a study of community hazard risk assessment methodologies: … · 2020. 7. 24. · risk assessment...

A Study of Community Hazard Risk Assessment Methodologies: Practical Challenges and Methodological Solutions for THIRA

Research Commissioned By: 0 | 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.



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;



• 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.



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



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



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.



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:



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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


43



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


62



CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Energy Water/Wastewater Treatment KEY RESOURCES Universities Healthcare Facilities BUILDING STOCK Public Buildings Housing Stock (i.e. mobile homes)



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


62



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



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



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.



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,

http://www.cemr-network.org/



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



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.



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.



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.



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: … · 2020. 7. 24. · risk assessment...

Documents