At a number of meetings recently, it was expressed that the risk and
disaster management community needs easy-to-communicate, quantitative
examples of the advantages of mitigation. While we may realise that
cost-benefit analyses are often a pointless number game, a succinct
statement in clear figures is often an effective communication tool. But it
must be backed up by documentation.
For example, from Australia, a "Disaster Mitigation" brochure at
http://www.emergency.qld.gov.au/cdrs/mitigation/pdf/factsheets/Disaster_Mitigation.pdf
states "Research has shown that every $1 spent on disaster mitigation saves
at least $3 in economic and social recovery costs". Having the references
to this research or details on the calculations undertaken would be useful.
Therefore, I have been developing a list of such references. I append below
the items which I have found along with some for which I seek information.
Could anyone provide missing details? Could anyone provide further ideas?
In particular, more examples from the so-called "developing world" would be
useful.
The second issue is the title to give to this approach in order to quickly
capture attention and to provide a message to the media. Possibilities:
-Mitigation pays
-Mitigation saves
-Mitigation saves lives and money
-Mitigation improves quality of life
Any preferences or suggestions? An academic debate over legalistic
definitions is probably not appropriate in this instance, but is
"mitigation" the best word?
I am aiming to produce a "fact sheet" of case studies and short statements
which we could use to promote mitigation. This fact sheet would be posted
on the web and further case studies could be added as they are identified.
Thank you for your time,
Ilan
--------------------
1. Flood management in North America.
Brown et al. (1997) examined similar floods in 1986 in comparable locations
in Michigan and Ontario. Ontario, with a sustainable approach to floodplain
management since the Hurricane Hazel disaster in 1954, incurred economic
losses less than 0.5% of Michigan’s losses.
Brown, D.W., Moin, S.M.A., and Nicolson, M.L. 1997. "A Comparison of
Flooding in Michigan and Ontario: 'Soft' Data to Support 'Soft' Water
Management Approaches." Canadian Water Resources Journal, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 125-139.
(Thanks to David Etkin for identifying this paper for me. The paragraph
above is modified from Kelman, I. 2001. "The Autumn 2000 Floods in England
and Flood Management". Weather, vol. 56, no. 10 (October), pp
346-348,353-360.
--------------------
2. USAID's urban disaster mitigation projects in Kinshasa in 1998.
Details at http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ofda/00annual/urban_flood.html
Following floods in Kinshasa in 1999, Charles Setchell completed an economic
analysis and concluded that "By adopting conservative assumptions, and only
accounting for direct economic losses, one dollar of OFDA 'investment' in
disaster reduction in 1998 resulted in a 'savings' of at least $45.58 during
the 1999 rainy season".
Further comments from the analysis:
"More importantly, 100,000 project beneficiaries did not incur direct
economic losses amounting to $71.06 each in 1999 because of an OFDA
'investment' of $1.56 per beneficiary in 1998. On a per-family basis,
OFDA-supported disaster reduction measures resulted in a 'savings' of $426,
or the equivalent of nearly 54 percent of average annual income. Finally,
there was another beneficiary: OFDA. The 1998 investment in disaster
reduction eliminated the need for OFDA to return in 1999, thereby saving
time, effort, and money that could be applied to natural and complex
disasters elsewhere."
Provisos:
-Secondary economic benefits and social benefits are not considered because
they would be more debatable.
-The compounding of benefits over time is not considered even though some
beneficiaries are continuing to derive benefits from the project four years
after project implementation.
--------------------
3. Bangladesh's cyclone warning and shelter system.
Data are needed on:
-The economic cost of the system.
-Characteristics of severe storms which have occurred since the programme
was implemented.
-The number fatalities which occurred in each event which could be compared
with 1970.
From these data, an estimate could be made of the lives saved given the
investment. Calculating money per life is not an approach which I like or
encourage, but it would be a powerful statement on how cheap mitigation is
in the language which decision-makers tend to use.
--------------------
4. Seattle's Medic One program.
Is it mitigation? If so, data are needed on:
-The annual cost (I believe that funds are raised through a
referendum-approved levy).
-The estimated lives saved.
-The estimated health care system costs saved.
See, for example, http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1970a.html
and
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134355167_medicone18.html
--------------------
5. West Virginia flooding 18-22 February 2000
"Mitigation projects in the north central part of the state saved
approximately $750,000 in property damage during the recent flooding. Aside
from the economic impact, families were spared the emotional distress of
having their homes flooded."
From http://www.fema.gov/diz00/d1319n02.shtm
How much did the mitigation project cost and have other floods hit the same
area subsequently?
--------------------
6. U.S.A. earthquake mitigation
"'We've discovered that every dollar spent on mitigation saves at least two
dollars in repair costs following a disaster,' said FEMA's Deputy Federal
Coordinating Officer for Mitigation Carl Cook."
From http://www.fema.gov/diz01/d1361n39.shtm
As with the Australian study, specific references would be useful to
indicate how this value was determined.
--------------------
Other ideas:
-Project Impact. The cost was documented. Was it possible to document
resultant savings?
-CERTs (see http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/cert ). Could a cost-benefit
analysis be completed?
-One member of this list, David Crichton, has completed extensive work on
U.K. flood management policy. In a report about to be published, he
highlights the lessons which should be learned from Scotland, especially by
England and Wales, in terms of flood management. Could a cost-benefit
analysis illustrate savings per person?
-Also for U.K. flood management, Black and Evans (1999) provide detailed
tables of cost per house damaged by flood. Do similar tables exist for the
cost of increasing the flood resistance of a house? If so, a simple
economic analysis could be completed to determine payback periods for
different flood risk zones.
Black, A.R. and S.A. Evans. 1999 (June). "Flood Damage in the U.K.: New
Insights for the Insurance Industry". University of Dundee sponsored by AON
Group Limited and CGU Insurance plc.
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
|
