experts were invited to peer-review the results. More than 100 subject matter experts participated in development and review of the study methodologies and findings.
The original report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, which was funded by FEMA, determined FEMA mitigation grants to have a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1. One of its key findings — “For every $1 spent on mitigation, there is a $4 return of avoided losses in the future” — is often cited by Congress and the media. The 2017 Interim Report also is an independent work, funded with the support of public and private organizations interested in expanding the understanding of the benefits of hazard mitigation. In addition to FEMA, sponsors include HUD, EDA, ICC, IBHS, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the American Institute of Archi- tects (AIA). Despite the specific guidance that the 2005 study benefit-cost ratio represented only a single, very narrow set of mitigation strategies (pre- cisely those funded through FEMA), the original 4:1 ratio has been used to justify all types of mitigation strategies. The 2017 Interim Re- port provides an updated examination of the benefits of federal agency grant programs (including the addition of EDA and HUD), resulting in a $6 benefit for every $1 invested. Though not a direct replacement, when used to describe federal grant programs, the 6:1 benefit-cost ratio can be used in place of the original 4:1. To vet the methodology used and ensure the study’s accuracy, NIBS received input from experts in resilience across all hazard types, in- cluding academia, non-profits, government agencies, and the private sector. Experts were engaged to conduct the analyses and additional
Information provided by the National Institute of Building Sciences (www.nibs.org).
Funding mitigation efforts through incentives While mitigation represents an excellent investment, not ev- eryone is willing or able to bear construction costs for more resilient buildings, even if the long-term benefits exceed the up-front costs. In a 2015 white paper and 2016 addendum, the National Institute of Building Sciences’ Multihazard Miti- gation Council and Council on Finance, Insurance and Real Estate proposed a holistic approach to incentives that can drive financing mitigation investments, aligning the interests of multiple stakeholder groups so that they all benefit from natural hazard mitigation. The benefit-cost ratios identified in the 2017 Interim Report can facilitate development of specific strategies that align incentives from finance, insurance, gov- ernment, and other stakeholders. View the white paper, Developing Pre-Disaster Resilience Based on Public and Private Incentivization at http://c.ymcdn. com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/MMC/MMC_Re- silienceIncentivesWP.pdf.
48
csengineermag.com
march 2018
Made with FlippingBook Annual report