-Reference the attach document In the Jurisdictional Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) Short Essay, students will begin the process of deconstructing the jurisdictional CEMP that they hav

Running head: LOCAL HAZARD JUSTIFICATION PLAN 0

Local hazard justification plan

Tragedies can lead to death; buildings and infrastructure damage; and shocking consequences for well-being of a community’s social and economy. Hazard justification is the effort of reducing property and life loss by lessening disaster’s impact. In other words, mitigation of hazard limits natural hazards from disasters. This justification is accomplished best when based on CEMA plan before any disaster striking (Borough, 2015). This plan is used by local leaders and the state so as to fully understand natural hazard’s risks and coming up with strategies that will curb events of the future with regards to property, people and the environment. This paper will focus on analysis, deficiencies’ elaboration and improvement areas. It will also point areas that require updates to keep the plan current.

The planning process involves three categories i.e. Public involvement, assessment of risk and strategy of mitigation. To commence with public involvement, planning comes up with a way to ask and deliberate diverse interests’ input, and promotes a more disaster-resilient community’s discussion (Lyles et al., 2014). Stakeholders getting involved is a necessity to building plans’ community-wide support. To add on emergency managers, other government agencies, groups of civic, businesses, schools and groups of environmental are involved in the planning process.

The next category is risk assessment and here plans of mitigation identify risks and natural hazards that based on historical experience, disaster’s magnitude and frequency estimation and life and property potential losses, impacts a community. According to Berke et al (2012), the process of risk assessment provides an accurate basis for proposed activities in strategies of mitigation. Going on to the last category which is mitigation strategy that is based on inputs of the public, identified risks, and capabilities that are available. Goals and objectives developed by the community are as part of plan for mitigating losses related to hazard. The strategy is an approach of the community for mitigation activities implementation which are technically feasible, cost-effective and sounds well in the environment.

Deficiencies

Deficiencies are like challenges that face mitigation planning even if there are agreements in benefits and goals of this planning. Below are some of the deficiencies related to mitigation planning:

Lack of significant mitigation actions – mitigation being a part of emergency management cycle linked through protection, prevention, response and recovery as its focus is to come up with a unique strategy that will prevent natural hazards hence reducing hazard risk (Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, 2015). However, because planning of mitigation is made possible by funding post-disaster that is available, and managed by local agencies of management, the plans tend to concentrate on activities that are prepared and are response-related instead of sustained, long-term strategies of mitigation.
Lack of implementation and integration- when plan development is not within a comprehensive, complete approach to management of risk, the results is failure of integration into governmental planning tools and mechanisms. On the contrary, this lack of integration in one way or another, affects implementation and the plan remains worthless (Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, 2015). The mitigation plan is efficient in curbing the natural risks but when it is not active, the risks are still likely to strike.
Lack of participation- stakeholder engagement and minimal public are those who conduct planning of local mitigation. A lack of participation from these stakeholders often leads to a less effective plan or it could only meet minimum requirements of the planning. By not engaging the public and stakeholders, planners miss enhancing mitigation plan opportunity.

Recommendation (updates)

Some of the ways recommended for mitigation planning are:

Development of early plan encouragement- mitigation sustainable challenges occur due to lack of resources and time within communities so as to keep the momentum acquired during development of plan. Al-Nammari & Alzaghal (2015) suggested that, On-going maintenance encouragement and update procedure of early plan in advance of expiration dates of the plan will give high opportunities to enhance and preserve stakeholders’ relationships, mechanisms review, and public engagement in process of mitigation planning.
Increase awareness of the public and engaging stakeholders- in order to come up with a comprehensive approach, plan developers and leaders of the community should develop relationships with other people to endorse several programs’ planning. Such integrations will assist in maximizing efficiencies and boost support and commitments of local to the process of planning. A strategy of public outreach should be developed when increasing public awareness.
Meaningful and attainable activities focus- while mitigation planning are routinely managed by the federal, emergency management should act as development and mitigation planning organization leaders whenever possible (Lyles et al., 2014). Planners are trained often and skilled in managerial of every planning process similar to the main one and will have knowledge of opportunities that are important to integration with mechanisms of other local planning.

Conclusion

Local mitigation plan is a strategic method that employs comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) to curb hazardous risks (Borough, 2015). The managerial plan is integrated with stakeholders as well as strategies for its function and although it is effective, it at times experience challenges. Some of them are mentioned above together with alternatives of controlling it. To crown it all, this plan is important to local mitigation process based on available evidences.

References

Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). A comparison of local hazard mitigation plan quality in six states, USA. Landscape and urban planning, 122, 89-99.

Berke, P., Smith, G., & Lyles, W. (2012). Planning for resiliency: Evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans under the disaster mitigation act. Natural Hazards Review, 13(2), 139-149.

Al-Nammari, F., & Alzaghal, M. (2015). Towards local disaster risk reduction in developing countries: Challenges from Jordan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, 34-41.

Borough, F. N. S. (2015). Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.