U9D1-60 S1 - Ethics: Protection of Human Participants - See Detail Questions.

Identificationofvulnerablepopulationsfordisastermitigationplanning-AnOhiostudy.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >U9D1-60 S1 - Ethics: Protection of Human Participants - See Detail Questions.

IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABLE POPULATIONS FOR DISASTER

MITIGATION PLANNING: AN OHIO STUDY

Russell J. Decker

MICHEAL KEMP, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

DEAN LARSON, PhD, Committee Member

CHARLES TIFFIN, PhD, Committee Member

John Darland, PsyD, Interim Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

September 2014

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3645126 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3645126

Abstract

Every jurisdiction in the United States is vulnerable to some type of natural disaster.

Within every jurisdiction are persons at elevated risk to the impact of disaster due to age,

disability, language barriers, economic barriers or other factors. Mitigation planning is an

important process used by local emergency managers to save lives and reduce damage.

This study extends earlier research conducted by the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill (Horney et al., 2013) that surveyed county emergency managers in Atlantic

coastal states about the inclusion of vulnerable populations in the mitigation planning

process. This study surveyed 82 county emergency managers in Ohio as to their

mitigation planning process and its inclusion of and engagement with vulnerable

populations. Using an online survey instrument, data obtained was analyzed using

ANOVA and t-test tools. While 87.5% of respondents in this study express satisfaction

with the quality of their mitigation plans, only 72.5% indicate that their plan somewhat or

substantially meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Jurisdictions that had experienced

a disaster of a magnitude to warrant a Presidential Disaster Declaration within the past

five years were three times more likely to engage stakeholder groups representing

vulnerable populations than were those jurisdictions that had not experienced a recent

major disaster. Some vulnerable populations including persons with language barriers,

education barriers and transportation disadvantaged were not engaged by any of the

respondents to the research. Additional research to identify how emergency managers

determine which vulnerable populations to include in the planning process would be a

logical extension of this study.

Acknowledgements

To paraphrase the classic 1970s Grateful Dead lyric, what a long, strange trip this

doctoral journey has been. Along this journey several persons have offered support and

guidance at every turn. My mentor, Dr. Micheal Kemp, has demonstrated extreme

patience through the process and his positive attitude was essential in keeping the journey

on course. Committee member Dr. Dean Larson was that little voice that kept challenging

me to perform at my very best. And Dr. Charles Tiffin helped from my very first step,

providing the guidance and encouragement to embark and ultimately achieve my doctoral

degree. Thank you, all.

iii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my loving and supportive wife, Anne Decker, and to the

memory of my father, Floyd Decker, and brother, Mike Decker, who both believed that

anything is possible if you’re willing to work for it.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of Problem 1

Theoretical Framework 4

Background of Study 7

Purpose of Study 8

Research Questions 9

Assumptions and Limitations 10

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study 13

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 14

Introduction 14

Theoretical Orientation for the Study 15

Review of Research and Methodological Literature 18

Review of Methodological Literature 22

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 24

Research Design 24

Restatement of Research Questions and Hypotheses 25

Sample 26

Instrumentation 27

Data Collection 28v

Data Analysis 29

Ethical Considerations 30

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 31

Introduction 31

Description of the Sample 32

Presentation of Data and Results of Analysis 34

Hypotheses Testing 39

Summary 40

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 42

Introduction 42

Summary of Results 43

Discussion of Results 45

Discussion of the Conclusions 46

Implications for Practice 47

Limitations 49

Recommendations for Further Research 50

REFERENCES 52

APPENDIX A. DATA COLLECTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT 63

APPENDIX B. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA OF SAMPLE POPULATION 71

List of Tables

Table 1. Hazards Posing Greatest Threat 35 Table 2. Stakeholder Group Engagement in Planning Process 36 Table 3. Extent of Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process 37 Table 4. Elected Officials View Importance of Mitigation Planning 38 Table 5. Hypotheses Testing 39

vii

List of Figures

Figure B1. What is Your Title? 71 Figure B2. Approximate Percentage of County’s Budget Allocated To Hazard Mitigation 71 Figure B3. Number of Full Time Equivalent Staff Members Responsible For Implementing Hazard Mitigation Planning 72

viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Every jurisdiction within the United States is vulnerable to natural disasters of

some type, whether that is flooding, hurricanes, winter storms, tornadoes, drought, hail,

severe thunderstorms, volcanic activity, earthquakes, mudslides, wildland fires, and

more. As society develops and further sustains an existence that is subject to exposure to

these natural hazards, this co-existence between society and natural hazards results in

every community finding itself vulnerable to disaster. Within every community exist

certain populations at elevated risk or more vulnerable to the impact and consequences of

these natural hazards. In order to lessen the severity of such consequences to these

vulnerable populations, state and local government jurisdictions are encouraged to

engage in natural hazards mitigation planning by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA, 2013).

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Pub. Law 106-390) requires that all states

and local governments have a mitigation plan to address natural hazards within their

jurisdictions in order to maintain eligibility for certain federal programs. Planning

guidance from FEMA also urges more comprehensive, all-hazards, mitigation planning

process to include man-made hazards such as hazardous material releases and acts of

terrorism. (Ohio EMA, 2014). Despite this requirement, nearly one-third of the nation’s

counties do not currently have approved mitigation plans (Miller, 2014).

Statement of Problem

The profession of emergency management, while still in its relative infancy when

compared to other more established professions such as sociology, criminal justice and

public administration (Blanchard, 2007), is making progress in the fusion of scholarly

research and practical application. Since the research of Oyola-Yemaiel and Wilson

(2005) and Kreps (1994), the structural theory of emergency management is widely

recognized as the first generation of emergency management scholarship (Kemp et al.,

2013). Scholars and practitioners have been actively working to synthesize the research

and theories advanced into practical instruments and methodology for use by emergency

managers in the field (Drabek, 1986, 2009; Quarantelli, 2000; Tierney et al., 2001,

Waugh, 2007).

The impact of disaster on society has increased in recent years through a

combination of factors including urban sprawl and increased populations (Bharosa, et al,

2010; Janssen, et al, 2010), along with an increased appreciation for vulnerable

population sub-groups. Vulnerable populations are those segments of society deemed

most at risk to experience adverse effects from natural and man-made hazards due to

socio-economic, physical, mental, language, literacy or other barriers (Drabek, 1986;

Quarantelli (2000); Tierney et al., 2001; Horney et al., 2013).

Defining the term vulnerable populations can be problematic. This sub-group of

society has been labeled as vulnerable, handicapped, disabled, at risk, special needs,

functional needs, and access impaired. Organizations that include FEMA, Department of

Health and Human Services, Federal Department of Education, the International

Association of Emergency Managers and others have all contributed to a constant

evolution of terminology (Drabek, 1986; IAEM, 2014; Quarantelli, 2000; Tierney et al.,

2001). For the purpose of this study the term vulnerable populations will be utilized in

order to remain consistent with terminology in the Horney study (2013).

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012, FEMA has

urged improved disaster preparedness at the local level (FEMA, 2013). Among

weaknesses identified in current planning efforts is the identification of vulnerable

populations (Berke, Cooper & Salveson, 2010; Isralowitz & Findlay, 2009; Greenberger,

2007). In their original structural theory of emergency management (Kreps et al., 1994),

research argued that the pre-disaster and post-disaster processes are interrelated. In other

words, the success or failure of post-disaster disaster response and recovery is directly

proportionate to the pre-disaster assessment, planning and mitigation.

State and federal officials require local emergency managers identify vulnerable

populations for inclusion in each jurisdiction’s Emergency Operations Plan (FEMA,

2012) and hazard mitigation plans (FEMA, 2013). Development of local emergency

operation plans and hazard mitigation plans comes with no standardized methodology for

identifying vulnerable populations and leaves to the discretion of local officials the

determination of what population subgroups are to be considered vulnerable (FEMA,

2012). This discretion leads to inconsistency and the potential that some vulnerable

populations will not receive adequate disaster assistance due to weaknesses in individual

jurisdictional plans.

Researchers have identified mitigation planning at the local level as an important

source of vulnerable identification (Horney et al., 2013, Tootle, 2009). This study on

mitigation planning contrasts the results of the Horney study of rural counties in eight

southeastern states (within FEMA Region IV) to the responses of local emergency

managers from mixed demographics or urban, suburban and rural in the state of Ohio

(within FEMA Region V) in the Midwestern United States. Research from this study

demonstrates a potential need to further expand this study to other regions across the

United States.

