Loss Avoidance Analysis
Carly A. Foster, CFM - ARCADIS
Joy Duperault, CFM – State of Florida Floodplain Manager
2012 ASFPM Conference
May 20 – 25 • San Antonio, Texas
Emergency Management Time Horizon
Preparedness
Response
Recovery
Mitigation / Resiliency
Sustainability
Where on this spectrum does public sentiment
and the will to make political expenditures lie?
“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.”
Citizen Competence and Government Accountability:
Voter Responses to Natural Disaster Relief and Preparedness Spending 2009
So, to paraphrase a question posed on a
LinkedIn message board…
“How do we encourage more action to
prevent this from happening?”
From the Same Report:
There is a Surge in Support for Mitigation…
• 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.”
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
Loss Avoidance Analysis Results Can
Show…
• 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 Assessment as Part of a
System Communicating the Value of Mitigation
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.”
REQUIREMENT
§201.5(B)(2)(IV)
Enhanced status has meant
millions in extra funding for the
State of Florida.
Where We’ve Been…
• Tropical Storm Fay
• North Florida Flood
Events
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
Florida’s Method
POST DISASTER LOSS AVOIDANCE
ASSESSMENT FOR BUILDING
MODIFICATION PROJECTS
A Review of National Studies Revealed…
• Limited project utility
• High data demands
• Engineers and higher
levels of technical
expertise
• Presumably high costs
Florida’s Objectives
Simplification
Automation
Replication
Defensibility
Ease of Implementation
Long-term Tracking of Results
How We Pursued Them…
• Detailed Literature Review
• Data Requirement Analysis
• Process Streamlining
• Automation
• Engineer QAQC
Where We’re At…
• Project Record
Keeping and Data
Needs
• Event Data
Collection and
Processing
• Loss Avoidance
Calculator
• Report Development
Tools
• Technical Details
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 Data
Because 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
Losses avoided can be calculated for one
event or multiple events (life of structure)
March 28, 2012
Carly Cermak FFMA
Nominal vs. Real Dollars
• Nominal – Current to year
• Real – normalized to today’s dollars (This is
done in three different ways in the calculator)
Nominal Losses Avoided
Nominal Expected and Actual Losses
March 28, 2012
Carly Cermak FFMA
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
Objectives Accomplished
Simplified
Automated
Replicable
Defensible
Long-term Tracking of Results
Questions?
Contacts
Joy Duperault - FDEM
Joy.Duperault@em.myflorida.com
Carly Foster – Technical Questions
Carly.Foster@arcadis-us.com
850-228-6979
Thank you!!