Listing 1 - 3 of 3 |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
Effective risk communication is necessary to reduce the billions of dollars in damage and hundreds of fatalities that occur yearly from floods in the United States. The purpose of this report is to help Department of Homeland Security officials identify ways to improve protective action flood guidance in response to growing flood risks that continue to cause adverse effects and threaten lives and property. Drawing on a review of academic and grey literature, authors used a conceptual framework, which was operationalized to review Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s flood protective action guidance through the lens of a social-ecological model—comprising individual, relationship, community, and societal factors. Authors then took a broader look at risk communication best practices to collect principles that could help improve the effectiveness of flood risk communication, and developed recommendations for implementation. This study resulted in key findings and related recommendations that should help FEMA improve its flood communication strategy and messaging. First, components of the social-ecological model can be used to understand how people respond to protective action guidance and to develop a communication strategy tailored to the needs of the target audience. Second, partnering with the community can improve communication, which requires a reciprocal relationship between the organization seeking to communicate and the intended audience. Third, establishing flood messaging standards, including general readability, can help build an understanding of how messages might interact and be received by different audiences and can guide the development of messages that are more likely to result in protective action.
Choose an application
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) launched the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program to award predisaster mitigation grants. FEMA asked the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) to develop metrics—quantitative measurements of important concepts—that can inform decisionmaking for the BRIC program. Building from discussions with program leadership, a review of stakeholder comments, and a close reading of BRIC's legal requirements, the authors established three lines of effort (LoEs) for analysis. The indirect benefits line reviewed published measurement techniques and blended them into instructions for an input-output simulation model that better measures the full benefit to a community of mitigating an asset. The applicant institutional capability (AIC) line reviewed analogous research and interviewed subject-matter experts to develop a checklist for assessing the ability of applicants to propose or execute mitigation projects, focusing on staff retention, skills, and experience, as well as management capacity and technical capacity. The community resilience line developed an assessment framework based on BRIC's legal requirements, discussions with BRIC leadership, and standard best practices in measurement. Then, the LoE conducted a preliminary review of published resilience metrics, highlighting the potential value of action-based community resilience metrics for performance evaluation, population-based metrics for equity evaluation, and building code–based metrics as needed to improve statutory compliance. Each LoE produced a metric or framework for assessing metrics that could support BRIC grant decisionmaking and program performance evaluation. The report concludes with 11 recommendations for FEMA to consider.
Choose an application
The Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) was tasked with using the National Risk Management Center's (NRMC's) National Critical Function (NCF) risk assessment framework to assess risk to each NCF and complete individual risk analyses for the 55 NCFs. The NRMC also requested that HSOAC perform additional tasks, including providing a report on emerging lessons learned from risk management efforts to limit the impact and disruption that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had on the 55 NCFs. This report presents insights into best practices in risk assessment; challenges in the implementation of the NCF risk assessment framework to characterize risk to critical infrastructure associated with the COVID-19 pandemic; recommendations for improving the framework; and suggestions for further characterization of NCFs' interdependence, vulnerability, and geographic variation that could improve risk assessment processes.
Listing 1 - 3 of 3 |
Sort by
|