Theoretical Framework

Scholarly research into the field of disasters and disaster preparedness dates back

to the Prince 1920 study of the 1917 Halifax explosion (Scanlon, 1988). An increase in

research began in the 1950s and has escalated to current times through the works of

Kreps (1984), Drabeck (1986), Quarantelli (2000) and Tierney, et al. (2001). As the

research continues, the focus becomes more specific to the widely acknowledged four

phases of emergency management to include preparedness, response, recovery and

mitigation (Baird, 2010; FEMA, 2014; Neal, 1997; Waugh, 2000). Presidential Policy

Directive-8 (The White House, 2011) reaffirmed the previous phases of emergency

management and added a prevention phase. Research has also examined the social,

political, and economic effects of disaster (Lindell et al., 2006, Tierney et al., 2001) and

the use of mitigation planning as a means to lessen that impact.

Structural Theory

Lacking of specific guidance for local emergency managers responsible for

comprehensive planning to mitigate against the impact of disaster often leads to

inconsistent identification of vulnerable population within a jurisdiction (FEMA, 2012;

Horney et el., 2013, Kaufman, 2012; Miller, 2014). During Congressional hearings on

April 3, 2014 before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency

Management, concerns regarding a lack of specific guidance for mitigation planning were

voiced (U. S. House of Representatives, 2014). The Horney study (2013) also validated

the inconsistency among local emergency managers in the FEMA Region IV Mid-

Atlantic states. This study furthers that research by examining planning practices of local

emergency managers in the FEMA Region V state of Ohio.

The core theoretical foundation embraced by this study was the structural theory

(Kemp, 2007; Krites et al., 1994). This theory professes that assessments and planning

which occurs in the pre-disaster phase of preparedness have a direct impact on the

success or failure of post-disaster response and recovery phases of emergency

management. This research built upon this theory by specifically addressing the

methodologies utilized by local officials in conducting the mitigation-planning phase of

pre-disaster preparedness.

Data was obtained and analyzed in this research study to determine how and to

what extent vulnerable populations in Ohio, as defined in the Horney study (2013), are

identified and their needs anticipated by local government through the development of

hazard mitigation plans. This data was compared with counterparts in the Mid-Atlantic

States. Effective and comprehensive disaster pre-planning has been determined to affect

the success or failure of the response and recovery phases of emergency management

(Dynes et al., 1987; Kemp, 2007; Kreps et al., 1994; Lindell et al., 1992). This

connection between the planning phase of emergency management and the response and

recovery phases reinforces the importance of mitigation planning as well. Scholars have

described the response, recovery, planning and mitigation phases as overlapping and

continuous (Baird, 2010; Waugh, 2000). Comprehensive mitigation planning is a critical

factor in building a foundation for a robust and effective response and recovery (Dynes et

al., 1987; Kemp, 2007, Lindell et al., 1992, Waugh, 2000).

Vulnerability Theory

The vulnerability theory of disasters started with Oliver-Smith (1999) and has

most recently been reaffirmed and expanded upon by Bankoff (2003), Ernarson et al.

(2003), Flanagan et al. (2011) and Tierney et al. (2001). A close relationship exists

between vulnerability and structural disorganization associated with the structural theory.

Ernarson and Flannigan both connect vulnerable to political and economic factors. As it

relates to the extent to which effects of a disaster could harm certain groups, and to lessen

such effect, Tierney (2001) addressed individual and community preparedness and

mitigation planning. The Horney study asserts to extend the alignment of vulnerable from

the traditional physical and mental disabilities to also include personal demographics

such as educational levels, income, access to transportation and language barriers (Blakie

et al., 2011; Horney et al., 2013; Saenz & Peacock, 2006).

Scholars have identified other specific vulnerabilities relating to disaster

preparedness and the effects of disasters to include physical vulnerability (Burton et al.,

1978), agricultural vulnerability (Lindell, 2011), and economic vulnerability (Charveriat,

2000; Rose and Limb, 2002; Tierney, 2006). Early research into disaster vulnerability

focused almost entirely on the physical damage aspects (Hewitt & Burton, 1971). The

vulnerability definition for disaster planning evolved to consider the human risks with

Hewitt (1983), Drabek (1986), Blakie et al. (1994) and Smith (1999).

Theoretical Synthesis

Comprehensive mitigation planning suggests the synthesis of both the structural

and vulnerability theories to ensure that those persons most vulnerable to the impacts of

natural and other disasters are considered and included in the jurisdiction’s emergency

operations and mitigation plans. Structural theory stresses the importance of

comprehensive emergency planning and concludes that such planning has a direct

correlation to the effectiveness of a community’s response to and recovery from a

disaster or major emergency (Kemp, 2007, Waugh, 2009). The vulnerability theory

further addresses the need for comprehensive inclusiveness of those populations most at-

risk to be negatively impacted by disaster. The effect of heightened impact and prolonged

recovery from the effects of disaster due to increased vulnerability among certain

population segments can be intensified due to a lack of inclusion in the planning process

(Flanagan et al., 2011). This failure to embrace this comprehensive approach can result in

unnecessary hardship and delayed recovery in the post-disaster phase of emergency

management (Drabek, 2013; Waugh, 2000).

Background of Study

Vulnerable populations, to include the elderly, economically disadvantaged,

persons with physical or developmental disabilities, language barriers, along with those

with literacy or educational deficiencies are among population segments most at risk to

suffer disproportionately from disasters (Blakie et al., 1994; Drabek, 1986, 2009, 2013;

Tierney, 2006; Horney et al., 2013). Hazard mitigation plans developed by local

jurisdictions that incorporate vulnerable populations are an important strategy to reduce

disaster-related losses (FEMA, 2012). In order for comprehensive mitigation planning,

inclusion and engagement with vulnerable populations is essential (Azar & Rain, 2007;

Bolin, 2006; Burton & Cutter, 2008).

Identification of vulnerable populations in the hazard mitigation process needs to

expand beyond the basic physical vulnerabilities that exist (Hewitt & Burton, 1971.

Blakie et al., 1994). Human, socioeconomic, and agricultural vulnerabilities also need to

be included (Blakie et al., 2011, Charveriat, 2000; Saenz & Peacock, 2006; Tierney,

2006). Comprehensive planning helps avoid unexpected consequences and allows

jurisdictions to better prepare for and mitigate to lessen the effects of disaster (Cutter et

al., 2009; FEMA, 2006; Waugh, 2007).

Consistency in identifying vulnerable populations in all communities is critical to

reducing losses and protecting those persons most at-risk for harm from disaster due to

socioeconomic, education, race, age or language (Blakie et al., 1994; Drabek, 1986, 2009,

2013; Horney et al., 2013). FEMA encourages jurisdictions to engage stakeholder groups

that represent at risk populations into the planning process (FEMA, 2012). This study

expanded upon earlier research to identify the extent that disaster planning included these

special populations.

Purpose of Study

This research examined those populations within a jurisdiction that are vulnerable

to the effects of a disaster (Drabek, 2009; Ernarson et al., 2003; Kemp, 2007). The study

examined the level of engagement in the mitigation planning process experienced by

these populations and measured the extent to which county emergency managers in Ohio

sought stakeholder input into the mitigation planning process.

The purpose of this research was threefold. The three areas included (a)

examination through a systematic review of scholarly literature, previous research and

findings on the identification of vulnerable populations and their inclusion in the

mitigation and emergency planning process; (b) extension of previous research conducted

by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Horney et al., 2013) of the

identification of vulnerable populations for disaster mitigation planning; and (c)

examination through quantitative study of the practices used to identify a vulnerable

population and engagement of this population in the pre-disaster planning process by

Ohio county emergency managers. The results gathered were then compared with the

data collected previously from county emergency managers in the FEMA Region IV

states (Horney et al., 2013). Results were examined to identify similarities and

differences in responses between the Ohio study and the Horney studies.

Research Questions

Based on premises put forth through the structural theory, the effectiveness of

disaster response and recovery is greatly influenced by the information included in the

pre-disaster planning efforts. Vulnerability theory addresses the importance of identifying

those segments of the population vulnerable to the adverse impacts of natural and man-

made disasters. This study examined the identification of vulnerable populations by Ohio

local emergency managers. The study’s primary research questions asked whether

emergency managers in Ohio are satisfied with their identification of vulnerable

populations as compared to the satisfaction level of their counterparts from FEMA

Region IV. The FEMA Region IV local emergency managers comprised rural counties in

the Atlantic Coastal states and provided a contrast to the Midwestern region encompassed

by this Ohio study which included not only rural, but suburban jurisdictions. In this study

and the Horney/University of North Carolina study, the sample population was comprised

of local government emergency managers responsible for mitigation planning for

jurisdictions consisting of a single county (Horney et al., 2013).

