This document discusses a local hazard justification plan and identifies some deficiencies and recommendations for improvement. The planning process involves public involvement, risk assessment, and developing mitigation strategies. Some deficiencies are a lack of significant mitigation actions, lack of implementation and integration into other plans, and lack of stakeholder participation. Recommendations include encouraging early and ongoing plan updates, increasing public awareness and engagement, and focusing mitigation activities on meaningful and attainable goals. The local mitigation plan is an important strategic method to reduce hazard risks outlined in the comprehensive emergency management plan.

1. Running head: LOCAL HAZARD JUSTIFICATION PLAN 2
LOCAL HAZARD JUSTIFICATION PLAN 2
Local hazard justification plan
Tragedies can lead to death; buildings and infrastructure
damage; and shocking consequences for well-being of a
community’s social and economy. Hazard justification is the
effort of reducing property and life loss by lessening disaster’s
impact. In other words, mitigation of hazard limits natural
hazards from disasters. This justification is accomplished best
when based on CEMA plan before any disaster striking
(Borough, 2015). This plan is used by local leaders and the state
so as to fully understand natural hazard’s risks and coming up
with strategies that will curb events of the future with regards
to property, people and the environment. This paper will focus
on analysis, deficiencies’ elaboration and improvement areas. It
will also point areas that require updates to keep the plan
current.
The planning process involves three categories i.e. Public
involvement, assessment of risk and strategy of mitigation. To
commence with public involvement, planning comes up with a
way to ask and deliberate diverse interests’ input, and promotes
a more disaster-resilient community’s discussion (Lyles et al.,
2014). Stakeholders getting involved is a necessity to building
plans’ community-wide support. To add on emergency
managers, other government agencies, groups of civic,
businesses, schools and groups of environmental are involved in
the planning process.
The next category is risk assessment and here plans of
mitigation identify risks and natural hazards that based on

2. historical experience, disaster’s magnitude and frequency
estimation and life and property potential losses, impacts a
community. According to Berke et al (2012), the process of risk
assessment provides an accurate basis for proposed activities in
strategies of mitigation. Going on to the last category which is
mitigation strategy that is based on inputs of the public,
identified risks, and capabilities that are available. Goals and
objectives developed by the community are as part of plan for
mitigating losses related to hazard. The strategy is an approach
of the community for mitigation activities implementation
which are technically feasible, cost-effective and sounds well in
the environment.
Deficiencies
Deficiencies are like challenges that face mitigation planning
even if there are agreements in benefits and goals of this
planning. Below are some of the deficiencies related to
mitigation planning:
· Lack of significant mitigation actions – mitigation being a part
of emergency management cycle linked through protection,
prevention, response and recovery as its focus is to come up
with a unique strategy that will prevent natural hazards hence
reducing hazard risk (Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, 2015). However,
because planning of mitigation is made possible by funding
post-disaster that is available, and managed by local agencies of
management, the plans tend to concentrate on activities that are
prepared and are response-related instead of sustained, long-
term strategies of mitigation.
· Lack of implementation and integration- when plan
development is not within a comprehensive, complete approach
to management of risk, the results is failure of integration into
governmental planning tools and mechanisms. On the contrary,
this lack of integration in one way or another, affects
implementation and the plan remains worthless (Al-Nammari &
Alzaghal, 2015). The mitigation plan is efficient in curbing the
natural risks but when it is not active, the risks are still likely to
strike.

3. · Lack of participation- stakeholder engagement and minimal
public are those who conduct planning of local mitigation. A
lack of participation from these stakeholders often leads to a
less effective plan or it could only meet minimum requirements
of the planning. By not engaging the public and stakeholders,
planners miss enhancing mitigation plan opportunity.
Recommendation (updates)
Some of the ways recommended for mitigation planning are:
· Development of early plan encouragement- mitigation
sustainable challenges occur due to lack of resources and time
within communities so as to keep the momentum acquired
during development of plan. Al-Nammari & Alzaghal (2015)
suggested that, On-going maintenance encouragement and
update procedure of early plan in advance of expiration dates of
the plan will give high opportunities to enhance and preserve
stakeholders’ relationships, mechanisms review, and public
engagement in process of mitigation planning.
· Increase awareness of the public and engaging stakeholders-
in order to come up with a comprehensive approach, plan
developers and leaders of the community should develop
relationships with other people to endorse several programs’
planning. Such integrations will assist in maximizing
efficiencies and boost support and commitments of local to the
process of planning. A strategy of public outreach should be
developed when increasing public awareness.
· Meaningful and attainable activities focus- while mitigation
planning are routinely managed by the federal, emergency
management should act as development and mitigation planning
organization leaders whenever possible (Lyles et al., 2014).
Planners are trained often and skilled in managerial of every
planning process similar to the main one and will have
knowledge of opportunities that are important to integration
with mechanisms of other local planning.
Conclusion
Local mitigation plan is a strategic method that employs
comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) to curb

4. hazardous risks (Borough, 2015). The managerial plan is
integrated with stakeholders as well as strategies for its
function and although it is effective, it at times experience
challenges. Some of them are mentioned above together with
alternatives of controlling it. To crown it all, this plan is
important to local mitigation process based on available
evidences.
References
Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). A comparison of local
hazard mitigation plan quality in six states, USA. Landscape
and urban planning, 122, 89-99.
Berke, P., Smith, G., & Lyles, W. (2012). Planning for
resiliency: Evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans under the
disaster mitigation act. Natural Hazards Review, 13(2), 139-
149.
Al-Nammari, F., & Alzaghal, M. (2015). Towards local disaster
risk reduction in developing countries: Challenges from
Jordan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12,
34-41.
Borough, F. N. S. (2015). Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan.