a study of community hazard risk assessment methodologies: … · 2020. 7. 24. · risk assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 0 | P a g e
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 1 | P a g e
Dear Esteemed Colleague:
Even as technological advances are made, and humankind’s ability to better understand disasters becomes more
sophisticated, the likelihood that the impact of disasters will decline in the future is very unlikely. Today, there is
greater emphasis on addressing these seemingly unending cycles of repeated damages and reconstruction needs in
the wake of natural, manmade, and even technological disasters.
Past disaster events, both natural and manmade, seem to indicate that disasters are not problems that can
be viewed or solved as isolated instances (Mileti, 1999). In other words, the rising number of disasters and the
resulting damages and human losses are more or less “symptoms of broader and more basic problems” (Mileti,
1999, p. 2). These problems stem from the complexity of disasters and the intricate relationships society shares with
both its natural and constructed environments. According to Dennis S. Mileti (1999):
Many disaster losses – rather than stemming from unexpected events – are the predictable result of
interactions among three major systems: the physical environment, which includes hazardous events; the
social and demographic characteristics of the communities that experience them; and the buildings, roads,
bridges, and other components of the constructed environment. (p. 3)
These destructive events, then, must be understood and studied from a holistic point of view, and current and future
solutions for mitigating damages and human losses must acknowledge that disasters occur at these intersections.
While the escalating losses from disasters will continue to result in part from the continuing expansion of our nation’s
“capital stock,” it can also be attributed to the fact that “all these systems – and their interactions – are becoming
more complex with each passing year” (Mileti, 1999, p. 3).
One way to better understand and manage existing and emerging threats, is to more accurately understand
those factors that contribute to these destructive events. Because we recognize these needs, the Foundation for
Comprehensive Emergency Management Research (CEMR) was commissioned by Integrated Solutions Consulting
(ISC) and with the support of Miami-Dade County, Florida to:
1. Investigate the various hazard risk assessment methodologies,
2. Evaluate the methodological benefits and challenges of current hazard risk and vulnerability
methodologies,
3. Assess the fundamental methodological components of a reliable, accurate, and compliant
community hazard risk assessment, and
4. Validate ISC’s Community Vulnerability, Risk, and Resiliency (CVR2) Model
As our contribution to the Emergency Management community and profession, we are excited to share our
findings, methodologies, and approach to conducting a reliable, accurate and successful Threat-Hazard Identification
Risk Assessment (THIRA). We realize you are extremely busy, but we hope this document will provide useful insights
and knowledge to help you and your organization to better leverage the THIRA and other risk management
programmatic requirements, and to further improve and serve as a valuable tool for your Comprehensive Emergency
Management Program initiatives.
Respectfully,
Daniel W. Martin, Ph.D., CEM
Managing Principal and co-Founder
Integrated Solutions Consulting, Corp.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 2 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION Conducting a risk assessment is the process of identifying hazards, profiling hazard events, inventorying assets, and
estimating losses; and also includes, in a more general sense, the process of quantifying and characterizing the
threats to humans, property, and the environment. The reason risk assessments are critical to emergency
management is that it allows communities to measure and better understand the potential impact of disasters as it
relates specifically to damage to property, critical infrastructure, economic loss, casualty, and fatalities. More
importantly, by identifying the potential impact of likely disasters, it allows emergency managers and community
leaders to develop much-needed strategies and to prioritize resource needs to address operational activities and to
ultimately help a community become more resilient (Schwab, Eschelbach, and Brower, 2007).
Whereas determining and assessing risks has traditionally been associated with hazard mitigation planning,
there is growing recognition that this step should be included in all phases of planning. For example, CPG-101 vs.2
strongly recommends the incorporation of risk assessments in the EOP development process. Moreover, the 2011
HSGP requires the establishment of a Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) for all levels of
government. When utilized correctly, risk assessments can be a foundational piece to a jurisdiction’s emergency
management program, and will influence all emergency management related activities during the prepare, respond,
recover, and mitigate phases.
“Whereas determining and assessing risks has traditionally been
associated with hazard mitigation planning, there is growing
recognition that this step should be included in all phases of planning”
Whether you are a community or a state, understanding risks especially as it relates to natural and
manmade hazards is a critical element of any emergency management program. In recent years, there has been an
emphasis on the need for every jurisdiction at every level of government to conduct a comprehensive risk
assessment and vulnerability analysis. This most notable call for these investments came in a September 2010
report to Congress by the Local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force which recommended that,
“once the THIRA is completed, future grant investments should be tied to assessed risk and existing capability at the
local, State, Tribal, Territorial, regional, and national levels”. According to FEMA’s Strategic Plan, which
acknowledges this Task Force’s recommendation, “THIRAs are intended to be tools that allow organizations at all
levels of government to identify, assess, and prioritize their natural and man-made risks. These assessments are
meant to facilitate the identification of capability and resource gaps, and allow organizations to track their year-to-
year progress to address those gaps. THIRAs should leverage existing hazard mitigation processes, but be
conducted in a reasonably standard manner so that results may be incorporated into Federal-level assessments”
(FEMA, 2011). The recommendations of the Task Force was further reinforced by Presidential Policy Directive 8 and
FEMA’s announcement on December 6, 2011 that identifies six components to improve national preparedness for a
wide range of threats and hazards which are:
• Identifying and assessing risks;
• Estimating capability requirements;
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 3 | P a g e
• Building or sustaining capabilities;
• Developing and implementing plans to deliver those capabilities;
• Validating and monitoring progress made toward achieving the National Preparedness Goal; and
• Reviewing and updating efforts to promote continuous improvement.
These earlier observations were followed by the release of Community Preparedness Guide 201: Threat
and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) which provides a general framework, or process, of
conducting a THIRA. This five step process includes:
1. Identify Threats & Hazards
2. Give Threats & Hazards Context
3. Examine Core Capabilities
4. Set Capability Targets
5. Apply Results
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Analyzing risk and managing hazards is a fundamental function of the modern emergency manager, and thus its
importance is recognized by scores of organizations that are attempting to advance the profession. For instance, the
Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) requires accredited Emergency Management Programs to
have a Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment (HIRA) and Consequence Analysis. Furthermore, in New Zealand,
risk management is identified as a fundamental component in the Civil Defense Emergency Management
Competency Framework (CDEM, 2009), which recognizes three core competencies of Risk Management:
1. Hazards and risks are recognized, understood and communicated.
2. Risk management is understood and applied.
3. Hazard and risk information processes
are evaluated.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 4 | P a g e
At the most basic level, the ability to understand an organization’s vulnerability and hazard threat will provide insight
into operational and programmatic strategies to diminish its risk exposure by reducing vulnerability and strengthening
protection strategies (Kohler et al, 2004; UNDP, 2004). Despite the common recognition of the importance of the
hazard risk analysis process, most nominal threat-risk assessments produced today typically represent compliance
audits against bureaucratic practices and contain limited threat, vulnerability, or incident impact metrics (McMahon,
2009).
While many strategic and operational level planning initiatives are all-hazards in design, communities must
not ignore or undermine the importance of determining what hazards require special attention. In general,
recognizing the potential hazards, identifying the types of impacts a community may encounter, and determining the
level of risk, will largely influence the type of plans and programs that are needed for that specific jurisdiction. It will
also aid in the allocation of resources, policies, and operation-specific procedures and protocols that will be
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 5 | P a g e
necessary to adequately and efficiently prepare for, mitigate against, respond to, or recover from a potential disaster.
Also, if done correctly, conducting a thorough and comprehensive risk assessment and vulnerability analysis will help
guide mitigation-related activities and projects, and help procure much-needed funding by validating the need for
such projects. The hazard risk identification and assessment process cannot be oversimplified. Simplicity results in
uncertainty.
This study will not only assist in advancing the capability to develop reliable and accurate community hazard
risk assessments, but also serve as a critical tool to validate emergency management activities. The risk
assessment not only serves as essential tool in the modern emergency manager arsenal, but also serves as an
important building block for other emergency management activities, but also build key stakeholder support in
emergency management activities, help to justify the need to invest in hazard management actions, and aid in the
prioritization of resources.
In essence, the quintessential purpose of conducting a risk assessment is to ensure an accurate situational
understanding that will provide reliable information to improve decision-making before, during and after disaster.
Instead, it makes certain decisions are made with the best available knowledge that is based on the most accurate
and up-to-date information concerning the potential hazards and their likely impacts and consequences. While this
process is not always deemed rigorous and scientific by any means, this process should be conducted in a
systematic and objective way.
“The quintessential purpose of conducting a risk assessment is to
ensure an accurate situational understanding that will provide
reliable information to improve decision-making before, during and
after disaster”
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH The methodology used for this research included the detailed examination, coding, and analysis of governmental,
professional, and academic documents related to community vulnerability, hazard threat, hazard identification and
risk assessments, community risk methodologies, and hazard impact analysis. Over 200 government reports, state
and county-level risk assessments, peer-reviewed articles, and academic publications were examined, coded and
analyzed to evaluate the methodological benefits and challenges of the risk assessment approach relative to the
principles of community planning and emergency management as defined by the American Planning Association and
the International Association of Emergency Management, respectively. The content of the documents and data
reviewed were cataloged, coded, and further analyzed. As the study progressed, other governmental and research-
oriented documentation were discovered and provided additional insights into various phenomenons of community
vulnerability and hazard risk methodologies. The review of documentation and data continued until the research
reached a point of saturation. Theoretical sampling techniques were used throughout the data collection process.
Document analysis is an important social research method and is an important component in most schemes
of triangulation. Document analysis involves the examination, cataloging, coding, and analysis of a wide variety of
documents in various forms, from the written word to the use of visual images. Theoretical sampling, as defined by
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 6 | P a g e
Corbin & Strauss (2008, p. 145), is “to collect data from places, people, and events that will maximize opportunity to
develop concepts in terms of their properties and dimensions, uncover variations, and identify relationships between
concepts.” The technique of theoretical sampling is especially important when studying new or unchartered areas
because it allows for discovery (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 145). The cyclical process of data collection, analysis,
and conceptualization continues until the research reaches a point of saturation, or where all concepts are well
defined and explained (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The findings from the document analysis were then validated by conducting a single case study of Miami-
Dade County’s vulnerability and hazard risk analysis using ISC’s CVR2 model. There were many investigative and
exploratory methods that could be utilized for various types of research; however, a case study design ensured
maximum construct validity (multiple sources of evidence), internal validity (explanation building), external validity
(ability to be generalized), and reliability (Yin, 2003, p. 19). Single-case designs are a preferred method to test the
correctness of specific concepts, models, or theoretical frameworks are correct, identify areas of necessary
improvement, or whether some alternative approach will yield a better outcome.
REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES The goal, or output, of many risk assessments found in state and local plans is to provide a comparable
measurement of the likelihood and consequence of every identified hazard in a given community. Although there are
many similarities and differences in the methodological frameworks used to analyze community hazard conditions,
these traditional hazard risk assessment methods can be best described by the spectrum of data sources used to
support the methodology. This spectrum of traditional risk analysis methods is presented in Figure 1. At the most
minimal level, subjective and/or qualitative data provides the foundation of the hazard risk assessment. At the other
side of the spectrum, objective and quantitative data serves as the basis for the hazard risk assessment. Either
methodology, as well as those that lie in between, offers a variety of strengths and weaknesses. At the most basic
level, the many ways by which likelihoods/probabilities and consequences are determined can commonly divided into
two categories of analysis: Quantitative Analyses and Qualitative Analyses.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 7 | P a g e
Figure 1: Spectrum of Traditional Risk Analysis Methods
QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: A qualitative risk assessment methodology is a set of
methods, principles, or rules for assessing risk based on non-numerical categories or levels. Please note that a
typical qualitative risk assessment methodology allows for categories of “low risk,” “medium risk,” and “high risk.”
QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: A quantitative risk assessment methodology set of
methods, principles, or rules for assessing risks based on the use of numbers where the meanings and
proportionality of values are maintained inside and outside the context of the assessment. Please note that while a
semi-quantitative methodology also involves the use of numbers, only a purely quantitative methodology uses
numbers in a way that allows for the consistent use of values outside the context of the assessment.
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY A semi-qualitative risk assessment methodology set
of methods, principles, or rules to assess risk that uses bins, scales, or representative numbers whose values and
meanings are not maintained in other contexts. For example, by giving the "low risk, "medium risk," and "high risk"
categories corresponding numerical values, the assessor used a semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology.
Also note that while numbers may be used in a semi-quantitative methodology, the values are not applicable outside
of the methodology, and numerical results from one methodology cannot be compared with those from other
methodologies.
LIKELIHOOD RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: A likelihood risk assessment methodology is an estimate of
the potential of an incident or event's occurrence. Please note the following:
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 8 | P a g e
1) Qualitative and semi-quantitative risk assessments can use qualitative estimates of likelihood such as high,
medium, or low, which may be represented numerically but not mathematically. Quantitative assessments use
mathematically derived values to represent likelihood.
2) The likelihood of a successful attack occurring is typically broken into two related quantities: the likelihood that
an attack occurs (which is a common mathematical representation of threat), and the likelihood that the attack
succeeds, given that it is attempted (which is a common mathematical representation of vulnerability). In the
context of natural hazards, likelihood of occurrence is typically informed by the frequency of past incidents or
occurrences.
3) The intelligence community typically estimates likelihood in bins or ranges such as "remote," "unlikely," "even
chance," "probable/likely," or "almost certain.”
4) Probability is a specific type of likelihood. Likelihood can be communicated using numbers (e.g. 0-100, 1-5) or
phrases (e.g. low, medium, high), while probabilities must meet more stringent conditions.
PROBABILISTIC (NON-MATHEMATICAL) RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: A probabilistic risk assessment
methodology is a type of quantitative risk assessment that considers possible combinations of occurrences with
associated consequences, each with an associated probability or probability distribution. Please note that
probabilistic risk assessments are typically performed on complex technological systems with tools such as fault and
event trees.
PROBABILITY (MATHEMATICAL) RISK ASESSMENT METHODOLOGY: A mathematical probability risk
assessment methodology is a mathematical representation of likelihood that is expressed as a number between 0
and 1, where 0 indicates that the occurrence is impossible and 1 indicates definite knowledge that the occurrence
has happened or will happen, where the ratios between numbers reflect and maintain quantitative relationships.
Please not the following:
1) Probability (mathematical) is a specific type of likelihood estimate that obeys the laws of probability theory.
2) Probability is used colloquially as a synonym for likelihood.
Conducting a THIRA should be recognized as a process which consists of a number of steps. While
there is great diversity in the detailed approaches and methodologies used, all risk assessments share
some common characteristics. The essential steps are hazard identification, including information
gathering; a thorough understanding of the hazard in context to the jurisdiction; an estimation of
probabilities and occurrence; and an evaluation of the impact or consequence of the hazard relative to a
jurisdictions vulnerabilities and capacities.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 9 | P a g e
Models and
Methodologies Summary Pros Cons Note
MIL-STD 882D
Hazard Risk
Assessment Model
The methodology acknowledges
quantitative data, but is mostly a non-
numeric and qualitative process that
looks at frequency of the event and
severity of the impact
The assessment methodology allows one
to assign a mishap risk assessment
value to a hazard based on severity and
probability.