The first research question asked about emergency manager’s level of satisfaction

with their jurisdiction’s mitigation plans. Hypothesis 1: There is no difference, on

average, in the level of satisfaction of emergency managers in Ohio with their

jurisdiction’s mitigation plan in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations in their

jurisdictions as compared to their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

The second research question asked whether emergency managers are identifying

numerous and varied vulnerable population groups for emergency planning purposes.

Hypothesis 2: Ohio counties identify more vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do county emergency managers in FEMA Region

IV.

The final research question asked whether more community stakeholder

organizations were utilized to assist in identifying vulnerable populations for emergency

planning when local jurisdictions have experienced a recent major disaster. Hypothesis 3:

Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the past five

years engage more stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than counties that have not experienced a recent presidentially

declared disaster.

Assumptions and Limitations

Theoretical assumptions

Structural theory based on Kreps’ early findings (1994) and reaffirmed by Kemp

(2010) asserts that hazard identification and risk assessments, mitigation and disaster

planning in the pre-disaster phase of preparedness have a direct impact on the success or

failure of the post-disaster response and recovery phases. The vulnerability theory

identifies conditions such as physical and social constraints and political and economic

factors. Additional conditions are identified to include language, education and

transportation barriers as a means of defining and identifying those populations that are

potentially at increased risk from the effects of disaster (Bankoff, 2003; Bolin, 1998;

Enarson et al., 2003; Tierney et al., 2001). Vulnerability theory embraces the concept that

a relationship exists between vulnerability and structural disorder (Kemp, 2007; Oliver-

Smith, 1999).

Topical assumptions

Horney (2013) examined the inconsistency of including key stakeholder

organizations in the process of identifying vulnerable populations in the disaster

mitigation planning process. Hazard mitigation plans prepare a community to respond

and recover from natural and other hazards likely to affect a jurisdiction (FEMA, 2012;

Dynes, 1970; Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Tierney et al., 2001). Identifying best practices

and opportunities for improvement can greatly enhance mitigation planning and provides

a foundation to reduce loss and expedite recovery (Kemp, 2007).

Methodological assumptions

This research project expanded the knowledge base established by Oliver Smith

(1999), Kreps (1994), Bankoff (2003), Tierney et al. (2001), Ernarson et al. (2003),

Flanagan et al. (2011) and most recently by Horney et al. (2013) through a post-

positivism approach to examine the identification and assessment of vulnerable

populations by local officials for use in emergency planning. Post-positivism

acknowledges that subjectivity influences social research (Creswell, 2009). Post-

positivism research asserts that all knowledge is quantifiable and measurable and

embraces deductive reasoning (Neuman, 2003).

Quantitative research explains phenomena through the collection of numerical

data that is analyzed through statistical testing (Aliaga & Gunderson, 2000). Post-

positivism accepts the premise that research can never be certain and that all researchers

bring some level of bias to their findings (Neuman, 2003). Therefore quantitative post-

positivism research relies on confidence levels to establish a realistic level of acceptance

with the findings (Aliaga & Gunderson, 2000).

Utilizing a quantitative instrument originally validated by Horney et al. (2013)

this study furthered their research into the identification and inclusion of vulnerable

populations in rural jurisdictions. Quantitative research is appropriate for this study as it

tests objective theories through the examination of variables and their relationships

(Creswell, 2009). This research therefore embraced a validated, quantitative instrument

and utilized data analysis that allowed for proven statistical significance (Lurgio et al.,

2007).

Limitations

One limitation of this study was the only focusing on county emergency managers

in the state of Ohio. Costs associated with conducting a national research project are

considered prohibitive. The University of North Carolina study focused on local

jurisdictions in eight states within FEMA Region IV and was funded in part by federal

grants (Horney et al., 2013). No such funding was included in this study.

The small population size was a cause of concern. The total population of county

emergency managers in Ohio is eighty-eight. This study attempted to encourage

participation by all eighty-eight emergency managers; however 100% participation was

not achieved. The participation of seventy-seven emergency managers was needed for

statistical significant factor of 95% (p = .05). Eighty-two emergency managers

participated in this study.

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Identification and inclusion of input from stakeholder groups representing the

needs of those populations vulnerable to the impact of disaster is critical to the pre-

disaster emergency and hazard mitigation planning phase of emergency management

(Flanagan et al., 2011; Kemp, 2007). The research instrument asked respondents to rate

their engagement with vulnerable population groups in the mitigation planning process.

This study served as an extension and expanded upon earlier research published by the

University of North Carolina (Horney et al., 2013).

The hypotheses for this study were that county emergency managers in Ohio

express satisfaction with their ability to identify vulnerable populations for emergency

planning purposes and those counties with disaster declarations issued by the federal

government within the past five years are more engaged with stakeholder groups than are

counties that have not experienced a recent disaster. Respondents were asked to rate their

level of satisfaction utilizing a Likert-style rating scale. Results from this study of county

emergency managers in the state of Ohio were then contrasted to the results achieved

earlier in the University of North Carolina study (Horney et al., 2013).

Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the research topic to include evaluation

of past studies, historical perspective, structural theory and vulnerability theory, and

disaster hazard mitigation. Research methodology is addressed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4

reports the data results of the information gathered while Chapter 5 provides an analysis

of the data collected and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Every jurisdiction across America is vulnerable to some type of disaster, whether

a naturally occurring event such as a tornado, flood or winter storm; or a man-made event

such as is the case with a dam failure or hazardous material release (Mileti, 1999). The

impact of disasters in many instances can be significantly reduced through effective

mitigation planning efforts at the local community level (Miller, 2014). A concern in

recent years is the need to identify and include in this mitigation and planning process

those segments of the population vulnerable to experience extreme hardship because of

exposure to such disasters (Majchrazak et al., 2007; Quarantelli, 2005, Waugh, 2007).

The disproportionate impact of disasters on population segments to include those

with physical and developmental disabilities, economic impairments, ethnicity, language

and educational barriers has been demonstrated through earlier research (Blakie et al.,

1994; Cutter et al., 2000; Dash et al., 1997; Fothergill et al., 2004). The Flanagan study

(2011) created a Social Vulnerability Index for disaster management that organized

vulnerable populations into to four domains. The Socioeconomic Status Domain

identified those populations living in poverty, unemployed, or with a lack of high school

education. The Minority Status/Language-Barrier Domain identified those populations

with limited English speaking and reading skills. The Household Composition/Disability

Domain included the elderly, persons with disabilities, the very young and single-parent

families. The Housing/Transportation Domain identified persons living in multiunit

dwellings, mobile homes, and group homes with no or limited access to transportation

(Flanagan, 2011).

This study looked at pre-disaster mitigation planning by county emergency

managers in the state of Ohio and their inclusion of vulnerable population segments.

FEMA encourages jurisdictions to develop mitigation plans that consider the needs of all

population groups (FEMA, 2012). Rotanz (2007) defined emergency management as the

profession that addresses the effects of disaster through the use of applied science,

technology and planning. Results of the Ohio data were then compared to similar data

collected from and published by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Horney

et al., 2013) of Atlantic coastal states within FEMA Region IV.

Theoretical Orientation for the Study

This study utilized two theories upon which to construct the foundation for this

quantitative study. The structural theory can trace its roots back to Dynes (1987) with

numerous subsequent updates and confirmations to include the most recent work by

Kemp (2007). This theory asserts that the effectiveness of the response and recovery

phases of a disaster is directly influenced by the effort injected during the planning phase.

The vulnerability theory was born in the works of Oliver-Smith (1999) and has

most recently been reaffirmed by Flanagan et al. (2011). This theory asserts that certain

population segments suffer a disproportionate amount of loss and suffering from the

impact of a disaster due to socioeconomic, physical, ethnic, language and literacy factors.

Vulnerability theory further asserts that disasters will negatively affect the previously

noted population segments for a more extended period than other segments of the

jurisdiction (Bankoff, 2003; Ernarson et al., 2003).

Structural Theory

Structural theory asserts that assessments and planning occurring in the pre-

disaster phase of preparedness have a direct impact on the success or failure of post-

disaster phases of emergency management (Kreps et al., 1994; Kemp, 2007; Waugh,

2007). Although scholars suggest that the response, recovery, planning and mitigation

phases of emergency management overlap, it is widely accepted that the recovery and

response phases are primarily post-disaster phases (Baird, 2010; Neal, 1997; Waugh,

2000). This study built upon the structural theory by specifically addressing the methods

utilized by local officials in conducting the mitigation and planning phases of their

jurisdictions’ disaster preparedness activities (FEMA, 2013).

