Multihazard Mitigation Saves Essays

Multihazard Mitigation Saves Essays Multihazard Mitigation Saves Essay Multihazard Mitigation Saves Essay Multihazard Mitigation Saves Name: Institution: Lecturer: Course: Date: Multihazard Mitigation Saves The issue concerned is presented from a report conducted by The National Institute of Building Sciences, through its branch – the Multihazard Mitigation Council. The report itself was aimed at presenting the credibility, authenticity and effectiveness of harnessing future savings from hazard mitigating activities. The Multihazard Mitigation Council, otherwise known as MMC conducted this research in order to quantify forecasted savings from mitigation activities responding to a mandate by an appropriations committee. This particular study was carried out based on work plans in a detailed manner by established and qualified experts. This project was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), though the study itself was conducted independently. The research was carried out to investigate on the on the credibility on the future savings (with regard to losses avoided), from natural calamities such as earthquakes, wind disasters such as tornadoes as well as floods. The project mainly focused on three crucial grant programs on hazard mitigation: project impact, the hazard mitigation grant program and the flood mitigation assistance program. The study also assessed two types of mitigation activities: project mitigations, including physical measures to reduce or to avoid damage from natural calamities, and process mitigations, leading to practices, projects and policies that reduce risk or eliminate loss. This included assessing the vulnerability and material risk, informing the decision makers on the concerned issues, and vouching for employment of reliable building codes. In addition, the study entailed two interrelated models. The first model was employed to calculate an estimate in the forecasted savings hailing from the FEMA mitigation grant expenses. This was enabled by the use of a sample statistic representative from FEMA funded mitigation. The results were to be generalized for the whole population under FEMA’S jurisdiction. The other study component was aimed at studying the projected future savings hailing from mitigation endeavors. This model study was to be conducted through a research on mitigation activities that were FEMA funded. The studies on community were both qualitative and quantitative, examining the organization’s mitigation activities in adequate community samples that could serve the purpose. The research study estimated the effects of grants provided by FEMA on the federal treasury, from the basis of reducing the amount of federal funds that would have been spent when responding to disaster rescues and recovery. The research was able to find that the analysis of the sample FEMA grants awarded on throughout the service would indicate that a single dollar spent on mitigation activities, would go on to save the entire society an average of four dollars. The MMC research found that benefits to the society from FEMA mitigation grants from the study period would eventually yield a discount value of fourteen billion dollars, compared to the three billion values of resources that would be employed in the mitigation programs in hazards that were studied. The research also discovered that funds utilized on reducing risks on natural hazards, is an effective investment. Averagely, on every dollar that FEMA spends on activities to reduce losses from disasters, it consequently provide s the entire nation four-dollar benefits in the future. On my opinion, I do agree with the parties related with the findings of this study. It is proven that mitigation is a cost effective project, which warrants federal funding on a basis that is on going before a disaster strikes and even in the disaster recovery period. Any nation will always be at risk to natural disasters. Hence, it would only be prudent to engage in mitigation investments. Secondly, mitigation is deemed most effective when it is undertaken in a community wide basis, comprehensive and is carried out on a long-term basis. Single oriented projects are also helpful. Nevertheless, engaging in slates of coordinated activities in mitigation over times is the most efficient method. It will most certainly ensure communities’ resilience while coping socially and physically with impacts of future calamities. Therefore, I totally agree with the findings of the study project.