Mishap risk assessment values are often
used in grouping individual hazards into
general categories; however, they do not
control for risk perception or offer
substantial detailed analysis that is accurate
and reliable
The reason this methodology is
noted here is that although many
local and state risk assessment
methodologies do not specifically
attribute this model, many utilize the
basic premise of this process in
conducting their risk assessments.
PRI Method
The PRI model uses the following
weighted formula to determine the
overall risk valued:
PRI Value = (Probability x .30) + (Life
Impact x .35) + (Property Impact x .25)
+ (Spatial Extent x .10).
The PRI model provides some level of
objectivity, and is a systematic approach
to classifying and prioritizing hazard
risks. Also, the requirement to weigh
certain variables suggests a more
localized approach to assessing hazards
in a given jurisdiction.
The PRI admittedly is not a rigorous and
scientifically-based formula. While the PRI
model is used throughout the nation, the
formula itself and weighting of
variables/factors is inconsistent and not
standardized.
.
A number of mitigation plans use the
PRI method to determine hazard
risk.
Kaiser-
Permanente
Relative Risk
Technique
also known as the
Hazard Vulnerability
Analysis (HVA)
The Kaiser-Permanente Relative Risk
Technique utilizes two basic steps.
First, the probability of a hazard is
assigned a low, medium, or high value.
Then the severity of this hazard is
evaluated based on magnitude and
mitigation. Magnitude is the impact on
people, property, and businesses.
This methodology provides a systematic
approach to recognizing hazards that
may affect demand for or its ability to
provide services. The risks associated
with each hazard are analyzed to
prioritize planning, mitigation, response
and recovery activities.
The methodology does not offer substantial
rigor to control for risk perception. It also
does not incorporate key variables of
community vulnerability.
The hazard risk methodology is
primarily utilized for hospitals.
UCLA Hazard Risk
Assessment
Instrument
The USCLA Model utilizes a basic risk
formula of [Risk = Hazard *
(Vulnerability – Resources)] which
incorporates the following steps:
Step 1: Probability of Mishap
Step 2: Severity of Consequences
Step 3: Scoring the Consequences
Step 4: Risk Analysis
Provides a quantifiable foundation for
additional planning and specifies
potential losses so that communities are
able to prioritize funding and
programming.
The Hazard Risk Assessment Instrument
(HRAI) focuses on the identification of
potential hazards, vulnerabilities, and
resources in the community from a public
health perspective.
Disaster planning rests upon risk
assessment, which includes a
determination of the propensity of
things to be damaged (vulnerability)
and an assessment of the
community resources that will
diminish impact. Thus, vulnerability
to hazards and community
resources work against each other.
Factor Analysis This methodology essentially takes a Factor analysis provides a more inductive This assessment methodology is very One of the biggest debates with
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 10 | P a g e
Models and
Methodologies Summary Pros Cons Note
(Cutter, Boruff, &
Shirley, 2003;
Rygel, O’Sullivan
&Yarnal, 2005)
comprehensive list of possible
indicators for vulnerability. This
methodology originally started with
over 250 variables of social
vulnerability, which were later reduced
to 85 after testing for multicollinearity.
Eventually, this number was further
reduced to 42 independent variables.
approach to indirectly determine the
validity and correlation of these indicators
with respect to social vulnerability.
complex and thus its practical application is
limited. The methodology does not
incorporate an analysis of capability or
capacity to manage the hazard threat. It
also may be difficult to utilize or apply the
results from the factor analysis in other
applications (i.e. GIS).
respect to assessing vulnerability is
whether or not indicators are
theoretically tested and valid.
Z-Score Analysis
(Zahran et al.,
2008; Wu, Yarnal &
Fisher, 2002)
Z-Score Analysis is a simple statistical
procedure that measures how many
standard deviations the data are above
or below the mean. Although different
variations of z-score analyses are
utilized, Zahran et al. (2008) and Wu,
Yarnal and Fisher (2002) standardized
each of their vulnerability measures
and summed them in order to assess
socially vulnerable populations in their
respective study area.
Although a simple statistical procedure,
using Z- scores allows one to more
readily standardize and combine
individual variables into a much broader
category. It also facilitates easier
comparison and application into spatial
analysis.
It provides an easy and standardized way
to compare vulnerability between study
areas, such as counties. It also facilitates
easier application into other analysis
tools like GIS.
Because the study of vulnerability is still
relatively new, some may feel it is rather
presumptuous to deductively select
vulnerability variables as indicators of
vulnerability. Until these individual
indicators can be theoretically tested and
understood, researchers should take
extreme caution when selecting possible
variables.
While both researchers’ articles
used z-scores, it should be noted
that the study conducted by Zahran
et al. (2008) simply used z-scores to
reflect variations of vulnerability.
Wu, Yarnal and Fisher (2002),
however, used a modified
methodology by first defining the
value of each social variable by
dividing it by the maximum value for
a specific county.
Percentile Rank
(Flanagan et al.,
2011)
Percentile rank is another simple
statistical procedure to descriptively
show the percentage of scores in a
frequency distribution.
Using percentile rank is an easy way to
descriptively compare and contrast levels
of vulnerability and to show the variation
and levels of vulnerability in each
jurisdiction.
Developers offer no explanation as to how
ranks were determined, so the assumption
is that it could have been done qualitatively
or quantitatively. This approach seemed
much more simplistic than the
aforementioned methodologies. This
methodology also is more of a deductive
approach, and one might question its
theoretical application and relevance.
Flanagan et al (2011) used this
procedure to simply rank, from
highest to lowest, the level of
vulnerability in each county.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 11 | P a g e
CHALLENGES WITH CONTEMPORARY RISK
METHODOLOGIES AND PRACTICES Many states and communities have recently recognized that a true picture of risk and vulnerabilities is difficult to
effectively and accurately achieve through self-assessments and modeling of vulnerabilities and consequences. Past and
recent research on this paradigm provides insight into not only the root cause of these phenomena, but also provides a
foundational framework that will ensure a successful risk assessment project.
When conducting risk analyses through self-assessments it is
important to recognize that an individual’s perception of risk and
what the consequences of a particular activity, such as
immediacy of threat, numbers affected, potential damage, or
disruption of daily activities, are influenced by the assessor’s 1)
personal experiences of, exposure to, familiarity of, and
orientation to the hazard or its potential impact, 2) subjective
determination of what may be a level of acceptable risk, 3) the social, cultural and psychological components that are used to
judge what may be acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk; and 4) the social amplification or attenuation of risks because
of popular modern media (Tobin and Montz, 1997; Kasperson et al, 1988; Coburn, Spene, and Pomonis, 1991; Slovic, 1987;
Starr, 1969; Fischhoff et al, 1978; Fischhoff, Lichtenstein, Slovic, Derby, and Keeney, 1981). It is further recognized in the
scientific community that risk cannot be represented objectively by a single number, a definitive data set, or specific
parameters, and that risks cannot be ranked on strictly objective grounds (Simonovic, 2011). The multidimensional
perspectives of risk perception show that the assessment and evaluation of risks is a multidimensional process that cannot be
measured in purely statistical or objective terms.
“It is further recognized in the scientific community that risk cannot be
represented objectively by a single number, a definitive data set, or specific
parameters, and that risks cannot be ranked on strictly objective grounds.