Specifically as it relates to this research project, information has been obtained

and analyzed to determine how and to what extent vulnerable populations are identified

and their needs anticipated by local governments in the development of hazard mitigation

plans. The Ohio data was then compared with that of the Horney study (2013). Effective

and comprehensive disaster pre-planning has been determined to affect the success or

failure of the response and recovery phases of emergency management (Dynes et al.,

1987; Kemp, 2007; Kreps et al., 1994; Lindell et al., 1992).

Vulnerability Theory

The vulnerability theory of disasters can trace its roots back to Oliver-Smith

(1999) and has most recently been reaffirmed and expanded upon by Bankoff (2003),

Ernarson et al. (2003), Flanagan et al. (2011) and Tierney et al. (2001). Bankoff identifies

a close relationship between vulnerability and structural disorganization associated with

the structural theory (Kreps et al., 1994; Bankoff, 2003l Horney et al., 2013). Tierney

(2001) expanded the concept of social vulnerability stressing the need for personal and

community preparedness. Ernarson (2003) and Flanagan (2011) both connect

vulnerability to political economic factors, whereas the Horney study purported to align

vulnerabilities with demographics to include educational levels, income, access to

transportation and language barriers (Horney et al., 2013).

Persons experiencing difficulties existing in the pre-disaster “normal” within a

jurisdiction, such as those with ADA-recognized disabilities, the poor and unemployed,

and those with non-traditional family structures, may be some of the groups vulnerable to

severe consequences from a disaster (Ernarson, 2003). These same groups may also

experience delays in receiving assistance during the response and recovery phases of a

disaster (Flanagan et al., 2011). According to Waugh (2007), including disadvantaged

groups in the mitigation planning process can reduce their vulnerability.

Review of Research and Methodological Literature

Mitigation

The National Institute of Business Sciences (2005) published data suggesting that

for every $1 invested in mitigation, $4 is saved in future expenses associated with the

response and recovery from a disaster. FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate launched a

“Whole Community” concept for disaster planning at all levels of government (FEMA,

2009). Stressing the importance of the planning and mitigation phases of disaster,

Kaufman (2012) called for inclusion of all segments of a community’s population,

especially those most likely to be harshly affected.

On April 13, 2014, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U. S.

House of Representatives held a hearing on the importance and impact of mitigation

planning across the United States. In his testimony at the hearing, Miller (2014) asserted

that mitigation plans are the foundation of effective disaster planning and demonstrate a

jurisdiction’s commitment to reduce risk. Committee Chairman Lou Barletta (R-PA)

referenced in his opening remarks for the hearing that in the past five years, since 2009,

all fifty states had experienced disasters to include floods, hurricanes, tornadoes,

mudslides, wildland fires, and winter storms (U. S. House of Representatives, 2014).

Disaster and emergency planning at the local level is critical for the safety of the

population and reduction in property damage. 3,069 county governments exist across the

United States with local government owning nearly 40 percent of all bridges and more

than half of all roadways. Annually county government will spend almost $500 billion

developing and maintaining critical infrastructure and local emergency capacity across

the nation (Langston, 2014).

Mitigation planning helps to reduce the ultimate cost of disaster-related expenses

through the reduction of loss of life and serious injury, reduction of damage to public and

private property, an accelerated recovery for communities and business impacted by

disaster, and enhanced overall community resilience (Berginnis, 2014, Li, 2012). Since

passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Pub. Law 106-390), in order to be

eligible for disaster relief and mitigation grant programs, local governments are required

to adopt hazard mitigation plans developed in accordance with guidance from FEMA

(Lyles, 2012, FEMA, 2013).

Identification of population subgroups most likely to experience severe adverse

impact from disasters and inclusion of stakeholder organizations representing those

populations are essential to lessen real and perceived impacts from disaster (Horney et

al., 2013; Hurley, 2011). Concerning national preparedness and because of the

Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8), FEMA developed best practice reference

examples for local governments. These best practice examples include engagement with

key stakeholder groups. The directive also mandated creation of the National Mitigation

Framework (FEMA, 2013) and established the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group,

a senior level group of local, state, tribal and federal officials to identify trends and

influence mitigation activities and policy (Miller, 2014).

Functional Needs

Functional needs is a contemporary term used to identify persons and groups of

people that may be vulnerable to consequences of disaster (CDC, 2013). Functional needs

has been interpreted as those persons most vulnerable to suffer disproportionately from

disasters to include the elderly, economically disadvantaged, persons with physical or

mental disabilities and language barriers, along with those with literacy or educational

deficiencies (Drabek, 1986, 2009, 2013; Quarantelli et al., 1983; Tierney et al., 2001).

Hazard mitigation plans developed by local communities are an important strategy to

reduce disaster-related losses (FEMA, 2013).

Consistency in identifying persons within vulnerable populations in all

jurisdictions is critical to reducing losses and protecting those persons most at-risk for

harm from disaster due to socioeconomic, education, racial, age or language (Drabek,

2013; Lindell, 2001; Quarantelli et al., 1983; Waugh, 2007). This study expanded upon

earlier research to identify the extent of inclusion of these vulnerable populations in

emergency planning (Cutter, 1995; Flanagan et al., 2011; Horney et al., 2013; Tierney et

al., 2001).

Both the Stafford Act as Amended (2013) and the Post-Katrina Emergency

Management Reform Act (Pub. Law 109-295) mandate the inclusion of persons with

disabilities and other functional needs during response to and recovery from a disaster

(FEMA, 2014). Legal requirements for inclusion, integration, and equal opportunity that

are typically in force pre-disaster through statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990 addressing the needs of persons with permanent disabilities are not waived

during disaster situations (U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2014). It is

critical that local emergency managers identify and engage these population groups in the

mitigation planning process (Waugh, 2007).

University of North Carolina Study

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) conducted a study of

local emergency managers and their accounting for the vulnerable populations in rural

hazard mitigation plans (Horney et al., 2013). Researchers sought to discover the extent

to which local government engaged a jurisdiction’s vulnerable populations in disaster

planning. The study was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and gathered data from counties in an eight state region in the Southeastern

United States known as FEMA Region IV.

The University of North Carolina (UNC) study utilized a stratified random sample

of 96 counties located within the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. The UNC study developed a

short online survey instrument and pilot tested the instrument in four counties in North

Carolina that would not be a part of the study’s sample population. All materials were

reviewed and approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board and validated (UNC#10-

1873).

The UNC survey team contacted the selected sample population by email and

extended invitations for participation in the survey. The survey period was conducted

over a four-month period and concluded with 76 out of the 96 counties participating for a

response rate of 79 percent. Specific results of the UNC (Horney et al., 2013) study

revealed that a majority of counties had current mitigation plans, most of which has been

prepared by outside consultants with the local emergency manager responsible for the

plans implementation. Interestingly, only about a fourth of respondents reported using

educational achievement level (high school diploma) as a factor in identifying persons

vulnerable to disaster, while a majority (61.3%) did consider senior citizens, those

persons age 65 and older, and to a lesser extent (24.7%), persons with self-reported

disabilities when preparing mitigation strategies (Horney et al., 2013).

The study also looked at who participated in the mitigation planning process.

Government officials comprised the largest participating subgroup (67.3%) followed by

local elected officials (46.2%), and business groups (25.5%). Community groups and

organizations representing at risk groups represented less than ten percent of participants

in the planning process. The UNC study concluded that local emergency managers’

knowledge of and inclusion of vulnerable population in the emergency planning process

could and should be improved, and also that such inclusion would provide benefit to the

overall community (Horney et al., 2013).

Review of Methodological Literature

Quantitative research

Quantitative research is appropriate for this study as it tests objective theories

through the examination of variables and their relationships (Creswell, 2009).

Quantitative research methodologies are widely accepted for their reliability and validity

as compared to qualitative research (Karami et al., 2006). This research expanded the

knowledge base established by the Horney study (2013), and therefore consistency with

the Horney study methodology was essential. The quantitative data analysis techniques

utilized in this research consisted of the one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the

t-test. Gay, et al. (2012) describes the ANOVA analysis methodology as a “parametric

test of significance used to determine whether scores from two or more groups are

significantly different at a selected probability level.”

