If Mitigation Saves $6 per Every original="y" Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue

Melanie Gall, Carol J. Friedland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper provides an accounting of where and when mitigation and recovery investments have occurred in Louisiana, thereby generating a mitigation investment portfolio for the state. An exploratory data analysis of FEMA OpenData sets, supplemented by data on disaster damage and recovery, was conducted to develop a portfolio of mitigation actions implemented in the State of Louisiana since 1989 and to calculate damage to mitigation and recovery to mitigation expenditure ratios. Not surprisingly, Louisiana relies heavily on funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which it largely spends on home elevations and acquisitions with limited utilization of other mitigation actions. Our analysis of Louisiana expenditures shows that, on average, residents suffer nearly $260 in direct disaster losses for every invested in mitigation and the federal government spends $10 on recovery for every invested in mitigation. At these levels, mitigation investments are ineffective and/or insufficient in stabilizing the state's damage trajectory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number04019013
JournalNatural Hazards Review
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2020

Fingerprint

damages
mitigation
Recovery
disaster
expenditures
Disasters
Federal Government
grant
data analysis
funding
utilization
acquisition
resident
Hazards
Trajectories
damage
expenditure
trajectory
hazard

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

If Mitigation Saves $6 per Every original="y" Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue. / Gall, Melanie; Friedland, Carol J.

In: Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 04019013, 01.02.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{98ccc0c1500044c3873df52d7d4a04bd,
title = "If Mitigation Saves $6 per Every original={"}y{"} Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue",
abstract = "This paper provides an accounting of where and when mitigation and recovery investments have occurred in Louisiana, thereby generating a mitigation investment portfolio for the state. An exploratory data analysis of FEMA OpenData sets, supplemented by data on disaster damage and recovery, was conducted to develop a portfolio of mitigation actions implemented in the State of Louisiana since 1989 and to calculate damage to mitigation and recovery to mitigation expenditure ratios. Not surprisingly, Louisiana relies heavily on funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which it largely spends on home elevations and acquisitions with limited utilization of other mitigation actions. Our analysis of Louisiana expenditures shows that, on average, residents suffer nearly $260 in direct disaster losses for every invested in mitigation and the federal government spends $10 on recovery for every invested in mitigation. At these levels, mitigation investments are ineffective and/or insufficient in stabilizing the state's damage trajectory.",
author = "Melanie Gall and Friedland, {Carol J.}",
year = "2020",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000342",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
journal = "Natural Hazards Review",
issn = "1527-6988",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - If Mitigation Saves $6 per Every original="y" Spent, Then Why Are We Not Investing More? A Louisiana Perspective on a National Issue

AU - Gall, Melanie

AU - Friedland, Carol J.

PY - 2020/2/1

Y1 - 2020/2/1

N2 - This paper provides an accounting of where and when mitigation and recovery investments have occurred in Louisiana, thereby generating a mitigation investment portfolio for the state. An exploratory data analysis of FEMA OpenData sets, supplemented by data on disaster damage and recovery, was conducted to develop a portfolio of mitigation actions implemented in the State of Louisiana since 1989 and to calculate damage to mitigation and recovery to mitigation expenditure ratios. Not surprisingly, Louisiana relies heavily on funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which it largely spends on home elevations and acquisitions with limited utilization of other mitigation actions. Our analysis of Louisiana expenditures shows that, on average, residents suffer nearly $260 in direct disaster losses for every invested in mitigation and the federal government spends $10 on recovery for every invested in mitigation. At these levels, mitigation investments are ineffective and/or insufficient in stabilizing the state's damage trajectory.

AB - This paper provides an accounting of where and when mitigation and recovery investments have occurred in Louisiana, thereby generating a mitigation investment portfolio for the state. An exploratory data analysis of FEMA OpenData sets, supplemented by data on disaster damage and recovery, was conducted to develop a portfolio of mitigation actions implemented in the State of Louisiana since 1989 and to calculate damage to mitigation and recovery to mitigation expenditure ratios. Not surprisingly, Louisiana relies heavily on funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which it largely spends on home elevations and acquisitions with limited utilization of other mitigation actions. Our analysis of Louisiana expenditures shows that, on average, residents suffer nearly $260 in direct disaster losses for every invested in mitigation and the federal government spends $10 on recovery for every invested in mitigation. At these levels, mitigation investments are ineffective and/or insufficient in stabilizing the state's damage trajectory.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075808303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075808303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000342

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000342

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85075808303

VL - 21

JO - Natural Hazards Review

JF - Natural Hazards Review

SN - 1527-6988

IS - 1

M1 - 04019013

ER -