Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

MITIGATING OUR NATION’S RISKS:CALLING UPON THE WHOLE COMMUNITY

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIESMegan CliffordMegan Clifford, a Principal at Booz Allen, is a leader of the firm’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) marketteam. She oversees the firm’s support to FEMA clients, providing support in the areas of policy analysis, program designand development, stakeholder engagement, grants management, and program management focused on efficiencies andeffectiveness. Ms. Clifford has more than 14 years of experience serving a variety of clients, including the Departmentof Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense. She is a member ofthe Association of Flood Plain Managers, National Grants Management Association, and Project Management Institute.Marko BourneMarko Bourne, a Principal at Booz Allen, is a leader of the firm’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)market team and is on the leadership team of Booz Allen’s Justice and Homeland Security practice. He overseesthe firm’s support to emergency management clients and provides strategic planning for the homeland security andemergency management market. Mr. Bourne has more than 27 years of experience in emergency services, emergencymanagement, policy, governmental and legislative affairs, and public affairs. Previously, he was the director of policyand program analysis for FEMA and director of business development for Homeland Security at Earth Tech Inc./TycoInternational. Mr. Bourne also served as acting director of the Department of Homeland Security’s National IncidentManagement System Integration Center and deputy director of FEMA’s Preparedness Division. He has authored severalarticles; has extensive media and public speaking experience; and is a member of the DomPrep Journal’s DomPrep40Advisory Board, an interactive advisory board focusing primarily on all-hazard preparedness, as well as response andrecovery operations. He is a member of the National Emergency Managers Association and the Association of StateFlood Plain Managers.Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

INTRODUCTION In the United States, losses from natural disasters1 and the frequency of events are both on the rise; 2011 150 set a record with 99 major disaster declarations.2 With state and federal budgets declining, the emergency 100 management community is challenged to do more 50 with less while continuing to improve resilience to all hazards. The whole community approach to mitigation 0 offers a collaborative way forward to improve community 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 resilience to all hazards on federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. Annual U.S Major Disaster Declarations2 Great strides are being made in the field of hazard mitigation at the community and federal levels. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (MAP) program works alongside communities to build a better understanding of local flood risks. In addition, FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) incentivizes local mitigation action through discounted flood insurance rates. The number of communities participating in the program since its inception in 1999 has increased by nearly 25 percent,3 demonstrating increased mitigation action across 18 proven mitigation actions within the areas of public information, mapping and regulations, flood damage reductions, and flood preparedness. However, our work as a nation is not finished. With total national losses exceeding $573 billion4 for the years 1960 to 2009 (2009 dollars), we must come to a better understanding of what it means to mitigate our risks, both individually and as communities. This involves continuing to improve community and individual risk awareness through persistent and better risk communication efforts—and encouraging ownership of risk and responsibility for action. In addition, we must encourage better building codes and community planning and building practices, and expand the participants in mitigation activities to include the whole community.5 Examples of whole community often include citizen groups, and local and national businesses. For mitigation, the whole community must also include the insurance, real estate, building, and lending industries, as well as local planning officials and media.1 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

SURVEY AND PANEL DISCUSSION:CALLING UPON THE WHOLE COMMUNITYBooz Allen Hamilton has been actively engaged in resiliency and recovery issues for a number of years through our workwith FEMA and our Megacommunity™ 6 approach. Recently, we have gained additional insight and perspectives on thehazard mitigation challenges we face as a nation by connecting directly with the hazard mitigation community. In March2012, we conducted a Hazard Mitigation Survey, polling the nation’s hazard mitigation and insurance professionalson the status of hazard mitigation today and their beliefs on the best approaches to community disaster resilience.With a 60 percent response rate, the survey had 120 respondents with the largest group identifying themselves asState Hazard Mitigation Officers or State Floodplain Managers—47 in total, with all 10 FEMA regions represented. Inaddition to offering their opinions on emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation issues, participants providedconcrete views on how to improve community natural hazard resilience, including accountable development, increasedrisk awareness at all levels of community, improved action on known risks, and a responsible and insured citizenry.Complete survey results are included in this report in Appendix A.To further this important discussion and build on the survey findings, we called together industry thought leaders in lateApril 2012 in Washington, DC. The event, “Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks: Calling Upon the Whole Community,” provided anopen forum to gain a deeper insight into the critical issues facing the hazard mitigation industry. Event panelists included:• Mr. Dave Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA• Dr. C.J. Huff, Joplin Schools Superintendent• Mr. Larry Larson, Executive Director, Association of State Flood Plain Managers• Mr. Matt Gannon, Assistant Vice President, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies• Admiral Thad Allen (USCG, Ret.), Senior Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton.With the survey results as a starting point, the panelists discussed the need for a sustainable model that engagesthe whole community at all levels. They emphasized the importance of understanding and communicating risk—andtranslating that awareness of risk into appropriate mitigation action by the community and individual.This report combines the panelists’ perspectives and lessons with several important findings from our survey. It offers acomprehensive view of the current state of the nation’s hazard mitigation efforts and how whole community thinking cansignificantly improve mitigation. This report explores several areas—including communications and mitigation action—that are essential for the whole community approach to succeed. By sharing this insight, we hope to further the dialogueon this vital and compelling national issue.Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 2

UNDERSTANDING AND COMMUNICATING RISK Community awareness and response to risk are a central component in the whole community approach to mitigation. Panelists stressed the importance of local officials fully understanding their community’s risks, that they know what drives and sustains their community, and that officials are able to prioritize mitigation actions and engage communities based on those understandings. By understanding and engaging their community’s drivers alongside their risks, and communicating and planning for those risks within a framework of community priorities, officials raise risk awareness and increase ownership by co-producing solutions among community members. Complicating the challenge to improve risk awareness is variable media coverage. 62 percent of survey respondents indicated that local media only covers the issues after a disaster or when citizens complain. National and local media needs to be more proactive, rather than reactive, in educating communities about risk awareness and risk ownership. Improved media education before crises occur and resultant reporting before an incident may improve awareness and understanding in communities and potentially influence individual and community behaviors and attitudes about mitigation and resilience. With a better informed, proactive media reporting on resiliency and mitigation issues prior to disasters, individuals who are at risk may be more ready to make informed decisions and take appropriate mitigation action. Community outreach, working with elected officials, and engaging the media may lead to a better discussion, and ultimately decisions and actions in response to risk; however, survey respondents and industry panelists are keenly aware of the gap between individuals learning about risks and believing those risks will impact them directly. In general, citizens’ beliefs that they are vulnerable (or immune) to risks varies widely in communities (some fully understand their risk; some know of risks in their community, but do not internalize the risk; and others are simply unaware of the risk). However, 85 percent of industry professionals surveyed stated regardless of their level of understanding, most individuals do not take proper precautions. One respondent wrote, “Most people flat out understand the risks, but figure the government will help if something bad happens.” Another wrote, “People know the risk, [they are] just not willing to accept it will happen to them.” Information may be readily available and public outreach may draw attention to necessary hazard mitigation efforts, and yet, most still do not actively take steps to protect themselves from risk. This led panelists to discuss the importance of behavioral influence and change approaches, the need to address current actions that lead to ignoring, even denying risks, and the importance of progressive building codes and planning regulations. For behavioral change to occur, the panelists discussed the need for personal accountability, where individuals reach a level of “risk acceptance,” being aware of the risk and its associated costs, and consciously choosing to accept that risk. Public campaigns, marketing, and incentive-based strategies are essential to raise risk awareness on an individual level. Even then, communication efforts must appeal to individual interests to overcome an inherent bias that “risk is something that happens to everyone else, not me.” Panelists underscored the need to change the community dynamic, with a focus on communicating the value proposition to the whole community. Prompting individuals to understand and act on their risk must include targeted messages that speak directly to consequences to them and to their community’s overall safety and economic wellbeing, not just about the perils of the hazard.3 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