Summary

While every jurisdiction is America is susceptible to damage from disaster,

certain population segments are at risk for a disproportionate impact (Blakie et al., 1994;

Cutter et al., 2000; Fothergill et al., 2004). Structural theory asserts that the effectiveness

of response to and recovery from disaster is directly influenced the comprehensiveness of

planning efforts (Kreps et al., 1994; Kemp, 2007; Waugh, 2007). Vulnerability theory

suggests a close relationship with structural theory when hazard mitigation planning

includes consideration of vulnerable populations (Bankoff, 2003; Hornet et al., 2013).

Consistency in the identification and inclusion of vulnerable populations can reduce

losses and increase protection for those persons most at risk (Flanagan et al., 2011;

Waugh, 2007).

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study utilized a quantitative, non-experimental approach. The survey

instrument (Appendix A), developed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

(2013), tested the differences in stakeholder involvement. It measured, from the

perspective of county emergency managers, the importance of stakeholder inclusion of

those population groups most vulnerable to experience negative impacts from disaster.

Several demographic questions (Appendix B) provide additional information regarding

the sample. The independent variables for the study were the levels of satisfaction of

emergency managers with their mitigation planning and the engagement of stakeholder

groups identified in the survey instrument, based on a Likert-scale ranging from 1 to 5

where 5 represents the highest level of satisfaction. The dependent variables were county

emergency managers in Ohio as identified by state law (ORC 5502) and planning

jurisdictions.

Quantitative research is appropriate for this study as it tests objective theories

through the examination of variables and their relationships (Creswell, 2009).

Quantitative research methodologies are widely accepted for their reliability and validity

as compared to qualitative research (Karami et al., 2006). This research sought to expand

the knowledge base established by the Horney study (2013).

Restatement of Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions guided this study:

1. Are county emergency managers in Ohio, as identified by state law (ORC

5502), as satisfied with their identification of vulnerable populations as

referenced in the survey instrument, based on the respondents’ use of a Likert-

scale from 1 to 5, compared with the level of satisfaction, as recorded on the

same survey instrument, of their counterparts from FEMA Region IV?

2. To what extent are county emergency managers in Ohio identifying

vulnerable population groups for disaster planning purposes?

3. Do jurisdictions that have recently experienced a major disaster, as defined by

having received a Presidential Disaster Declaration for their jurisdiction

within the past five years, engage more community stakeholder groups, as

identified in the survey instrument in the mitigation planning process than do

communities that have not experienced a recent major disaster?

The following hypotheses formed the basis for statistical testing:

H1o: There is a difference in the satisfaction level, on average, of emergency

managers in the identification of vulnerable populations for emergency planning purposes

between emergency managers in Ohio and their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

H1A: There is no difference in the satisfaction level, on average, of emergency

managers in the identification of vulnerable populations for emergency planning purposes

between emergency managers in Ohio and their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

H2o: Ohio counties identify fewer vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do their FENA Region IV counterparts.

H2A: Ohio counties identify more vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

H3o: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage fewer stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than do counties that have not experienced a recent

presidentially declared disaster.

H3A: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage more stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than do counties that have not experienced a recent

presidentially declared disaster.

Sample

The population for this research was eighty-eight county emergency managers in

the state of Ohio as designated in public law, Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 5502 and

charged with the responsibility for disaster planning within the countywide jurisdiction.

Ohio emergency managers were selected due to the logistical convenience for the

researcher. A listing of this population is available online through the Ohio Department

of Public Safety website (http://webeoc.ema.state.oh.us/ohiocountyEMADirectorList/

countyemalist_web.aspx) and through the Emergency Management Association of Ohio

(http://www.emaohio.org/?page_id=1265).

Based on the sample size calculator from Creative Research Systems available in

the research department at Ohio Northern University, in order to achieve a 95%

confidence level and confidence interval of r = .05, this study needed 77 subjects out of

the sample population of 88 to participate (CRS, 2014). 82 out of 88 participated,

resulting in a confidence interval, or margin of error, of 2.84.

Instrumentation

This study utilized an online survey developed by the University of North

Carolina (Horney et al., 2013) and first field tested under the supervision of the

University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board (#10-1873). Written permission

for the researcher to use the survey instrument was received from Dr. Jennifer A.

Horney, the lead researcher in the UNC study. Appendix A contains a copy of the

instrument as slightly modified for this study.

The instrument is an online survey consisting of thirty-two questions related to the

jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation planning process. Respondents were asked if their

jurisdiction had experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the past five years.

Utilizing Likert-type scales, respondents rated their level of satisfaction with their

jurisdiction’s mitigation plan and also indicated the extent to which vulnerable

populations were identified and engaged in the planning process. Additional questions

regarding demographic information is included in the instrument.

Surveys serve as a favored research instrument in quantitative studies (Creswell,

2003) because surveys efficiently and effectively collect information from one or more

people of a set of organizationally relevant constructs (Swanson & Holton, 2005). The

UNC survey instrument utilizes a Likert-type scale consistent with previous quantitative

studies. Regarded for providing a greater volume of reliable data compared with other

scales; Cooper & Schindler (2008) noted that Likert-style scales are the most frequently

used rating scale-format.

Data Collection

This study serves as an extension of research conducted by the University of

North Carolina involving county emergency managers within FEMA Region IV (Horney

et al., 2013). A complete listing of the emergency manager population was obtained

through the Ohio Department of Public Safety. County emergency managers are an Ohio-

mandated position (ORC, 5502) and are appointed by the local Board of County

Commissioners.

The researcher contacted the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Ohio

Emergency Management Agency and the Emergency Management Association of Ohio.

The researcher requested each organization to support and authenticate the research

project. Both organizations agreed to distribute communications acknowledging the

pending survey and encouraging county directors to participate in the study.

The survey instrument was uploaded to SurveyMonkey® as the delivery

mechanism for the instrument and data collection. Letters were mailed to all 88 county

emergency managers inviting participation in the study. After the return of the consent

form, the researcher forwarded to the participant the direct link information to the survey

instrument. Five days after the original letter was mailed, the researcher sent an email to

the population that included the original letter and consent form. To encourage

participation additional emails were sent every five days. Based on the consent forms

received, a phone call was made by the researcher to those in the population that had yet

to respond to encourage their participation in the study and to answer any questions or

concerns. The survey instrument was available for input for a total period of six weeks.

82 of the 88 emergency managers participated in the study.

Data Analysis

The SurveyMonkey® software collected data from the completed surveys. Access

to the survey data was limited to the researcher and was downloaded into Excel

spreadsheets for analysis. No identifying information was available to the researcher in

order to ensure confidentiality. The data was copied and stored at a separate location at

the researcher’s office.

County emergency managers were the dependent variable for the first hypothesis

(H1), with countywide jurisdictions for H2, and countywide jurisdictions that have or

have not experienced a recent presidential disaster declaration for H3. Independent

variables included five levels of satisfaction in H1, multiple stakeholder groups as

identified in the survey instrument (Appendix A) in H2, and the number of stakeholder

groups identified as engaged in H3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized due to

the multiple variables being considered. A t-test was used to compare results from this

study to the results from the UNC study. A participation level of seventy-seven was

needed to achieve statistical significance of 95%. 82 county emergency managers did

participate, improving the statistical significance in this study to 97.16% or a confidence

interval of 2.84.

The quantitative data analysis techniques utilized in this research consisted of the

one-way ANOVA and the t-test. Gay, et al (2012) describes the ANOVA analysis

methodology as a “parametric test of significance used to determine whether scores from

two or more groups are significantly different at a selected probability level.” The t-test

was first introduced by Gosset (1908) and serves as a test of the null hypotheses. The t-

test was used when comparing data from the University of North Carolina to this study.

Ethical Considerations

This study strictly adhered to all ethical guidelines of Capella University as

outlined in the Capella University PhD Dissertation Manual (2014) including advance

submission of the study to the Capella University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The

IRB determined (#2014-98) that the research population did not meet the requirements

for federal protection. Permission to proceed was received in January 2014. All

participants completed and signed letters of informed consent assuring that their

participation was voluntary and confidential. Participants were assured the data would be

stored securely by the researcher for a period of seven years after publication of the study

and then destroyed after that time.

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The data was collected over a period of six weeks from county emergency

managers in the state of Ohio. The rate of response was better than expected, due in part

to pre-survey support received from both the Ohio Emergency Management Agency and

the Emergency Management Association of Ohio (EMAO), the professional association

of county emergency managers in Ohio. Both organizations encouraged county

emergency managers to participate in the research project. The researcher had hoped for

seventy-seven participants out of total sample population of eighty-eight in order to

achieve the desired r =.05 or a statistical significance of 95%; when the research phase

concluded, 82 emergency managers had participated.

