Evaluating the Quality of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Based on Hazard Identification, Risk, and Vulnerability Assessments

Abstract

U.S. State Hazard Mitigation Plans (SHMPs) identify hazards, locate jurisdictional vulnerabilities and risks, and prioritize state hazard mitigation actions. As environmental hazards become more prevalent and costlier due to climate change, these mitigation plans and activities serve as critical decision-making tools for disaster risk reduction. This investigation systematically evaluates all fifty SHMPs on Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) quality. This assessment of HIRA quality examines three elements: (1) adherence to FEMA HIRA requirements; (2) incorporation of social vulnerability analysis; and (3) risk assessment methodology. The evaluation considers the new FEMA requirements and additional best practices to illustrate necessary improvements as states undergo revisions for their next SHMP update. Results find that most states meet a majority of FEMA’s plan requirements. Still, only twenty-seven SHMPs examine either social vulnerability or hazard risk at the sub-state level, and only seven states consider both. Ignoring sub-state variability in vulnerability and hazard risk can lead to misunderstanding true hazard risk at the local level, inequitable mitigation planning, and higher rates of future loss among underserved populations. Plans that employ a quantitative risk scoring methodology score higher on average, serving as best practice examples for SHMP improvement.