br />
<br />State and local governments have traditionally
<br />relied on structural mitigation that addresses
<br />immediate problems, like building sea walls to
<br />resist floods or constructing tornado resistant
<br />shelters, for example.
<br />
<br />Structural
<br />Mitigation
<br />
<br />But attitudes are changing as states take a closer
<br />look at non-structural mitigation strategies that
<br />offer long-term, permanent solutions to recurring
<br />problems. In fiscal 1997, the 3S states that
<br />answered the question reported spending $397
<br />million in non-structural mitigation initiatives
<br />compared to $770 million in structural mitigation
<br />projects, a third of reported mitigation spending
<br />(Figure 4).
<br />
<br />Figure 4: FY 1997 Structural V5. Non-Structural
<br />Mitigation Spending
<br />
<br />MITIGATION AND HAZARD TYPE
<br />
<br />During this decade, every state in the union has experienced some kind of disaster,
<br />ranging from floods to earthquakes to wildfires. Furthermore, no state has been
<br />immune to the erratic and severe weather patterns of the past several years. The
<br />Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified both natural and man-
<br />made hazards that each state faces, including flood, earthquake, hurricane/wind,
<br />
<br />L!J National Emergency Management Association
<br />
|