The survey instrument was developed by the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill and included 35 questions utilizing an online survey tool with Likert-style

selections. Eight of the survey questions addressed participant jurisdictional

demographics as to disaster experience, emergency management staff size, and levels of

experience. The survey instrument was accessed by participants through

SurveyMonkey® that also provided for data security as well as confidentiality as

personal information was never made available to the researcher.

After analysis, the data from this study was compared with research findings from

the same instrument obtained in 2011 by the University of North Carolina (Horney et al.,

2013) from seventy-six counties within FEMA Region IV states of Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to provide data analysis of the Ohio survey results. A

t-test was then applied to contrast Ohio results with those from the UNC study. This

chapter describes the data for analysis, reliability, data validity and statistical conclusions.

Description of the Sample The study identified county emergency managers in the state of Ohio as the

sample population. State law in Ohio establishes the office of county emergency manager

(ORC 5502) and places the director of that office as the person responsible for emergency

planning, response, recovery and mitigation efforts for all hazards that potentially

threaten a jurisdiction’s safety. The position is also responsible for establishing and

maintaining the county Emergency Operations Plan and a county Emergency Operations

Center. The position is appointed by and reports to the Board of County Commissioners.

In Ohio, 88 county emergency manager positions are established.

Based on the sample size calculator from Creative Research Systems available in

the research department at Ohio Northern University in order to achieve a 95%

confidence level and confidence interval of r = .05, this study needed seventy-seven

subjects out of the sample population of 88 to participate. Confidence interval is a

measure of the reliability of the data analyzed (Creswell, 2009). Eighty-two out of eighty-

eight participated, resulting in a confidence interval, or margin of error, of 2.84.

Research Question and Hypotheses

This study mirrored and extended an earlier study by the University of North

Carolina (Horney et al., 2013) and focused on three primary research questions.

1. Are county emergency managers in Ohio as satisfied as their counterparts from

FEMA Region IV with their identification of vulnerable populations?

2. Are county emergency managers in Ohio identifying numerous and varied

vulnerable population groups for planning purposes?

3. Do communities that have recently experienced a major disaster engage more

community stakeholder groups in the mitigation planning process than do

communities that have not experienced a recent major disaster?

The following hypotheses formed the basis for statistical testing:

H1o: There is no difference, on average, of emergency managers in Ohio and

their FEMA Region IV counterparts and their level of satisfaction with their jurisdiction’s

mitigation plan in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations in their jurisdictions.

H1A: There is a difference, on average, of emergency managers in Ohio and their

FEMA Region IV counterparts in the satisfaction with their jurisdiction’s mitigation plan

in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations in their jurisdictions.

H2o: Ohio counties engage fewer vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

H2A: Ohio counties identify more vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do their FEMA Region IV counterparts.

H3o: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage fewer stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than do counties that have not experienced a recent

presidentially declared disaster.

H3A: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage more stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than do counties that have not experienced a recent

presidentially declared disaster.

Presentation of Data and Results of Analysis

An online, Likert-style instrument developed by the University of North Carolina

was utilized to gather the data for this non-experimental, quantitative study (Horney, et

al, 2013). While 88% ( n = 72) of the study participants reported that their jurisdiction

had experienced a Presidentially declared disaster in accordance with the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, aka Stafford Act (Pub. Law 93-288), at

some point in their jurisdiction’s history, only two-thirds (66.6%, n = 48) of those had

experienced such a declared disaster in the past five years. 97.5% (n = 80) of participants

ranked their jurisdiction’s vulnerability to natural disaster as vulnerable to extremely

vulnerable, with only 12% (n = 10) ranking their jurisdiction as having only a limited

vulnerability.

Table 1 displays that floods, winter storms and tornadoes are the primary hazards facing

Ohio counties as ranked by participants.

Table 1

Hazards Posing Greatest Threat_______________________________________

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent _________________ Tornado 18 21.9 21.9 21.9 Earthquake 2 2.4 2.4 24.3 Flood 38 46.3 46.3 70.6 Hurricane 0 0.0 0.0 70.6 Winter storm 22 26.8 26.8 97.4 Landslide 1 1.3 1.3 98.7 Wildfire 1 1.3 1.3 100.0____________________ Total 82 100.0 100.0

When asked to identify factors that increase their jurisdiction’s vulnerability to

disaster, the aging of the population was cited by 57.5% (n = 46) of participants while

persons with self-reported physical disabilities were identified by 37.5% (n = 30) and

poverty was identified by 25% (n = 20). When asked to identify methods utilized to reach

out to vulnerable populations for participation in the planning process, partnerships with

local government organizations (92.5%, n = 74) and non-government organizations

(90%, n = 72) were cited by the majority of participants. Less than half (47.5%, n = 38)

identified use of a targeted outreach to vulnerable population groups.

Varieties of stakeholder groups are reported by participants as taking a role in the

planning process in their county. Participants were asked to identify all stakeholder

groups that participate in their jurisdiction. Table 2 depicts those results (n = 79, 3

participants did not respond to this question). The survey instrument used in this research

did not specifically define the variables identified in each individual question (e.g., racial

and ethnic minority, low income, elderly, etc.) but rather left it to the respondents’

interpretation of standard definitions typically accepted in public administration and

emergency management for planning purposes.

Table 2 Stakeholder Group Engagement in Planning Process Frequency Percent Racial and ethnic minorities 10 13.16% Low income 16 21.05% Elderly 36 47.37% People with disabilities 28 36.84% People who speak English as a second language 0 0.00% People who live in areas identified as vulnerable (e.g., floodplains, mobile home parks, etc.) 44 57.89% Community agencies 64 84.21% Non-governmental organizations 66 86.84% Faith-based organizations 28 36.84% Community literacy groups 0 00.00%

Participants also revealed that stakeholder participation varied greatly as depicted

in Table 3, and the purpose of that participation for the majority of participants was to

meet federal or state requirements for stakeholder input (40.0%, n = 32) while only

20.0% (n = 16) reported that stakeholder participation improved the planning process.

Table 3 Extent of Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Little or no participation 2 2.56% 2.56% 2.56% Less than average participation 14 17.95% 17.95% 20.51% Average participation 38 48.72% 48.72% 69.23% Above average participation 20 25.64% 25.64% 94.87% Extensive participation 4 5.13% 5.13% 100.00% Total 78 100.00% 100.00%

On average, emergency managers in Ohio appear satisfied with the quality of

their mitigation plans. While 35% (n = 28) rate the quality of their plan as average, 60%

(n = 48) give their plan a rating of above average. 5.0% of participants rate their plans at

the two opposite extremes with 2.5% (n = 2) rating their plan as low quality and 2.5% (n

= 2) rating their plan at high quality. When asked to what extent the mitigation plan

addresses the needs of vulnerable populations, 62.5% (n = 50) of the participants rated

their plans as meeting or exceeding those needs while 37.5% (n = 30) thought their plans

did not address or meet the needs of their jurisdiction’s vulnerable citizens. Additionally

32.5% (n = 26) reported that their mitigation plans were at least somewhat integrated

with other county plans, while 27.5% (n = 22) rated the integration of their plans with

other county plans as either lacking or non-existent.

Emergency managers in Ohio reported that a majority of elected officials within

their jurisdiction viewed the county’s mitigation planning as important. Economic

development relative to the mitigation plan was the overwhelming reason for elected

officials perceived support by participants 79.26% (n = 65). Hazard mitigation was the

second most cited reason at 68.29% (n = 56).

Table 4 Elected Officials View Importance of Mitigation Planning Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Not Important 4 4.88% 4.88% 4.88% Less Important 14 17.07% 17.07% 21.95% Important 44 53.66% 53.66% 75.61% More Important 16 19.51% 19.51% 95.12% Very Important 4 4.88% 4.88% 100.00% Total 82 100.00% 100.00% Participants cite increased awareness of the risks posed by natural hazards as the

main outcome of hazard mitigation planning in their county (68.29%, n = 56), while

greater stakeholder involvement (51.22%, n = 42) and the enhanced awareness of the

needs of vulnerable populations also ranked high (41.46%, n = 34). Participants identify

funding as a critical impediment to more robust disaster planning. While 90% of

participants (n = 72) report having experienced a presidentially declared disaster within

the past five years, most mandated emergency management offices in Ohio have only one

full time employee (62.5%, n = 50), and report that their jurisdiction allocates less than

2% of the county’s budget allocation to emergency planning (76.92%, n = 60).

Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis testing is a process to determine if the null hypothesis is rejected

(DeVore, 2000). As this research involved a small population distribution, a one-sample t

test is a reliable assessment (Devore, 2000; Lurigio, et al, 2007). Utilizing a variable t-test

a hypothesis test was conducted. Data was calculated for analysis utilizing an Excel t-test

calculator in the statistics lab at Ohio Northern University.

Table 5

t-Test Results Hypotheses Testing

Ohio UNC t(df) p=0.05

Hypothesis 1 2.8658 3.797 3.8647(4) 2.78

Hypothesis 2 3.1650 3.1704 3.5378(10) 2.23

Recent PDD No PDD t(df) p=0.05

Hypothesis 3 3.2083 1.4545 0.0214(7) 3.50

Summary

The data analysis implies a conclusion in support two of the three research null

hypotheses (H1o and H2o) and a rejection of the null hypothesis (H3o).

Level of Satisfaction with Plans Meeting Needs of Vulnerable Populations H1o: There is no difference, on average, of emergency managers and their level

of satisfaction in their jurisdiction’s mitigation plan meeting the needs of vulnerable

populations in their communities between emergency managers in Ohio and their FEMA

Region IV counterparts.

H1A: There is a difference, on average, of emergency managers in the satisfaction

with their jurisdiction’s mitigation plan meeting the needs of vulnerable populations in

their communities between emergency managers in Ohio and their FEMA Region IV

counterparts.

Statistical analysis supports the null hypothesis that no significant difference

exists between the satisfaction levels, on average, of emergency managers in Ohio and

their FEMA Region IV counterparts as it relates to their mitigation plans meeting the

needs of vulnerable populations.

Engagement of Vulnerable Populations in Planning Process

H2o: There is no significant difference in the number of vulnerable population

groups engaged in Ohio counties for emergency planning purposes, on average, than do

counties within FEMA Region IV.

H2A: Ohio counties identify more vulnerable population groups for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do counties within FEMA Region IV.

Statistical analysis supports the null hypothesis that no significant difference

exists in the number of vulnerable populations engaged in Ohio counties for emergency

planning purposes, on average, than do counties within FEMA Region IV.

Planning Differences in Counties Experiencing Major Disasters

H3o: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage fewer stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than counties that have not experienced a recent presidentially

declared disaster.

H3A: Counties that have experienced a presidentially declared disaster within the

past five years engage more stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable

populations, on average, than counties that have not experienced a recent presidentially

declared disaster.

Statistical analysis supports the alternative hypothesis that counties having

experienced a recent presidentially declared disaster do, on average, engage more

stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable populations than do counties

that have not experienced a recent disaster.

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Certain sub-population groups within each community find themselves at

an increased level of vulnerability due to conditions or circumstances that put them at

additional risk. Contributing factors to this increased risk can include, but are not limited

to, physical and developmental disabilities, age, ethnicity, language barriers, literacy,

transportation and other socioeconomic considerations (Bankoff, 2003; Berke et al.,

2010; Drabek, 1986, 2009, 2013; Ernarson et al., 2003; Flanagan et al., 2011; Horney et

al., 2013; Isralowitz & Findlay, 2009; Tierney et al., 2001). The types of disaster that

may devastate a jurisdiction range from natural hazards, such as tornadoes, winter storms,

floods, hurricanes, and others to man-made hazards such as hazardous material releases

and terrorism (Janssen et al., 2010).

In order to lessen the severity of such vulnerabilities and the resulting

consequences to these most vulnerable populations, jurisdictions are encouraged by

FEMA (2013) to engage in robust natural hazard mitigation planning. This mitigation

planning has been proven effective in saving lives and reducing the economic impact of a

disaster (Langston, 2014). The National Institute of Business Sciences (2005) reports that

for every $1 invested in disaster mitigation, $4 is saved in the cost of responding to and

recovering from a disaster.

This research explored the mitigation planning practices of local emergency

managers in Ohio and their engagement and inclusion of vulnerable population groups in

the mitigation planning process. Data was gathered regarding recent disasters within the

respondent’s jurisdiction. The research also looked the possible existence of statistically

significant relationships among emergency managers participating in this study and those

from FEMA Region IV that participated in a similar study conducted by the University of

North Carolina.

Summary of Results

In Chapter 4 it was demonstrated that the data analysis supported two of the three

hypotheses put forth and supported the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis in the

third. The data contributes to the body of knowledge within the emergency management

profession as it confirms previous research regarding the level and degree of inclusion

and engagement of stakeholder groups in the disaster planning process at the local

government level. It also demonstrated an increase in that stakeholder involvement,

particularly with respect to those groups representing vulnerable populations, in the

jurisdictions that had recently experienced a major disaster when compared to those

jurisdictions that had not had such a recent experience. Because of a greater than

expected level of participation from the sample population, the confidence interval for

this research was improved from the target 5.00 to 2.84.

The null hypotheses accepted were: H1o: There is no difference, on average, of

emergency managers and their level of satisfaction in their jurisdiction’s mitigation plan

meeting the needs of vulnerable populations in their communities between emergency

managers in Ohio and their FEMA Region IV counterparts. H2o: Ohio counties engage

fewer vulnerable population groups for emergency planning purposes, on average, that do

their FEMA Region IV counterparts. The alternative hypotheses accepted, H3A, counties

in Ohio that have experienced a Presidentially declared disaster within the past five years

engage more stakeholder groups in the process of identifying vulnerable populations, on

average, than do counties that have not experienced a recent Presidentially declared

disaster.

An literature review was conducted in four primary areas to include structural

theory (Dynes et al., 1987; Kemp, 2007; Krites et al., 1994, Lindell et al., 1992),

vulnerability theory (Oliver-Smith, 1999; Bankoff, 2003; Ernarson et al., 2003; Flanagan

et al., 2011; Tierney et al. (2001), mitigation planning (Drabek, 2009; FEMA, 2006;

Kaufman, 2012, Waugh, 2009) and functional needs populations (FEMA, 2013, Miller,

2014). Literature was retrieved from various sources such as scholarly and peer-reviewed

journals, books, transcripts from congressional hearings, and government documents.

Additionally, literature with varying degrees of authority, reliability and validity,

including government and non-government websites and non-peer reviewed publications

were also reviewed.

Based on premises put forth through the structural theory (Dynes et al., 1987;

Kemp, 2010; Krites et al., 1994; Lindell et al., 1992), the effectiveness of disaster

response and recovery is greatly influenced by the information included in the pre-

disaster planning efforts. Additionally, the vulnerability theory addresses the importance

of identifying those segments of the population most at risk to the adverse impacts of

natural and technological disasters. This study examined the identification of vulnerable

populations by local emergency managers for the purpose of pre-disaster mitigation

planning. The primary research questions for this study asked whether emergency

managers in Ohio are satisfied with their identification of vulnerable populations as

compared to the satisfaction level of their counterparts from FEMA Region IV as

researched in the University of North Carolina study (Horney et al., 2013).

Discussion of Results

This study mirrored and extended an earlier study by the University of North

Carolina (Horney et al., 2013) and focused on three primary research questions.

1. Are county emergency managers in Ohio as satisfied as their counterparts from

FEMA Region IV with their identification of vulnerable populations?

2. Are county emergency managers in Ohio identifying numerous and varied

vulnerable population groups for planning purposes?

3. Do communities that have recently experienced a major disaster engage more

community stakeholder groups in the mitigation planning process than do

communities that have not experienced a recent major disaster?

The majority of respondents reported that their hazard mitigation plan at least

partially addressed the needs of vulnerable populations. With 80 of 82 (97.56%)

participants responding, none indicated that their plan fully addressed the needs of

vulnerable populations while 72.5% (n = 50) indicated that their plan somewhat or

substantially met those needs. 5% (n = 4) indicated that the plan does not address the

needs of vulnerable populations at all. And while not all plans are meeting the needs of

vulnerable populations within the jurisdiction, emergency managers overwhelmingly

(87.5%, n = 54) report satisfaction with the quality of their overall mitigation plan.