TRANSLATING AWARENESS INTO ACTIONFor increased disaster resilience, communities and individuals must move beyond risk awareness to effective mitigationaction. In the survey, 62 percent of respondents indicated that individuals taking effective mitigation action (e.g.,purchasing adequate insurance to cover most perils or making their homes and businesses safer structures) basedon a better overall understanding of risk would most improve resiliency at the personal and family level. In addition, 40percent of those surveyed believe that development occurs without regard to natural hazards. Since mitigation mustprotect all citizens, in addition to striving for behavioral change, panelists discussed the importance of communitymitigation actions that work for all members of the community such as progressive building codes and insurance.Mitigation action of this kind can only occur if communities coordinate across the community for informed decisionmaking.One survey respondent wrote, “Strong codes and greater coordination between emergency managers and buildingprofessionals” are the hallmarks of a whole community approach to mitigation. The panelists indicated that as wedevelop and redevelop our communities, stakeholders must consider the economic, social, and environmental value ofeach decision. This suggests a need for better education on the benefits of planned mitigation actions and an expansionof the whole community of mitigation to include businesses, community organizations, developers, planners, lenders,and real estate professionals.Industry thought leaders discussed as examples of behavior change the successful outreach efforts of the automobilesafety industry and their work with crash-test dummies, as well as recovery activities of individuals in Joplin, Missouriwho experienced extreme tornado events on May 22, 2011. In the automobile safety example, as a result of outreachcampaigns that demonstrated in graphic detail what happens to crash-test dummies in vehicular accidents, the generalpublic began to demand vehicle safety features, and car producers began to compete for vehicle safety awards.Ultimately, this directly led to safer individuals and communities. In Joplin, Missouri, officials and the community havepurposely, and at times organically, adopted a whole community approach to recovery with numerous examples ofindividuals and organizations contributing to the recovery effort. Although Joplin’s behavioral change examples may havebeen the result of a disaster, panelists suggested these behavioral changes may have taken root pre-disaster withinthe community’s school system. Regardless of when the changes within the community occurred, they are positiveand appear to be long-lasting. School children appear to be emotionally closer to one another with a deeper sense ofcommunity, and rebuilding efforts include improved building codes and tornado safe rooms.In this industry, the Institute of Business and Home Safety’s (IBHS) research center in South Carolina replicates theeffect of natural disasters on commercial and residential buildings. One panelist suggested communication campaignsillustrating the benefits of improved building codes could do for building and home safety what crash-test dummies didfor cars. Further, by demonstrating the benefits of model building codes and safe building incentives, development mayalso begin to compete on safety issues. As with car safety standards, consumers will better understand their risksand start to demand higher safety standards. Industry thought leaders believe that these measures will lead to moreresponsible and accountable development. However, taking this action will also require a willingness on the part ofState, local, and tribal governments to take on potentially difficult decisions on adopting and enforcing safe buildingcodes and standards.In addition to responsible development, the role of insurance was discussed in relation to mitigation action. With thegoal of a better insured citizenry, approximately 66 percent of survey respondents indicated that the insurance andreinsurance industry needs to develop and market multi-hazard products and coverage. In addition, about 32 percentof participants see an advantage in greater risk pooling across regions of the country of insured to create greatereconomies of scale in pricing.Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 4

