LMS Guidebook Supplement, Vulnerability Assessment, Part 2
Step 2

FOCUSING THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

The need for focusing the vulnerability assessment

For many of Florida’s counties, the review of the available hazard identification and vulnerability assessment information will indicate that the Working Group has, potentially, a large number of vulnerable facilities, systems and neighborhoods that warrant further assessment. Therefore, Working Groups should focus their planning effort to ensure that the most urgent mitigation needs of the community are addressed.

There are a variety of approaches to focusing the Working Group’s attention on the community’s highest priority facilities, systems, and neighborhoods, as well as its development plans and policies. The one selected must be tailored to the unique needs and desires of the community. The approach should consider a combination of the following options:

Using the hazard identification process

Of the many facilities, systems, and neighborhoods that may be vulnerable to disaster impacts, a portion will be threatened by more types of hazards than are others. The vulnerability assessment process could focus on those facilities, systems and neighborhoods subjected to, say, more than three hazard categories, or hazards of a certain type, such as high wind hazards.

Focusing on designated critical facilities

Every county will have a number of facilities and systems designated as "critical" under the Florida Division of Emergency Management’s criteria and/or under the county’s own definition. The Working Group could focus on the vulnerabilities of the designated critical facilities, especially those indicated by the hazard identification process to be exposed to multiple types of hazards.

Emphasizing emergency response facilities and systems

Emergency response facilities and the operations they support are very important for managing the impact of a disaster on the community. The Working Group may wish to focus its initial strategy on those facilities and systems necessary to initiate and sustain an emergency response. These could include key structures such as fire stations and emergency operations centers, communications systems, roads used as evacuation routes, etc.

Highly influential development policies and plans

The analysis of the community’s plans, policies and requirements influential to mitigation programming will highlight if there are shortfalls, gaps, or inconsistencies that need to be addressed by the Working Group. Some of affected programs may be intended to guide future development in areas subject to high risk. The gaps or inconsistencies in these programs should be a priority for the Working Group’s attention.

Using the Working Group’s Mitigation Goals

Each Working Group will have established or identified goals for its mitigation strategy early in the planning effort. These goals can and should be used to focus the vulnerability assessment process, and the approach selected should clearly reflect the Working Group’s goals. For example, a Working Group could have established reduction of damages from future flood events as one of its goals. Therefore, the vulnerability assessment process could emphasize analysis of those facilities, systems and neighborhoods vulnerable to flooding. It would also focus the Group’s attention on those plans and policies that may contribute to the flooding problem, with both existing construction and future development. Another Working Group may have established minimization of the economic damages of disasters as one of its goals. This could place the focus on defining the vulnerabilities of large employers and key businesses in the community.

Ranking or prioritizing the vulnerabilities

Another way to continue to focus the vulnerability assessment is to rank or prioritize the types of vulnerabilities that need to be addressed in the Local Mitigation Strategy. These vulnerabilities may be of most concern for specific facilities, systems or neighborhoods, or may be highly influenced by the community’s plans and policies that control future development. Focusing on certain vulnerabilities will enable a Working Group to ensure that its strategy is going to address the communities existing and future vulnerabilities of greatest concern.

There would be several different ways to prioritize or rank the vulnerabilities of concern, and the approach selected will depend on the unique desires and needs of the community. For a more limited number of facilities or systems, a non-quantified ranking scheme such as "low, moderate, or severe’ vulnerabilities may be satisfactory. A more quantified, numerical scheme (e.g., ranking vulnerabilities on a scale of 1 to 5) may be more suitable when many vulnerabilities must be assessed. Plans and policies of concern could be similarly ranked based on their level of influence or potential contribution to the vulnerability of existing or future development.

Whatever the approach, it will be helpful to consider the following factors as influential to community vulnerability while striving to focus the Working Group’s efforts:

• The importance of the facility, system, plan or policy to the existing and future welfare of the community,
• The number of people, businesses or institutions being addressed,
• The resultant existing or future physical and/or operational vulnerability to all types of hazards, and
• The type, scope, and severity of direct and indirect impacts that could result.

Striving for an appropriate level of assessment

The strategy will best serve the community if it is able to assess vulnerabilities on a community-wide basis, and then focus developing proposed initiatives to address those vulnerabilities of greatest concern. A realistic appraisal of the financial, personnel and time resources of a Working Group will be necessary to achieve the most appropriate level of analysis.

Overall, the vulnerability assessment process can funnel the Working Group’s attention to the most important vulnerabilities of the community. This will help to identify a broader range of structural and non-structural mitigation initiatives needed in the community, rather then giving detailed attention of a small number of facilities, systems, neighborhoods, plans or programs. Detailed studies of specific vulnerabilities or initiatives can be incorporated into the strategy for later funding and implementation.

Determining specific vulnerabilities

To prepare a strategy feasible to implement, most Working Groups will find it helpful to propose specific mitigation initiatives, rather than make generalized statements of intentions for future mitigation programs or efforts. This is because a specific project described in a strategy can be more easily and quickly used in a funding application as soon as money should become available. In comparison, generalized statements regarding non-structural program development, or structural mitigation initiatives to be implemented, will need additional definition before any future actions can actually be taken. Therefore, it is important for the vulnerability assessment process to identify specific vulnerabilities of concern, to the extent possible. This will permit identification of one or more specific initiatives to eliminate or lessen that vulnerability. Developing and prioritizing specific mitigation initiatives is discussed in the remaining sections of this supplement.

Specific Statements of Vulnerability will Promote Specific Definitions of Initiatives

The definition of a needed initiative should make clear its: Likely cost to implement Estimated benefits to be gained Legal complexity Community acceptability Technical feasibility Mitigation effectiveness

Which would be easier to develop a funding application for: 1) "Elevate the Elm Street Fire Station to 18 inches above the designated flood elevation", or 2) "Elevate all structures within the county so they are higher than the base flood elevation"?