The multidimensional perspectives of risk perception show that the
assessment and evaluation of risks is a multidimensional process that
cannot be measured in purely statistical or objective terms”
This discussion leads to a contemporary debate among professionals and scholars as to whether the emphasis of
risk assessment and vulnerability analysis should be on the process or methodology. Assessing a community’s hazard risk is
very complex endeavor and must consider a multitude of direct and indirect impacts that often depend on community
conditions, hazard types, and severity of the event. It is argued by some that quantifying and developing definitive measures
of potential hazard impacts is extremely challenging, if not impossible. It is also recognized by others that, similar to planning,
the identification and evaluation of risks must include a strategy to include constructive planning practices that allow for
consensus building, information exchange, social proof, and an environment that fosters on-going collaboration and shared
situational awareness. Conversely, it is also recognized that subjective risk assessment processes lack adequate rigor to
Challenge Reliability of Self Assessments
Methodological
Issue: Multi-dimensional perspectives of risk
Solution:
Reliability increases when assessment
involves proven processes and an
established methodology
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 12 | P a g e
control for bias, analyst perception, and possible agenda setting. In reality, a risk assessment that involves processes and an
established methodology will provide a means to not only inform, but to also build consensus and collaboration, and ensure
accuracy, validity, and increased reliability of the findings.
Figure 1: Vulnerability Analysis & Risk Assessment Strategy
There has been growing attention of the
importance of thoroughly understanding pre-disaster
vulnerabilities and incorporating this knowledge into the risk
assessment process. Past research has shown that
disasters are social constructs and that large-scale hazard
events exacerbate the preexisting conditions of the
community. This finding provides clarity that a community’s
hazard risks is a function not only of a community’s
vulnerability and potential hazard impact, but also provides
support that consideration must be made to evaluate the
capabilities and capacities to manage potential impacts.
These direct and cascading impacts from disaster are
increasing because our communities are becoming
increasingly complex and interconnected. When disasters
happen they have a cascading impact on a community and
its residents, essential services, and critical assets.
Challenge Limited Knowledge Base of Community
Vulnerability as it Relates to EM
Methodological
Issue:
Although there is significant
understanding of how a community’s
physical and social vulnerabilities relate to
exposed hazard risk, there has been
limited investment in understanding
community characteristics that can either
elevate or reduce a community’s
vulnerability
Solution:
Research efforts of the ISC team has
resulted in the creation of a library of
indicators and measurement tools that
evaluate community vulnerability,
capability, and capacity.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 13 | P a g e
Although incorporating the vulnerability, capability, and cascading impacts in a risk assessment is complex, it is imperative to
include these relationships into the methodology to ensure the precision and usefulness of the outputs. Understanding these
interdependent relationships can assist in evaluating what the direct and potential indirect impacts may be in order to provide
a shared situational awareness that can be used for operational, hazard, and agency or community-specific planning.
Although there has been significant investment in
understanding the quantitative constructs of social and
physical vulnerability to hazards, this knowledge exists in
disciplinary silos and often without consideration of the
interconnectedness of networks and void of the scientific
evidence and knowledge offered by the emergency
management discipline (Kemp and Martin, 2011). Disaster
and risk management involve a complex system of
relationships between people, infrastructures, and
environment that are interconnected, transcend across
broad networks, and whose vulnerability and their cascading
impacts are associated to different hazards in different ways (Simonovic, 2011). This in part lays the challenge of employing
models to provide a simplified representation of real-world processes and conditions. Although simulation models play an
important role in integrated disaster management and are great tools to geographically represent risk, simulation models such
as HAZUS-MH or other GIS-based mathematical expressions of risk require quantitative inputs, definitive algorithmic
relationships between variables, and rules that govern the systematic controls. Because of the operational control of these
systems, the complexity of the relationships between the quantitative and qualitative measurement of risk, and the limited
definitive empirical evidence of those variables that best measure community hazard vulnerability, model uncertainties can
arise from oversimplification or from the failure to capture important characteristics of risk. Model uncertainties lead to
imprecision and unreliability of the outputs. According to Siimonovic (2011), the sources of model uncertainty include
surrogate variables (substitution of variables for quantities that are difficult to assess), excluded variables (variables deemed
insignificant in a model), approximation (model generalizations of variables and their relationships), and correctness (the
applicability of the model in accurately representing the real world conditions of the intended audience). These sources of
uncertainty are vital when considering the use and appropriateness of simulation models to assess community hazard risk.
GIS-based simulation models alone are not dynamic enough to evaluate the complexity of measuring and interpreting
community hazard risk, and thus often provide unreliable outputs that are void of the qualitative and quantitative
considerations that emergency managers must incorporate into preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts.
A third condition that creates a challenge in establishing a
true picture of risk and vulnerability: the limited
understanding and knowledge of the interconnectedness of
community vulnerability and its relation to hazards and
emergency management operations. Over the past decade,
there has been significant investment in understanding the
attributes of the social and physical indicators of community
vulnerability; however, there has been minimal investment in
1) identifying the community-level indicators that define
specific conditions that enhance a community’s
vulnerability, and 2) exploring the interconnection of these
vulnerability types and how they relate to emergency
Challenge Accuracy of Modeling
Methodologic
al Issue:
Limited empirical data and the complexity
of relationships and interconnectedness of
vulnerabilities, impacts, and hazards
makes quantitatively, data-driven models
imprecise and unreliable by themselves
Solution:
Methodology must incorporate quantitative
and qualitative measurements that are
significant to the emergency manager
Challenge Interconnectedness of Community
Vulnerability and EM Operations
Methodologic
al Issue:
The limited understanding and knowledge
of the interconnectedness of community
vulnerability and its relation to hazards and
emergency management operations.
Solution:
Methodology must provide an output that
can accurately and reliably guide EM
operations and provide context to the
potential impacts of core capabilities of
comprehensive emergency management.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 14 | P a g e
management operations. Understanding these additional conditions of community vulnerability can have
a positive or negative influence on community vulnerability and provide insight into the community’s ability to cope with and
manage disasters and context to the potential impact of core capabilities. Furthermore, this additional layer of analysis can
elevate our understanding of direct and cascading impacts and improve the reliability and accuracy of the hazard risk
assessment. Over the past several months, the research has resulted in significant scientific revelations in identifying
indicators and methods for measuring the hazard vulnerability of specific community conditions, assessing the community’s
capability and capacity to act, and evaluating the interconnectedness of vulnerability relative to natural, technological and
political hazard threats. This contribution to new knowledge will not only improve the focus of the community vulnerability
analysis, but also enhance the methodology, process, and output of the hazard risk assessments.
While many risk assessment methodologies focus mostly on the hazard itself, and vaguely address factors related to
a community’s vulnerability and capacity, exposure alone to a hazard is not enough to result in loss of life and property. For
losses to occur, Alesch and Petak (2001) argue that the force of the hazard must “exceed the ability of structures to withstand
them” (p. 2). In other words, for losses to occur, exposed assets, including humans, must be vulnerable to the forces exerted
on them by that particular event. Nevertheless, the vulnerability of a specific locale or edifice can be reduced if adjustments
are made to recognize and cope with that hazard prior to the event, which is the impetus for comprehensive emergency
management and conducting a thorough THIRA.
WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A THIRA? As a general rule, when conducting a risk assessment, one should recognize the four basic steps offered by FEMA (2001).
They are: identify hazards, profile the hazard, inventory assets, and estimate losses. Because these steps are broad, there
are a number of methodologies that can be utilized to assess a jurisdiction’s
risk.
“The information and data that informs the risk
analysis process should be used to support,
serve as a reference, or even validate program
and operational considerations; and, should
ultimately improve the decision making of those
involved in comprehensive emergency
management activities”
Important Attributes of a Successful
Risk Assessment
1. Framework Consistent with Comprehensive EM
2. Be Applied Uniformly Across All Hazards
3. Informs and Guides Other Program Activities
4. Scalable & Flexible Design 5. Incorporates Thorough Vulnerability
Analysis 6. Evaluates the Interconnectedness of
Cascading Impacts 7. Ensures Compliance 8. Builds in Efficiencies 9. Methodology Ensures Reliable and
Accurate Outputs 10. Involves Process that Encourages
Consensus and Participation
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 15 | P a g e
It is commonly recognized throughout the field of emergency management that the hazard analysis and risk
assessment provide the core foundation of a comprehensive emergency management program and a framework to guide and
inform preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts for all hazard threats. It should be noted, however, that a
thorough risk assessment and vulnerability analysis has much greater usefulness than a simple output of hazard risk
prioritization. The information and data that informs the risk analysis process should be used to support, serve as a reference,
or even validate program and operational considerations; and, should ultimately improve the decision making of those
involved in comprehensive emergency management activities. Additionally, a comprehensive risk assessment and
vulnerability analysis should offer efficiency by providing a strategy that is scalable, flexible, and compliant with state and
federal grant, administrative programs, or legal requirements that guide program measures and activities. By developing a
scalable and flexible, yet consistent, methodological framework, the risk assessment and vulnerability analysis can be applied
uniformly from one community to the next, and for each hazard. By utilizing a common framework and methodology, state and
federal jurisdictions can then more easily and accurately integrate local assessments into a comprehensive state-wide,
regional, or federal risk management strategy.
Also, independent of the methodology, a THIRA that is thorough and achieves DHS’s all hazards “Whole Community”
objective may consider the following:
Fundamental Component of Comprehensive Emergency Management: It is well recognized that the hazard
analysis and risk assessment provide the core foundation for a comprehensive emergency management program. The
hazard analysis and risk assessment should provide a framework for preparedness, response, recovery, and
mitigation/protection.
Scalable and Flexible: The objective of a risk methodology is to devise a systematic process to compare and evaluate
which natural, technological, and political hazard are the greatest threats to a jurisdiction. A consistent, yet scalable,
methodology will provide a common operational picture that can be applied uniformly from hazard to hazard or community
to community.
Community Vulnerability: Past research has shown that hazards exacerbate preexisting conditions of the community.
This finding provides clarity that a community’s hazard risk is a function of a community’s vulnerability and its relation to
the hazard threat. Understanding the vulnerability conditions of a community can provide additional insight for emergency
managers and aid in the development of operational planning considerations.
“Past research has shown that hazards exacerbate preexisting conditions
of the community… Understanding the existing vulnerability conditions
of a community can provide additional insight for emergency managers
and aid in the development of operational planning considerations”
Compliance: Although a THIRA provides a critical component of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive emergency
management program, it also fulfills or addresses requirements that are outlined in program guidance or law. For this
reason, it is important to ensure that the THIRA is compliant and consistent with the state and federal grant, program, or
legal requirements that dictate program measures and activities.
Interconnectedness of Impacts: When an event occurs, assessing the impacts is not as clear cut or as simple as
identifying physical damage or economic loss. Our communities are becoming increasingly complex and interconnected.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 16 | P a g e
Often, disasters have a cascading impact on a community, its essential services, and critical assets. The
interconnectedness of our communities make it inherently difficult to definitively assess or measure the impact of a hazard
on a community; but, understanding these relationships can assist in evaluating what the direct and potential indirect
impacts may be in order to provide a shared situational awareness that can be used for operational, hazard, or agency-
specific plans.
Informational Reference for Other Program Activities: A thorough THIRA has much greater usefulness than
developing a situational awareness of a community’s hazard threat. The information and data that informs the analysis
can be used to support, reference, or even validate program consideration, preparedness activities, decision making,
response operations, recovery efforts, and mitigation cost-benefit analyses.
All Hazards Framework: To ensure a consistent framework, the methodology must have the ability to be uniformly
applied to all hazards. Differences in the hazard’s impact area, amount and severity of damage, duration of the event,
and direct and indirect economic impacts make it difficult to develop accurate values that can be universally applied to
each hazard category. Therefore, the risk methodology developed must consider not only the probability of the event
occurring but also the potential physical, economic and social impact to the community.
Consensus Building: A risk assessment is a critical first-step of establishing a community’s preparedness program,
coordinating with key partners and team building. An important element of developing a unified methodology is to
incorporate constructive planning practices that allow for consensus building, social proof, and collaboration.
Controlling Risk Perception: It is commonly recognized that perception and past experience often drives a
community’s risk assessment. Contemporary events or the analyst’s past experience or perspectives can influence the
hazard identification and risk assessment. This bias can have a negative effect on the validity and accuracy of the
analysis.
Process vs. Methodology: Assessing a community’s hazard risk is very complex and must consider a multitude of
direct and indirect impacts that often depend on community conditions, hazard types, and severity of the event. It is
argued by some that quantifying and developing definitive measures of potential hazard impacts is extremely challenging,
if not impossible. It is also recognized by others that, similar to planning, the identification and evaluation of risks is more
about the process than the methodology. In reality, a risk assessment that involves processes and an established
methodology will ensure accuracy, validity, and reliability.
CASE STUDY In the fall of 2011, Miami-Dade County, Florida embarked on a project to
develop a countywide, comprehensive and objective, risk assessment
and vulnerability analysis in order to provide a solid baseline
understanding of the risks faced throughout Miami-Dade County as
well as a shared awareness of the County’s existing capabilities and
resource gaps. The ultimate purpose of the Threat and Hazard
Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) is to provide a holistic
understanding of Miami-Dade activities and investments toward
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 17 | P a g e
managing a range of potential threats and hazards.
This project resulted in the development of a sophisticated, research-based
THIRA of Miami-Dade County. This assessment was supported by a
rigorous methodological process that incorporates over 70 community
indicators of community vulnerability and capability that are supported by a
library of over 300 scientifically-based measurements that are used to
reliably and accurately assess the County’s risks to natural, technological,
and political hazards. The consequence that each hazard might have on the
County was assessed according to a set of categories, such as capabilities, vulnerabilities, and existing conditions within the
County. These categories allow for a comprehensive, yet more focused, view of Miami-Dade’s risks and supported by
indicators and sub-indicators, such as socio-economic status, age, medical capacity, residential displacement, critical
infrastructure, and research-based indicators of community vulnerability. Differences in the hazard’s impact area, amount and
severity of damage, duration of the event, and
direct and indirect economic impacts make it
difficult to develop empirical values that can be
universally applied to each hazard category.
Therefore, the risk methodology used by Miami-
Dade considered not only the probability of the
event occurring but also the potential physical,
economic and social impact to the community.
Miami-Dade County’s progressive THIRA project
resulted in a robust 420-page report and hazard
risk evaluation tool that reliably and accurately
analyzes the county’s vulnerabilities and potential
impacts from all hazards. Miami-Dade’s THIRA is, in
essence, a dynamic planning tool that is commonly used to
establish an accurate and scalable situational awareness of
the County’s all hazard risks, establish a consistent
common operational picture of Miami-Dade’s pre- and post-
disaster conditions, and identify effective methods to
elevate the County’s preparedness, response, recovery,
and mitigation program efforts. The innovative and
progressive efforts of the Miami-Dade Department of
Emergency Management Team have served as a
methodological catalyst for other THIRAs around the United
States and can serve as an example for other communities around the world.
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Project: Threat Hazard Identification & Risk
Assessment
Address: 9300 NW 41st Street; Doral, FL 33178
EM Director: Curt Sommerhoff
Project Leads: Jonathan Lord, Charles Cyrille
Project Duration: Oct. to Dec. 2011
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 18 | P a g e
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
To ensure success, as well as the reliability, and the accuracy of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment and Vulnerability
Analysis, it is imperative to not only thoroughly understand the methodological challenges of conducting hazard risk
assessments, but also have
1) a thorough understanding of analyzing community vulnerability,
2) access to the latest scientific findings and growing body of knowledge of this emerging science, and
3) the ability to articulate these complexities, challenges, and solutions in a clear, concise and consistent manner.
A reliable and accurate community hazard risk assessment approach is an essential element and provides essential
community intelligence for the modern emergency management. Thus, the risk assessment must offer accuracy and reliability
with methodological rigor that utilizes specific inputs to control for the influence of risk perception, yet allow for a degree of
flexibility so to incorporate community-specific cultural conditions, the expertise of local resources, and consensus building.
Furthermore, the risk assessment must identify the potential impacts that each hazard might have on that jurisdiction
according to the characteristics of the hazard and its trends, vulnerabilities of the jurisdiction, the capabilities and capacities of
the jurisdiction, and mitigation efforts.
This study provided for the discovery of methodological considerations that should be incorporated into the THIRA process.
The THIRA Methodological Considerations described below provides a comprehensive planning framework that relates a
community’s vulnerability to its hazard threats. Furthermore, these considerations will offer a balance of methodological rigor
and efficiency. This rigor is necessary to control for bias of risk perception that may influence the assessment, offer uniformity
for all hazards, incorporates best planning practices, provide accurate and reliable results that will help guide and direct an
organization’s comprehensive emergency management program, and provide a strategy that can be easily maintained and
updated.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 1: Conduct a Community Profile The Community Profile includes basic demographic, historical, cultural, environmental, and other relevant community data.
The purpose of including a Community Profile is to ensure that the THIRA is based on a common situational understanding of
the community, including recent trends or changes. This provides basic community knowledge necessary to accurately
complete and inform portions of the Vulnerability and Capability Assessments.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 2: Identify and Profile Hazards The second methodological consideration is to identify real and potential hazards that may impact the jurisdiction. Due to
DHS’s emphasis on terrorism, both natural and manmade hazards and threats should be included in this assessment. The
THIRA provides a profile of the hazards and any relevant data, when available. This includes data pertaining to historical
occurrences and trends, frequency/probability, magnitude, scale, and damages. This methodological consideration provides
the data and hazard knowledge necessary to accurately complete and inform portions of the Hazard Assessment &
Consequence Evaluation, which will be completed in the following stages of the THIRA process.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 3: Conduct Analysis of the Community’s Vulnerability, Capability, Risk
and Resiliency
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 19 | P a g e
To ensure accuracy and reliability of a community’s Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, a methodological tool
or model should be used to uniformly assess vulnerability, capability, and hazard risk; control the influence of bias and risk
perception, provide a methodological foundation that can be utilized in other preparedness efforts, and a framework that can
be easily maintained and updated. This model should also serve as a dynamic planning tool that utilizes proven hazard
analysis strategies and processes to build partner consensus, ensure uniformity, and provide results that are operationally
significant. The research team identified a number of input parameters consisting of hazard profiles, economic, social, and
physical community vulnerabilities and other special community concerns. These inputs can be assessed and evaluated to
determine the risk to the community from a specific or multiple hazard threat(s). The ideal output is a prioritized indication of
research-based planning risk considerations that can be incorporated into the community’s comprehensive preparedness
efforts, providing a foundation that will increase programmatic efficiency, operational effectiveness, and a unified common
operational picture.
In Methodological Consideration 3, each major category and sector-specific area should be assessed to determine their
overall vulnerabilities. Although the specific metrics of measurement will depend on the indicator being evaluated, these
measurements are categorized into five broad categories. The categories of measurement include: general vulnerabilities,
hazard-specific, sector-specific (e.g. energy, airport, commercial building, etc.), condition specific (community’s current
economic conditions, social connectedness, environmental conditions, etc.), and capabilities and capacities (e.g. involvement
with preparedness activities, county capabilities to meet needs, satisfaction of service, commitment to mitigation, etc).
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 3a: Social Vulnerability Analysis
While many definitions of social vulnerability exist, this concept can be broadly viewed as the characteristics of a person or
group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recovery from the impact of a hazard
or threat. Social vulnerability can also be looked at as the susceptibility of social groups to the impacts of hazards, as well as
their resiliency or ability to adequately recover from them. It should be noted that susceptibility is not only a function of
demographic characteristics, but also more complex factors such as health care provision, social capital, and access to
lifelines. The community social vulnerability index developed evaluates the hazard risk exposure of special population types,
socio-economic conditions, and cultural conditions using over 48 indicators and 128 measurements of open-source data.
Social Vulnerability Index
Number of Index Indicators Identified
48
Methods of Measurement 128
Sample of Indicators
SPECIAL POPULATIONS Children Disabled CULTURAL CONDITIONS Household Types Literacy SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Income
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 3b: Community Conditions Vulnerability Analysis
Community-level indicators are measures of conditions within a community that allow the County to better understand how the
community and its vulnerabilities may be impacted during a hazard event. A community is a complex system of many
interconnected components. This assessment is not meant to capture this system in its entirety, but rather to focus on specific
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 20 | P a g e
categories of indicators. The Community Conditions Vulnerability Analysis focuses specifically on seven (7) broad categories
which are comprised of over 40 indicators of community vulnerability and 150 measurements.
Community Conditions Vulnerability Index
Number of Index Indicators Identified
43
Methods of Measurement 152
Sample of Indicators
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Revenue Labor Force SOCIAL CONDITIONS Pets and Animals ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Preserved Areas Wetlands/Coastal GOVERNMENTAL CONDITIONS Resource Availability SPECIAL PROPERTIES Historic Properties INSURANCE
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 3c: Physical Vulnerability Analysis
The physical vulnerabilities of a community consist of the tangible assets, or built environment, that residents depend upon to
provide shelter, facilitate connectivity of the community, and the provision of goods and resources. The built environment
provides the setting for human activity, ranging in scale from personal residential structures and buildings to neighborhoods
and cities that can often include their supporting infrastructure, such as transportation networks, energy or water
systems. The physical vulnerability analysis index can be used to evaluate the community’s critical infrastructure, key
resource assets, and building stock’s risk exposure to hazard using over 60 indicators and 180 measurements.
Physical Vulnerability Index
Number of Index Indicators Identified
62
Methods of Measurement 188
Sample of Indicators
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Energy Water/Wastewater Treatment KEY RESOURCES Universities Healthcare Facilities BUILDING STOCK Public Buildings Housing Stock (i.e. mobile homes)
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 21 | P a g e
The Physical Vulnerability Index is consistent with programs such as DHS’ National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and
the Stafford Act’s disaster assistance programs FEMA’s Public Assistance. Providing programmatic consistency of the
physical vulnerability index will allow for easy integration and import/export of open source datasets such as DHS’s Automated
Critical Asset Management System (ACAMS), FEMA’s Hazard-US (HAZUS), and other GIS-friendly tools and products.
Additionally, the physical vulnerability analysis should be easily expanded to incorporate a more detailed assessment of CI|KR
at the asset, system, cluster, or sector level. This more detailed analysis can enhance the accuracy and reliability of the
THIRA’s output and findings.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 3d: Community Capability and Capacity Analysis In Methodological Consideration 3d requires for the THIRA to incorporate a community-level capability and capacity
assessment. Assessment queries should be incorporated as part of the THIRA Assessment Tool to measure and assess the
jurisdiction’s capacities. Here, the assigned response/rating to each question is driven by local expertise and knowledge if
actual data is not readily available for any given indicator.
Capability & Capacity Index
Number of Index Indicators Identified
62
Methods of Measurement 188
Sample of Indicators
DISASTER EXPERIENCE POLITICAL CAPACITY COORDINATION CAPACITY DHS CORE CAPABILITIES
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 4: Hazard Assessment & Consequence Analysis Methodological Consideration 4represents the culmination of the previous steps in assessing each specific hazard based on
the following criteria: Frequency/Probability, Magnitude and Scale, Human Impact (i.e. injuries and fatalities), Damages,
Vulnerability, Capabilities/Capacities, and Mitigation. When possible, hazard data from recognized data sources is used to
inform this assessment, as indicated in Consideration 2. To ensure programmatic efficiency, the data sets should be
categorized to represent the “last 5 years” in order to support FEMA’s mitigation directive to update the plan every 5 years. In
addition to providing local data, the assessment also includes state and national data, when feasible, in order to provide a
comparative mechanism.
To ensure consistency with commonly recognized finding that disasters exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities and
conditions, findings from the previous sections (i.e. vulnerability and capability/capacity analysis) should serve as the baseline
score for each hazard during this phase of the assessment process in determining the potential hazard-specific impacts.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 5: All-Hazard Risk Assessment Summary At the most fundamental level, both DHS and FEMA recognize that Risk is equal to Frequency and/or Probability X
Consequence (R = F × C). More specifically, risk is based on the premise that in order to have a certain level of risk, there
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 22 | P a g e
must be a probability or likelihood for that event to occur. Likewise, if the event does occur but there is no impact or
consequence, the level of risk is negated or substantially reduced.
Whereas measuring frequency/probability of a hazard is straightforward, defining and measuring "consequence" is
more complex. At the most basic level, "consequence" is an assessment of the potential impact(s) if the attack or hazard
event actually does occur. In this assessment, the consequence of an event (or the impact) will be interdependent on the
following factors: vulnerabilities (i.e. social, physical, and community conditions), capabilities and capacities, mitigation, and
the characteristics (i.e. magnitude, scale, etc.) of the hazard event or attack itself. Again, the frequency/probability of the
hazard is not included in assessing the “consequence” because without the event, there is no consequence or impact. The
All Hazard Risk Assessment Summary section is simply a summary of the jurisdiction’s risks and the factors that contributed
to the overall risk score for each hazard based on the above framework. Each of the previous sections contributes to the total
scores for each category.
The greater the rigor used in the methodology, the more reliable the output and the more effective the jurisdiction’s
preparedness efforts will be. Each category can then be analyzed during operation-specific, program-specific, or hazard-
specific planning efforts to ensure an accurate understanding of situation and conditions and thus reliable plan development.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 6: Hazard Impact Modeling & Evaluation The output generated from a community’s THIRA provides a fundamental building block for any emergency management
program that can aid in establishing a shared situational awareness of a community’s hazard threats, their impacts, and
capability to manage the event. This understanding can be incorporated into GIS-based simulation models that are more
accurate and provide operationally relevant information.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 6a: Model Community Impacts By utilizing Methodological Considerations 1 through 5 to provide context, models can be created using contemporary
programs such as FEMA’s HAZUS-MH, US EPA’s ALOHA, or any other publicly or privately offered GIS modeling program.
These models will offer spatial context to the potential impacts of specific hazard types and, together with the more detailed
analysis described above, can offer greater accuracy of GIS-based simulation models and the inclusion of community-specific,
real-world conditions.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 6b: Develop Planning Considerations Based on the Effects of Core
Capabilities
The previous methodological considerations above can be leveraged into the development of generalized and community-
specific planning considerations and the accurate evaluation of the resource needs and the potential hazard effects on DHS’
core capabilities of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION 6c: Analyze Potential Impacts on DHS Core Capabilities
As prescribed by DHS’ CPG 201, communities are expected to establish targets of each core capability based on the greatest
impact of a community’s hazard profile. Setting capability targets becomes more accurate and reliable when using the
information outputs obtained from the previous steps of this methodology.
While the proposed methodological considerations fall within the parameters of the accepted DHS framework, a
comprehensive risk assessment approach should utilize specific inputs in order to get a more reliable and realistic assessment
of risks in the jurisdiction being studied. The impacts that each hazard might have on the jurisdiction should be assessed
according to the characteristics of the hazard and its trends, vulnerabilities of the jurisdiction, the capabilities and capacities of
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 23 | P a g e
the jurisdiction, mitigation efforts, and the potential impact to the community’s core capabilities. The diagram below depicts
the best-practice methodology and its key steps that were developed as a result of this study.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 24 | P a g e
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 25 | P a g e
ABOUT THE CEMR FOUNDATION The Comprehensive Emergency Management Research (CEMR) Foundation is a consortium of dedicated and esteemed
researchers, practitioners, and students that represent a variety of disciplines with complementary perspectives of
comprehensive emergency management. The Foundation for CEMR will serve as an advocate for the advancement of the
profession by promoting research and linking the theoretical and practical applications of the study. The Foundation for
CEMR will guide activities, policies, and practices of comprehensive emergency management through applied research and
advocacy. The mission of the Foundation for CEMR is to provide a catalyst that advances and improves comprehensive
emergency management. This vision is accomplished by offering a forum that connects researchers and professionals world-
wide and provides members with a venue to:
1. Share interests in various research topics
2. Collaborate, share, and distribute within the disciplinary and multiple disciplinary perspectives
3. Promote and develop solutions that bridge the theoretical and practical applications of comprehensive emergency
management, and
4. Create and support an active community dedicated to advancing the profession of emergency management
through research and new knowledge
The Foundation for CEMR is governed by a Board of Directors and will oversee the activities of the CEMR Network.
The CEMR Network (http://www.cemr-network.org) is a free, online platform that connects emergency management
researchers, practitioners, scholars and organizations from around the world to share interests in various research topics and
distribute information within the disciplinary and multi-disciplinary perspectives. Members can share and collaborate through
the use of discussion forums, interactive chats, blogs, post videos, and share feeds on issues related to comprehensive
emergency management research. The CEMR Network (CEMRN) offers its members the following services:
• Connect to over 1,000 feeds from credible and scholarly sources related to various comprehensive emergency
management research topics. Sign up to receive weekly CEMR Network Broadcasts.
• Stay Informed on the latest emergency management events, news, publications, research contributions, and
opportunities. Visit the CEMR Disaster Blogs and get informed of and share information on numerous disasters
including the 2011 Japan Earthquake & Tsunami, 2010 Australian Floods, and the 2011 Midwest Floods.
• Collaborate with the growing number of emergency management professors, researchers, students, and
practitioners from 32 countries (and growing) around the world.
• Participate by creating or joining focused CEMR Groups that are empowered by the latest e-Forum technologies
and over 253 apps (and growing). There are currently twenty-two groups with topics ranging from community disaster
recovery to social media in disasters. Create your own community to collaborate on topics that interest you and your
colleagues.
• Integrate your professional life by providing a forum to share resources, consolidate information, and manage your
social media life by interfacing with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or MySpace accounts. Broadcast your discussions,
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 26 | P a g e
blogs and posts to our growing number of followers on numerous social media applications.
• Mobile access is now available to members that are on-the-go. View CEMR Network Activity, update your ‘My
Page’, view Member Pages, and participate in the discussion forums from your mobile phone with the CEMR
Network app.
• Translate any page on the CEMR Network to your language of choice. Be able to communicate and collaborate with
others from around the world despite possible language barriers.
A Growing and Open Research Community that is Dedicated to Advance the Profession by Bridging the Theoretical
and Practical Applications
Since its launch in 2009, the CEMR Network has grown to 1,511 members from 42 countries and is represented by 104
universities and 21 research centers, institutes and laboratories. Our CEMR Network Broadcasts reach an audience of over
20,000 professionals worldwide. We are proud to have a collaborative network with such diversity and expertise. We are very
appreciative of everyone's continued collaboration, contributions to comprehensive emergency management research, and
advancing the profession by bridging the practical and theoretical applications of this important discipline.
Join Today, Its Free! Visit: http://cemr-network.org
Read More About This Topic: http://cemr-network.org/forum/topics/thira
Visit the CEMRN Risk and Vulnerability Research Group:
http://cemr-network.org/group/riskandvulnerability
Summary of CEMR Network Membership
CEMR Network Members 1511
CEMR Network Broadcast Audience 20,000+
Average Years Experience 15.8
Countries Represented 42
Universities Represented 104
Research Centers, Institutes and Laboratories 21
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 27 | P a g e
ABOUT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS
Integrated Solutions Consulting (ISC) is comprised of a complementary group of professionals whose skill sets are based on a
mix of academic achievement and proven experience. The skill sets range from a wide variety of fields necessary to offer a
complete and comprehensive delivery of technical expertise on any emergency management related project, especially risk
assessments. This includes skills like engineering, public safety, public health, telecommunications, environmental
engineering, criminal justice, hydrology, sociology, and other fields. When these skills are combined with emergency
management experience, your assessments can be conducted with greater efficiency and quality.
“Emergency Management Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Perspective and Approach In Order to Capture the True Complexities of the Hazards
Impacting Our Communities”
Although education is highly valued at ISC, we recognize that providing seasoned, real-world professionals is an important
component of delivering our clients comprehensive solutions that work. Our consultants range from young professionals with
several years of consulting experience to seasoned professionals with over 25 years of experience. This blend of experienced
knowledge and new perspectives offers our clients with a value-added team to support our client’s varying needs and a broad
spectrum of project engagements.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Performance Rating
Average Years of Experience: Graduate Degrees: Doctoral Degrees:
16 50% [Sample Degrees: Public Health, GIS, Public Administration, Sociology, Homeland Security] 25% [Sample Degrees: Emergency Management]
✓ Reliability 97% ✓ Cost 95% ✓ Order Accuracy 95% ✓ Timeliness 97% ✓ Quality 97% ✓ Business Relations 98% ✓ Personnel 99% ✓ Customer Support 98% ✓ Responsiveness 98%
Disciplinary Expertise:
Emergency Manager, Sociologists, Criminal Justice, Public Administrators, Engineers, Environmental Scientists, Planners, Architects, Public Health Scientists
Certifications:
CEM®, CHS®, Master Exercise Practitioner, Professional Project/Program Managers, Certified Public Manager, Professional Engineer, Certified Floodplain Manager
Explanation:
ISC recently had an independent third party conducted an evaluation of over 70 ISC consulting engagements from coast to coast, and was awarded a Top Supplier Performance Rating. This recognition serves as a benchmark for all of our consulting engagements and as a testimony of our drive for delivering excellence.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 28 | P a g e
OUR SOLUTIONS
Integrated Solutions Consulting, Inc. (ISC) has invested significant resources in the development, update, maintenance, and
improvement of Odysseus™, a web-enabled, electronic platform of tools and resources that enhances our client’s overall
Comprehensive Emergency Management Program. ISC’s Odysseus™ System has been acknowledged as an innovative
solution that utilizes cutting-edge technologies and research to solve the challenges of the modern emergency manager.
Odysseus™ offers users a set of interrelated tools and solutions that are intrinsically linked to the development and
maintenance of an organization’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Program, and can significantly improve and
support the planning process.
Odysseus™, a web-enabled, electronic platform offers users a set of
interrelated tools and solutions that are intrinsically linked to the
development, maintenance, and improvement of an organization’s
Comprehensive Emergency Management Program.
Odysseus™|CEMP Planning & Preparedness System
This web-enabled, cloud-based system is a unique emergency management and
homeland security product that is dedicated to the development and maintenance of
complex emergency plans and comprehensive preparedness. Odysseus™|CEMP
features the unique characteristic of providing standardization and flexibility, and
concurrently utilizes Odysseus™|Committee Manager to promote increased
participation and collaboration. This union greatly increases the preparedness
capabilities by efficiently and effectively enabling emergency preparedness
organizations to design, develop, maintain, and continually improve preparedness
and operations.
Odysseus™|CEMP has proven to be an effective preparedness tool by
demonstrating the following: 1) improvement to overall plan quality and
preparedness, 2) enhancement of collaboration between partners and
increased participation via our Committee Manager tool, 3) provision of
a common operational picture through a common planning structure,
and 4) identification and assessment of preparedness gaps.
Odysseus™|CEMP provides jurisdictions with an emergency
management planning and preparedness system that facilitates the
integration of comprehensive and department-specific emergency
planning doctrine in a consistent and operational format.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 29 | P a g e
Odysseus™|CVR2 “THIRA” Model
The Community, Vulnerability, Risk & Resiliency (CVR2) Model serves as a dynamic planning tool that utilizes proven hazard
analysis strategies and processes to build partner consensus, ensure uniformity, and provide results that are operationally
significant. CVR2 operates by utilizing a number of input parameters consisting of hazard profiles, economic, social, and
physical community vulnerabilities and other special community concerns. These
inputs are assessed and evaluated to determine the risk to the community from a
specific or multiple hazard threat(s). The output of the CVR2 Model is a prioritized
indication of planning risk considerations that can be incorporated into the
community’s comprehensive preparedness efforts, providing a foundation that will
increase programmatic efficiency, operational effectiveness, and a unified common
operational picture. The CVR2 Model is a culmination of over 100 years of
emergency and disaster management knowledge, and incorporates over a decade
of research of hazard risk assessment methodologies by several of the nation’s
premier disaster researchers.
The CVR2 Model is a culmination of over 100 years of emergency and
disaster management knowledge, and incorporates over a decade of
research of hazard risk assessment methodologies by several of the nation’s
premier disaster researchers.
The Odysseus™|CVR2 Model incorporates ISC’s
Vulnerability & Capability Index Tool, providing the emergency
management analyst with a framework to ensure programmatic
compliance with the Department of Homeland Security’s Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources program, Public Law 106-390, the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and FEMA’s Community-Based
Approach. The Vulnerability & Capability Index Tool allows for the
sophisticated analysis and the development of community
considerations that address the unique needs of the community, and demonstrate the inter-
and cross-dependency between the community’s vulnerabilities and hazard threats.
The Vulnerability & Capability Index Tool is a data-driven, assessment
tool that evaluates community vulnerabilities, program achievements, operational
capabilities and capacities, and hazard threats in a user-friendly, web-based
[POINT AND CLICK] platform. The Vulnerability & Capability Index Tool is
designed to build consensus, control for the influence of user risk perception, and
serve as a validation for resource needs, success, and improvement. The
Vulnerability & Capability Index Tool’s robust and user-friendly interface allows for
easy and efficient update as the community changes and adapts to its hazard
vulnerabilities.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 30 | P a g e
Gain Access to ISC’s Solutions
For more information on our solutions, visit:
www.odysseus-isc.com/
For more information on Integrated Solutions Consulting, please visit:
www.i-s-consulting.com
or contact us at:
Phone: 877.437.4271
E-mail: [email protected]
Integrated Solutions Consulting, Inc. (ISC) is a NAICS-defined small business focused on developing and implementing
comprehensive crisis and consequence management solutions for governments, municipalities, hospitals, schools, and private
non-profits. The principles of ISC are based on the scientific and operational fields of emergency management, homeland
security, law enforcement, health, and environmental sciences; and supported by our reputation of providing exceptional
professional consulting services.
A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA
Research Commissioned By: 31 | P a g e