The panelists also discussed Congressional reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and comprehensive flood insurance reform. Although they agreed the current state and challenges facing NFIP need to be addressed, they differed on approaches. Specifically, some panelists stated that subsidized insurance encourages deferred risk and development in floodplains, while others countered federal insurance is the only insurance available to everyone whereas unsubsidized private insurance would be cost prohibitive to some. In the survey, most respondents disagreed that the federal government should increase subsidies for hazard insurance based on risk, and a majority of respondents believe education of risks to all natural hazards will lead to an increased number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies. One panelist suggested that the program needs to be reauthorized now, and that these questions will then be investigated further. CONCLUSION This report illustrates the many challenges—for individuals, families, communities, and as a nation—on the path of natural hazard resiliency. From Booz Allen’s Hazard Mitigation Survey and panel discussion, it becomes clear that stakeholders at all levels see the overall importance of a whole community approach to hazard mitigation, but also recognize that dealing with the surrounding strategic, political, and legislative issues makes implementation of a whole community approach a challenging process. In realizing a whole community approach, the overarching theme involves expanding hazard communication and mitigation efforts of current and new stakeholders in order to understand community drivers as well as all-hazard risks, and utilizing strategic measures such as behavioral change and improving building codes and planning regulations to increase individual responsibility and individual resilience. Industry thought leaders agree that risk communication is the starting point. Community stakeholders need to effectively communicate that mitigation activities save lives. People must understand that they are not safe unless they take action to protect them from risk. Translating that risk awareness into mitigation action on an individual and community level entails collaboration and cooperation across the whole community. Responsible development, model building codes and safe building initiatives, and appropriate insurance levels balancing risk and affordability—these discussions must involve community stakeholders coming together from across different industries. To successfully achieve this level of risk awareness and mitigation action requires leadership. Industry thought leaders underscore the importance of building leadership capacity. In today’s current economic climate—where doing less with more is the norm on local, state and federal levels—effective and capable leaders on the community level can help guide the whole community towards resiliency.5 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

SOURCES AND CITATIONS1. Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2011). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 9.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina (http://www.sheldus.org).2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Declared Disasters by Year or State webpage (http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_ annual.fema).3. FEMA, Resource Record Details, CRS Communities by State webpage (http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=5818).4. Raw data for years 1999–2009, provided by Wesley E. Highfield, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Marine Sciences, Texas A&M Uni- versity at Galveston, April 2011.5. Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute (2011). The Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States, Version 9.0 [Online Database]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina (http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sheldusproducts.aspx#Losses).6. FEMA, Whole Community webpage (http://www.fema.gov/about/wholecommunity.shtm).Booz Allen wishes to express its appreciation to the survey participants; the panelists; Dr. Sam Brody and Dr. WesHighfield from Texas A&M University for their contributions of the CRS data; Association of Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM);the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) and Raymond Morrell, North Dakota State HazardMitigation Officer, for their assistance in disseminating the survey; Will Meyer for his survey development and research;and Bill Lesser, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for his insight and guidance.Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 6

APPENDIX A Hazard Mitigation and Hazard Insurance Professionals Survey Results7 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Hazard Mitigation and Hazard Insurance Professionals Survey Results[Survey graphics and conclusions as presented in the preliminary report]Q1 & Q2: The survey had 120 respondents with the largest group identifying as State Hazard Mitigation Officers or StateFloodplain Managers (39.5%), followed by Mitigation Subject Matter Experts (SME) (29.4%), and Local or Tribal MitigationPlanners (16%). Respondents work or reside in at least one FEMA Region, with all 10 FEMA Regions represented. 1. Please identify your area of responsibility (select one). Response Response Percent Count State Hazard Mitigation 39.5% 47 Officer/State Floodplain Manager Local/Tribal Mitigation Planner 16.0% 19 Mitigation Subject Matter Expert 29.4% 35 Federal Mitigation Specialist 7.6% 9 Hazard Insurance Agent 0.8% 1 Hazard Insurance Subject Matter 4.2% 5 Expert Federal Insurance Specialist 2.5% 3 Other (please specify) 25 answered question 119 skipped question 1Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 8

2. Please identify the geographic FEMA Region in which you reside/work (select one). Response Response Percent Count Region I 7.6% 9 Region II 1.7% 2 Region III 19.5% 23 Region IV 8.5% 10 Region V 11.9% 14 Region VI 7.6% 9 Region VII 9.3% 11 Region VIII 28.0% 33 Region IX 1.7% 2 Region X 4.2% 5 answered question 118 skipped question 29 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q3: What do you believe is the greatest reason damages from natural disasters continue to rise every year?The majority of respondents (approximately 40%) stated that the greatest reason disaster damages continue to riseis because development occurs without regard to natural hazards. Another 23% of respondents stated that damagesfrom natural disasters rise primarily due to a failure to incorporate hazard mitigation requirements in land use planning.Overall, the responses show that industry professionals believe that addressing problems with community developmentis central to improving community resilience. 3. Of the options below, what do you believe is the greatest reason damages from natural disasters continue to rise every year? Response Response Percent Count A lack of risk assessments and a framework to plan and execute 3.5% 4 structural mitigation projects Low responsibility for personal 12.3% 14 preparedness in citizens Failure to incorporate hazard mitigation requirements in land use 22.8% 26 planning Development occurs without 39.5% 45 regard to natural hazards Greater population density and 11.4% 13 population movement The frequency and severity of events is increasing due to climate 10.5% 12 change answered question 114 skipped question 6Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 10

