Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Loss Avoidance Analysis Carly A. Foster, CFM - ARCADIS
Joy Duperault, CFM – State of Florida Floodplain Manager
2012 ASFPM ConferenceMay 20 – 25 • San Antonio, Texas
Emergency Management Time Horizon
Preparedness Response Recovery Mitigation / Resiliency Sustainability
Floodplain Managers
Where on this spectrum does public sentiment and the will to make political expenditures lie?
Citizen Competence and Government Accountability:Voter Responses to Natural Disaster Relief and Preparedness Spending 2009
“Using data on natural disasters, government spending, and election returns, we show that voters reward the incumbent … for delivering
disaster relief spending but not for investing in disaster preparedness (and mitigation) spending.
These inconsistencies distort the incentives of public officials, leading the government to underinvest in disaster preparedness (and
mitigation), thereby causing substantial public welfare losses.”
“How do we encourage more action to prevent this from happening?”
So, to paraphrase a question posed on a LinkedIn message board…
• When the potential costs of inaction are clear
AND
• Post-disaster
BUT, there is also “Some… evidence that governments may be able to take action to make preparedness
salient to voters in a more permanent fashion.”
From the Same Report:
There is a Surge in Support for Mitigation…
What is loss avoidance?
EXPECTED DAMAGE WITHOUT MITIGATION
– DAMAGE EXPERIENCED WITH MITIGATION
– COST OF MITIGATION
LOSS AVOIDANCE
Benefits = (Hypothetical) Avoided Damage + Avoided Costs + Avoided Loss of Service
• Flood Mitigation is important
AND
• Money spent on flood mitigation is money well spent
At a time when the message may be most likely to come across loud and clear
Loss Avoidance Analysis Results Can Show…
Loss Avoidance Assessment as Part of a System Communicating the Value of Mitigation
REQUIREMENT §201.5(B)(2)(IV)
The State must “document the system and strategy by which the State will conduct an
assessment of the completed mitigation actions and include a record of the
effectiveness (actual cost avoidance) of each mitigation action.”
Enhanced status has meant millions in extra funding for the State of Florida.
• Tropical Storm Fay
• North Florida Flood Events
Where We’ve Been…
• Record-keeping was inadequate– Difficult to find sites in damage swath– Many project files already archived– Original local project managers often gone– Owners may be new– Best available data often lacking
AND
• The methodology was primitive
What We Discovered…
• Record-keeping was inadequate– Difficult to find sites in damage swath– Many project files already archived– Original local project managers often gone– Owners may be new– Best available data often lacking
AND
• The methodology was primitive
POST DISASTER LOSS AVOIDANCE ASSESSMENT FOR BUILDING MODIFICATION PROJECTS
Florida’s Method
• Limited project utility
• High data demands
• Engineers and higher levels of technical expertise
• Presumably high costs
A Review of National Studies Revealed…
• Limited project utility
• High data demands
• Engineers and higher levels of technical expertise
• Presumably high costs
SimplificationAutomationReplication
DefensibilityEase of Implementation
Long-term Tracking of Results
Florida’s Objectives
• Detailed Literature Review
• Data Requirement Analysis
• Process Streamlining
• Automation
• Engineer QAQC
How We Pursued Them…
• Project Record Keeping and Data Needs
• Event Data Collection and Processing
• Loss Avoidance Calculator
• Report Development Tools
• Technical Details
Where We’re At…
The Building Modifications Calculator
Staff Input
Other costs/ losses (annual maintenance, lost tax revenue, etc.) not shown here.
The Value of Electronic Project Data
Robust Vs. Limited DataBecause older project files can exist in varying levels of
completeness…
• Some fields are not required, but add to the robustness of the calculations
• Data can be gathered in a variety of ways• Simply keep track of where data was gathered from• For example:
– Elevation data?– Building data?– Project Cost?– Yearly or other costs?
FEMA’s Preferred Flood Elevation Sources
March 28, 2012 Carly Cermak FFMA
Losses avoided can be calculated for one event or multiple events (life of structure)
• Nominal – Current to year
• Real – normalized to today’s dollars (This is done in three different ways in the calculator)
Nominal vs. Real Dollars
Nominal Losses Avoided
Nominal Expected and Actual Losses
March 28, 2012 Carly Cermak FFMA
• A building damage of 50 percent or more would result in demolition (default value specified in FEMA’s BCA Riverine Flood-Full Data Module).
• Like others, our depth damage tables don’t take velocity or sediment deposits into consideration. This translates to conservative measurements.
• Only financial costs are considered.
Assumptions• A building damage of 50 percent or more would
result in demolition (default value specified in FEMA’s BCA Riverine Flood-Full Data Module).
• Like others, our depth damage tables don’t take velocity or sediment deposits into consideration. This translates to conservative measurements.
• Only financial costs are considered.
Benefits of Florida’s Method• Communicates value
• Facilitates communication of urgency
• Due to automation and limited need for expertise, does not add significantly to the cost of mitigation
• Works into current PDA process
• Simple and comprehensive
• Can help identify mitigation best practices and, hence, facilitate future project selection
• Captures longitudinal benefits and can provide the net present value of a project
SimplifiedAutomatedReplicableDefensible
Long-term Tracking of Results
Objectives Accomplished
Questions?
Thank you!!
