Mitigation Strategies and Integrated Emergency Management

Abstract

Most public officials in the United States are familiar with procedures for reducing risks from single hazards, such as floods, due to the hazard mitigation requirements for obtaining federal flood insurance. Few, however, have thought about devising integrated strategies for reducing risks from multiple hazards, such as floods, earthquakes, and nuclear accidents. This is not doomsday thinking, but a new and more efficient allhazards approach to emergency management encouraged by the National Governors' Association and the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and recently adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the title Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS). As described by FEMA, the IEMS concept applies to all levels of government, all relevant hazards, and all phases of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery.' It stresses an integrated approach to management of the full spectrum of emergencies, including natural disasters, technological disasters, and possible attack. Like all institutional innovations, IEMS faces a long adoption process, which is likely to be especially difficult at the local level due to its technical demands and organizational complexities, uncertain incentives, and, in the case of mitigation, long-standing political constraints. This article examines present hazard mitigation practices of local agencies in terms of their potential for developing effective integrated emergency management systems. It reviews the basic concepts involved in such systems, mitigation tools available to hazard managers, and multiple hazard analysis techniques. It argues for packaging mitigation measures with development management programs into coordinated strategies in order to address effectively the opportunities and problems of integrated hazard mitigation.