Q4: To achieve maximum community disaster resilience: Most respondents (approximately 62%) indicated that mitigation should be treated equally with preparedness, prevention, protection, response, and recovery activities to achieve maximum community resilience. However, about 35% of respondents stated mitigation should be a top priority. The conclusion, based on the responses, is that to achieve maximum disaster resilience, mitigation in communities needs to be in balance with, or even prioritized above, other emergency management activities. 4. To achieve maximum community disaster resilience: Response Response Percent Count Mitigation should be a top priority 34.5% 39 Mitigation should be treated equally with preparedness, 61.9% 70 prevention, protection, response, and recovery activities Other activities (e.g., preparedness, response) should be 3.5% 4 prioritized over mitigation answered question 113 skipped question 711 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q5: Which of the following would most improve a community’s disaster resilience?Most respondents (approximately 41%) indicated that better development regulations and enforcement would mostimprove a community’s disaster resilience. Following closely behind, approximately 32% of respondents selected improvedlocal threat recognition, warning, response, and recovery capabilities. Approximately 20% of respondents indicated thatimproved comprehensive planning and tools would most improve community resilience. The most selected responseindicates that community development once again surfaces as key to improving a community’s disaster resilience. ’ 5. Which of the following would most improve a communitys disaster resilience? Response Response Percent Count Improved comprehensive planning 19.5% 22 tools and capabilities Improved local threat recognition, warning, response and recovery 31.9% 36 capabilities Better development regulations 40.7% 46 and enforcement An increase in those insured 8.0% 9 against natural disasters answered question 113 skipped question 7Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 12

Q6: Which of the following would most improve resiliency at the personal and family level? The majority of respondents (approximately 62%) indicated that the way to most improve resiliency at the personal and family level is to improve the ability for the individual to understand risk and account for it in safer structures and/or adequate insurance. Another significant percentage (approximately 26%) indicated that improving risk awareness and prioritization and encouraging individual and family emergency plans be developed would most improve personal and family resiliency. In summary, the respondents believe that risk awareness, understanding, and associated mitigating actions will most improve individual and family resilience. 6. Which of the following would most improve resiliency at the personal and family level? Response Response Percent Count Improve risk awareness and prioritization and encourage 25.7% 29 individual and family emergency plans be developed Require adequate hazard insurance by individuals based on the risk 12.4% 14 associated with their location Improve the ability for individual to understand risk and account 61.9% 70 for it in safer structures and/or adequate insurance answered question 113 skipped question 713 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q7: Generally, citizens in my community:Respondents stated that in general, citizens in their community are aware of the most likely and/or consequential riskbut do not take proper precautions or citizens in their community are unaware of the most likely and/or consequentialrisk and do not take proper precautions (approximately 46% and 41%, respectively). About 13% of respondents indicatedthat citizens in their community are aware of the most likely and/or consequential risk and take proper precautions.Based on the responses, nearly 88% of respondents believe citizens in their community do not take proper precautionsto mitigate their consequential risk, regardless of the level of awareness. 7. Generally, citizens in my community: Response Response Percent Count Are aware of the most likely and/or consequential risk but do 46.4% 52 not take proper precautions Are aware of the most likely and/or consequential risk and take proper 12.5% 14 precautions Are unaware of the most likely and/or consequential risk and do 41.1% 46 not take proper precautions answered question 112 skipped question 8Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 14

