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

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

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Megan Clifford
Megan Clifford, a Principal at Booz Allen, is a leader of the firm’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) market
team. She oversees the firm’s support to FEMA clients, providing support in the areas of policy analysis, program design
and development, stakeholder engagement, grants management, and program management focused on efficiencies and
effectiveness. Ms. Clifford has more than 14 years of experience serving a variety of clients, including the Department
of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense. She is a member of
the Association of Flood Plain Managers, National Grants Management Association, and Project Management Institute.

Marko Bourne
Marko 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 oversees
the firm’s support to emergency management clients and provides strategic planning for the homeland security and
emergency management market. Mr. Bourne has more than 27 years of experience in emergency services, emergency
management, policy, governmental and legislative affairs, and public affairs. Previously, he was the director of policy
and program analysis for FEMA and director of business development for Homeland Security at Earth Tech Inc./Tyco
International. Mr. Bourne also served as acting director of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Incident
Management System Integration Center and deputy director of FEMA’s Preparedness Division. He has authored several
articles; has extensive media and public speaking experience; and is a member of the DomPrep Journal’s DomPrep40
Advisory Board, an interactive advisory board focusing primarily on all-hazard preparedness, as well as response and
recovery operations. He is a member of the National Emergency Managers Association and the Association of State
Flood 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 COMMUNITY
Booz Allen Hamilton has been actively engaged in resiliency and recovery issues for a number of years through our work
with FEMA and our Megacommunity™ 6 approach. Recently, we have gained additional insight and perspectives on the
hazard mitigation challenges we face as a nation by connecting directly with the hazard mitigation community. In March
2012, we conducted a Hazard Mitigation Survey, polling the nation’s hazard mitigation and insurance professionals
on 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 as
State Hazard Mitigation Officers or State Floodplain Managers—47 in total, with all 10 FEMA regions represented. In
addition to offering their opinions on emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation issues, participants provided
concrete views on how to improve community natural hazard resilience, including accountable development, increased
risk 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 late
April 2012 in Washington, DC. The event, “Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks: Calling Upon the Whole Community,” provided an
open 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 engages
the whole community at all levels. They emphasized the importance of understanding and communicating risk—and
translating 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 a
comprehensive view of the current state of the nation’s hazard mitigation efforts and how whole community thinking can
significantly 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 dialogue
on 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.


TRANSLATING AWARENESS INTO ACTION
For increased disaster resilience, communities and individuals must move beyond risk awareness to effective mitigation
action. 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) based
on a better overall understanding of risk would most improve resiliency at the personal and family level. In addition, 40
percent of those surveyed believe that development occurs without regard to natural hazards. Since mitigation must
protect all citizens, in addition to striving for behavioral change, panelists discussed the importance of community
mitigation 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 building
professionals” are the hallmarks of a whole community approach to mitigation. The panelists indicated that as we
develop and redevelop our communities, stakeholders must consider the economic, social, and environmental value of
each decision. This suggests a need for better education on the benefits of planned mitigation actions and an expansion
of 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 automobile
safety industry and their work with crash-test dummies, as well as recovery activities of individuals in Joplin, Missouri
who experienced extreme tornado events on May 22, 2011. In the automobile safety example, as a result of outreach
campaigns that demonstrated in graphic detail what happens to crash-test dummies in vehicular accidents, the general
public 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 have
purposely, and at times organically, adopted a whole community approach to recovery with numerous examples of
individuals and organizations contributing to the recovery effort. Although Joplin’s behavioral change examples may have
been the result of a disaster, panelists suggested these behavioral changes may have taken root pre-disaster within
the community’s school system. Regardless of when the changes within the community occurred, they are positive
and appear to be long-lasting. School children appear to be emotionally closer to one another with a deeper sense of
community, 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 the
effect of natural disasters on commercial and residential buildings. One panelist suggested communication campaigns
illustrating the benefits of improved building codes could do for building and home safety what crash-test dummies did
for cars. Further, by demonstrating the benefits of model building codes and safe building incentives, development may
also begin to compete on safety issues. As with car safety standards, consumers will better understand their risks
and start to demand higher safety standards. Industry thought leaders believe that these measures will lead to more
responsible and accountable development. However, taking this action will also require a willingness on the part of
State, local, and tribal governments to take on potentially difficult decisions on adopting and enforcing safe building
codes and standards.

In addition to responsible development, the role of insurance was discussed in relation to mitigation action. With the
goal of a better insured citizenry, approximately 66 percent of survey respondents indicated that the insurance and
reinsurance industry needs to develop and market multi-hazard products and coverage. In addition, about 32 percent
of participants see an advantage in greater risk pooling across regions of the country of insured to create greater
economies of scale in pricing.


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.


SOURCES AND CITATIONS
1. 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. Wes
Highfield 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 Hazard
Mitigation 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.


APPENDIX A
Hazard Mitigation and Hazard Insurance Professionals Survey Results


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 State
Floodplain Managers (39.5%), followed by Mitigation Subject Matter Experts (SME) (29.4%), and Local or Tribal Mitigation
Planners (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 1


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


skipped question 2


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 rise
is because development occurs without regard to natural hazards. Another 23% of respondents stated that damages
from 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 development
is 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


skipped question 6


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


skipped question 7


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 most
improve a community’s disaster resilience. Following closely behind, approximately 32% of respondents selected improved
local threat recognition, warning, response, and recovery capabilities. Approximately 20% of respondents indicated that
improved comprehensive planning and tools would most improve community resilience. The most selected response
indicates 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


skipped question 7


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


skipped question 7


Q7: Generally, citizens in my community:
Respondents stated that in general, citizens in their community are aware of the most likely and/or consequential risk
but do not take proper precautions or citizens in their community are unaware of the most likely and/or consequential
risk and do not take proper precautions (approximately 46% and 41%, respectively). About 13% of respondents indicated
that 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 precautions
to 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


skipped question 8


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


skipped question 8


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 National
Flood Insurance. Approximately 5% of respondents indicated that citizens in their community are aware of National Flood
Insurance “to a great extent.” Approximately 4% of respondents indicated that citizens had no awareness of National
Flood 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


skipped question 8


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


skipped question 10


Q11: The insurance and reinsurance industry need to develop and market multi-hazard products/coverage
Approximately 66% of respondents indicated that they agree the insurance and reinsurance industry need to develop
and 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 that
there may be a gap in understanding and/or availability of multi-hazard products and coverage offered by the insurance
and 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


skipped question 10


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


skipped question 11


Q13: Generally, to increase the number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies in force, the insurance
industry needs:
The majority of respondents (62%) indicated that a better informed community of their risks to all natural hazards will
lead to an increase in number and comprehensiveness of all-hazard insurance policies. Also significant, about 32% of
respondents believe that greater risk pooling across regions of the country of insured to create greater economies of
scale in pricing would be advantageous. In summary, the most selected response suggests that educating the community
about 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


skipped question 12


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


skipped question 12


Q15: What are the most important hazard mitigation efforts?
Development and associated building codes and regulations once again top survey responses. More than 53% of
respondents indicated that building codes and regulations that accurately reflect the local risk and mitigations measures
that 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. These
results emphasize the importance of working closely with the building industry to ensure awareness of local risks and
mitigation 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


skipped question 13


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


skipped question 13


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 several
paragraphs. A diverse group of hazard mitigation and insurance professionals provided responses. The following themes
emerged 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


skipped question 16


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

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Mitigating Our Nation’s Risks – Calling Upon the Whole Community (20)

More from Booz Allen Hamilton (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

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