Q8: Generally, citizens in my community are aware of flood map initiatives. A large majority of respondents (nearly 71%) stated that the extent that citizens in their community are aware of flood map initiatives was “little” or “not at all.” Fewer than 2% of respondents indicated that citizens in their communities are “aware of flood map initiatives.” Together, the responses suggest a need to increase outreach to heighten awareness of flood maps in communities. 8. Generally, citizens in my community are aware of flood map initiatives. Response Response Percent Count To a great extent 1.8% 2 To a moderate extent 27.7% 31 To little extent 58.0% 65 Not at all 12.5% 14 answered question 112 skipped question 815 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q9: Generally, citizens in my community are aware of National Flood Insurance.Nearly 95% of respondents indicated that citizens in their community had “moderate” to “no” awareness of NationalFlood Insurance. Approximately 5% of respondents indicated that citizens in their community are aware of National FloodInsurance “to a great extent.” Approximately 4% of respondents indicated that citizens had no awareness of NationalFlood Insurance. Together, the responses suggest citizen awareness of National Flood Insurance could be increased. 9. Generally, citizens in my community are aware of National Flood Insurance. Response Response Percent Count To a great extent 5.4% 6 To a moderate extent 42.0% 47 To little extent 49.1% 55 Not at all 3.6% 4 answered question 112 skipped question 8Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 16

Q10: Generally, to increase the number of flood insurance policies in force, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) needs: Answers varied across the respondents. Nearly 34% of respondents stated that a larger and more informed population of insured individuals would create economies of scale in pricing and increase the number of insured; another 30% of respondents indicated that better educated members of the insurance, real estate, and banking industries on NFIP requirements would do so. A small number of respondents (6%) indicated that more federal subsidies for premiums to offset reluctance to purchase insurance were needed to increase the number of flood insurance policies. Overall, the majority of responses indicate that a more informed population, including members of the insurance, real estate, and banking industries would help increase the number of flood insurance policies in force. 10. Generally, to increase the number of flood insurance policies in force, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) needs (select one): Response Response Percent Count Better educated members of the insurance, real estate and banking 30.0% 33 industries on NFIP requirements A larger and more informed population of insured that 33.6% 37 would create economies of scale in pricing Less federal subsidies for premiums to allow for better cost 12.7% 14 realization and risk understanding More federal subsidies for premiums to offset reluctance to 5.5% 6 purchase insurance Less government involvement as a primary insurer and more as a re- 18.2% 20 insurer for all perils as opposed to direct provider of flood insurance answered question 110 skipped question 1017 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q11: The insurance and reinsurance industry need to develop and market multi-hazard products/coverageApproximately 66% of respondents indicated that they agree the insurance and reinsurance industry need to developand market multi-hazard products/coverage. A small percentage of respondents (9%) disagreed with the statement.Approximately 25% of respondents indicated a neutral response to this question. Overall, the responses suggest thatthere may be a gap in understanding and/or availability of multi-hazard products and coverage offered by the insuranceand reinsurance industry. 11. The insurance and reinsurance industry need to develop and market multihazard - products/coverage Response Response Percent Count Agree 66.4% 73 Neutral 24.5% 27 Disagree 9.1% 10 answered question 110 skipped question 10Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 18

Q12: The federal government should increase subsidies for hazard insurance based on the risks present in specific locales and environments. Most respondents (nearly 60%) disagreed with the statement that the federal government should increase subsidies for hazard insurance based on risk. Another set of respondents (approximately 21%) remained neutral on this statement. Although responses varied, when considered together with responses to question 13, it is clear that the majority of respondents believe that if subsidies are to be increased, increases should not be based on risks present in specific locales. 12. The federal government should increase subsidies for hazard insurance based on the risks present in specific locales and environments. Response Response Percent Count Agree 19.3% 21 Neutral 21.1% 23 Disagree 59.6% 65 answered question 109 skipped question 1119 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q13: Generally, to increase the number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies in force, the insuranceindustry needs:The majority of respondents (62%) indicated that a better informed community of their risks to all natural hazards willlead to an increase in number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies. Also significant, about 32% ofrespondents believe that greater risk pooling across regions of the country of insured to create greater economies ofscale in pricing would be advantageous. In summary, the most selected response suggests that educating the communityabout their risk is the most important factor in increasing the number and breadth of active insurance policies. 13. Generally, to increase the number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies in force, the insurance industry needs (select one): Response Response Percent Count A better informed community of 62.0% 67 their risks to all natural hazards Greater risk pooling across regions of the country of insured to create 32.4% 35 greater economies of scale in pricing Federal subsidies for premiums 0.9% 1 More government involvement as a 4.6% 5 re-insurer answered question 108 skipped question 12Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 20

Q14: How well do your local media (print, broadcast, and online) cover hazard mitigation and insurance issues (e.g., reports about local mitigation projects, new flood maps, insurance needs, etc.)? A clear majority of respondents (62%) indicated that local media only cover the issues after a disaster or when citizens complain. This response suggests that most respondents believe the media is reactive rather than proactive when it comes to providing news about hazards and insurance. Improved media education and resultant reporting before an incident may improve awareness and understanding in communities and potentially result in greater community engagement and action related to mitigation activities. 14. How well do your local media (print, broadcast and online) cover hazard mitigation and insurance issues (e.g., reports about local mitigation projects, new flood maps, insurance needs, etc.)? Select one: Response Response Percent Count They generally do not understand 18.5% 20 or report on the issues They only cover the issues after a disaster or when citizens 62.0% 67 complain They occasionally report on the 6.5% 7 issues, but typically get it wrong They generally do a good job at 12.0% 13 reporting the issues They cover the issues very well and regularly promote responsible 0.9% 1 action by citizens living in areas subject to hazards answered question 108 skipped question 1221 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q15: What are the most important hazard mitigation efforts?Development and associated building codes and regulations once again top survey responses. More than 53% ofrespondents indicated that building codes and regulations that accurately reflect the local risk and mitigations measuresthat address those risks are the most important hazard mitigation efforts. Perhaps just as significantly, less than 4%chose increased numbers of insured against identified hazards as the most important hazard mitigation effort. Theseresults emphasize the importance of working closely with the building industry to ensure awareness of local risks andmitigation measures. 15. What are the most important hazard mitigation efforts? Please select one. Response Response Percent Count Structural mitigation projects (i.e., home buy outs, building retrofits,- 22.4% 24 storm water improvements) Building codes and regulations that accurately reflect the local 53.3% 57 risk and mitigations measures that address those risks Increased numbers of insured 3.7% 4 against identified hazards Risk assessment, hazard identification, and effective risk 20.6% 22 public communication Other (please specify) 10 answered question 107 skipped question 13Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 22

Q16: What is the most significant barrier to improving a community’s disaster resilience? The majority of respondents (approximately 54%) selected a lack of community action to take precautions on known risks as the most significant barrier to improving a community’s disaster resilience. These responses emphasize the importance of moving beyond risk awareness to changing behavior and taking action to overcome the barriers to improving a community’s disaster resilience. 16. From the list below, what is the most significant barrier to improving a community’s disaster resilience? Response Response Percent Count A lack of understanding of risks 26.2% 28 within the community Obtaining and maintaining accurate 19.6% 21 risk knowledge A lack of community action to 54.2% 58 take precautions on known risks Other (please specify) 17 answered question 107 skipped question 1323 Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

Q17: In your opinion what are the important hallmarks of a comprehensive whole community approach to mitigation?We received written responses from 104 survey participants. Reponses ranged from a single sentence to severalparagraphs. A diverse group of hazard mitigation and insurance professionals provided responses. The following themesemerged regarding important hallmarks of a comprehensive whole community approach to mitigation:• Educating citizens about risks and promoting individual accountability through appropriate insurance at the individual and municipality levels• Identifying vulnerable people, property, and critical facilities and directing resources to projects that reduce risks• Further integrating preparedness and mitigation activities• Educating citizens about what it means to live in a high-risk area and/or promoting a reduction in inhabiting high-risk areas• Further integrating emergency managers with other disciplines. 17. In your opinion what are the important hallmarks of a comprehensive whole community approach to mitigation? Response Count 104 answered question 104 skipped question 16Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community 24

05.051.12

Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community

by Booz Allen Hamilton

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community Document Transcript