All respondents reported engaging at least some stakeholder groups in the

planning process to help identify the needs of vulnerable populations. The vast majority

of respondents acknowledge utilizing community organizations and non-governmental

organizations (86.84%, n = 71) as the primary stakeholder groups engaged. Groups

representing racial and ethnic minorities, low income and the elderly were reported to

have been engaged by 27% (n = 22) of respondents. None of the participants reported

engaging groups representing the needs of persons speaking English as a second language

or those with literacy deficiencies. The majority of respondents (56.41%, n = 44) report

hosting 1 to 3 meetings with stakeholders in the planning process, while another third

(33.33%, n = 26) report hosting 4 to 6 meetings with stakeholder groups. A large

majority (79.49%, n = 42) describe stakeholder level of participation in the process as

adequate to extensive. When asked to identify the main purpose for involving stakeholder

groups in the planning process, 40% (n = 32) indicated it was to meet federal or state

requirements, 20% (n = 16) indicated it to improve the plan through citizen involvement,

and 17.5% (n = 14) expressed that it was to develop strategies for reducing damage from

natural hazards. Only 10% (n = 8) indicated the engagement was to gain public support

for the mitigation plan and only 2.5% (n = 2) indicated that they hoped to learn from

residents’ knowledge and experience.

The vast majority (90%, n = 74) of participants reported that their jurisdiction had

experienced a Presidentially declared disaster within the past five years, with 7.5% (n =

6) indicating that no such disaster had occurred. Two respondents (2.5%) indicated that

they were uncertain as to whether or not their jurisdiction had experienced a major

disaster in recent history. Those counties with recent disaster experience were three times

as likely to engage more stakeholder groups in mitigation planning than were the ten

percent of jurisdictions with no recent disaster experience.

Discussion of the Conclusions

This study addressed the basic issues of mitigation planning at the local level of

government and the identification, inclusion and engagement of vulnerable population

groups in the planning process. The research goals were accomplished through the

utilization of a 32-question online survey instrument developed by the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Horney et al., 2013) and administered through the online

SurveyMonkey® network to ensure the confidentiality of participating county emergency

managers from the state of Ohio. Data acquired through the survey instrument was then

subjected to data analysis to establish statistical significance of the findings.

The research concluded that while most participants indicated a level of

satisfaction with their local mitigation plan (87.5%, n = 54), a slightly lower number of

respondents indicated belief that their plan adequately addressed the needs of vulnerable

populations in their communities (72.5%, n = 50). There was no significant difference in

the number of stakeholder groups engaged by emergency managers in Ohio participating

in this study as compared to county emergency managers from FEMA Region IV

participating previously in the University of North Carolina study (Horney et al., 2013).

The research did determine that emergency managers working in counties that have

recently experienced a major disaster declaration are more likely to identify and engage

stakeholder groups representing the needs of vulnerable population groups than are

emergency managers in jurisdictions that have not experienced a recent major disaster.

Implications for Practice

Emergency management has been defined as the profession and discipline that

through the use of applied science, technology, planning and management, addresses the

extreme effects of disaster upon a jurisdiction (Rotanz, 2007). Development of hazard

mitigation plans is an essential tool used by emergency management practitioners at the

local government level to reduce a community’s vulnerability to the hazards that threaten

it. These mitigation plans are viewed with such criticality that the U. S. Congress

conducted a hearing in April of 2014 on the importance and impact of mitigation

planning across the United States (U. S. House of Representatives, 2014).

Currently there is limited formal training available to emergency managers at the

local and state government levels. FEMA offers online and classroom courses in

mitigation planning, but all offerings are at awareness level and none specifically address

methodology for conducting a jurisdiction’s hazard vulnerability assessment or

recommended practices for the identification and engagement of at risk populations and

stakeholder groups (Ohio EMA, 2012). This vacuum of curriculum provides an

opportunity for improvement within the profession with the development of more robust

training tools.

Mitigation planning helps to reduce the ultimate cost of disaster-related expenses

through the reduction of loss of life and serious injury, reduction of damage to public and

private property, an accelerated recovery for communities and business impacted by

disaster, and enhanced overall community resilience (Berginnis, 2014, Li, 2012). Since

passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, local governments are required to adopt

hazard mitigation plans developed in accordance with guidance from FEMA (Lyles,

2012). Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) issued by President Obama in 2011

established the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group in part to identify and share best

practices to bolster local mitigation planning (Miller, 2014).

Identification of population subgroups most likely to experience severe adverse

impact from disasters and inclusion of stakeholder organizations representing those

vulnerable populations is essential to lessen real and perceived impacts from disaster

(Horney et al., 2013; Hurley, 2011; Waugh, 2007). The information obtained through this

research reinforces Horney’s earlier research that called for improvements in the

identification and inclusion of vulnerable population groups, such as the elderly, persons

living in poverty, and others, as a means to provide increased benefits to these vulnerable

populations as well as the jurisdiction’s overall population. FEMA is encouraging

jurisdictions to increase the identification and engagement of vulnerable population

groups in mitigation planning (FEMA, 2012).

Limitations

This research has several limitations. As with any Likert-style scaled instrument,

the participant’s frame of reference for each question can be a matter of individual

interpretation and based on past experiences (Ogden & Lo, 2012). The use of an online

survey mechanism provided participants with a convenient and confidential environment

in which to participate, however, once the participant was furnished with the online link

to the survey instrument the researcher was unable to confirm with any certainty that the

intended participant actually was the person completing the survey instrument.

Organizational or individual bias may have also influenced a respondent’s answers to

survey questions. Additionally, quantitative research can only demonstrate a statistical

relationship among variables (Creswell, 2003). Further qualitative research is needed

explore the cause and effect among the variables and to gain a more complete

understanding of the findings.

Recommendations for Further Research

While the research confirmed and reinforced earlier research in regards to hazard

mitigation planning and the identification and engagement of stakeholder groups in the

planning process, more work remains undone. Several federal programs and policies,

including the Stafford Act (Pub. Law 93-288) do not offer guidance on how to address

the needs of vulnerable populations. FEMA and other government organizations do offer

limited guidance for consideration of vulnerable population needs in mass care and

shelter management but the focus of these guidance documents is extremely narrow and

tends to apply only to a single function within the emergency planning phase (FEMA,

2010, OEMA, 2011). None of the guidance available addresses the need to mitigate the

effect of disaster upon the vulnerable population. Further study into specific types of

guidance available to local governments for completing the mitigation planning process,

identifying vulnerable sectors of the community, and methodologies for improved

stakeholder engagement would be most beneficial.

Defining vulnerable populations is also problematic in the context of emergency

planning. Traditional guidance has focused on physically and developmentally disabled

populations more in accordance with those populations protected and recognized under

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. Law 101-336). The Post Katrina

Emergency Management Reform Act (2006) further charged emergency managers to

broaden their reach in identifying those citizens vulnerable from the adverse effects of

disaster and to include those population groups and their needs in a jurisdictions planning

process. This broader view of vulnerable populations, while left open to interpretation by

local, state and federal emergency managers, has grown to include persons with

socioeconomic needs, literacy needs, language barriers, transportation barriers, the

elderly and very young, and other population sub-segments as deemed appropriate by

each local jurisdiction.

The research in this study also confirmed a similarity of planning practices in a

mid-western state to those of the Atlantic Coastal region. Further research across all ten

FEMA regions would further identify best practices and potential weaknesses that may

exist geographically, possibly due to differences in the demographic composition of the

various regions. Additional research might also want to consider utilizing a mixed

methodology of both quantitative and qualitative studies. Qualitative research could

provide more comprehensive insight into the cause and effect of stakeholder engagement

in the planning process and help identify obstacles to obtaining more robust stakeholder

involvement.

Additional research into the methodology utilized by local government to

complete the mitigation planning process would also be enlightening. FEMA and other

organizations mandate mitigation planning through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000,

but then provide vague and generalized guidance. Research as to the benefits of more

standardized methodology in the planning process could be extremely beneficial to the

local emergency management practitioners.

REFERENCES Albrito, P. (2012). Making cities resilient: Increasing resilience to disasters at the local level. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5(4), 291-297. Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2000). Interactive statistics. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Americans With Disabilities Act. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/

adaststute08.htm Atwood, L. E., & Major, A. M. (2000). Optimism, pessimism, and communication behavior in response to earthquake prediction. Public Science, 9, 1-15. Azar, D., & Rain, D. (2007). Identifying population vulnerability to hydrological hazards in San Juan, Puerto Rico, GeoJournal, 69(1), 23-43. Baird, M. E. (2010). The phases of emergency management. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vector/research.emmgtphases.pdf Bankoff, G. (2003). Constructing vulnerability: The historical, natural and social generation of flooding in metropolitan Manila. Disasters, 27(3), 95-109. Baron, G. R. (2006). Now is too late2: Survival in an era of instant news. Bellingham, WA: Edens Veil Media. Barratt, J. (2007). International perspectives on aging and disasters. Generations, 31(4), 57-60. Berginnis, C. (2014). Disaster Mitigation: Reducing Costs and Saving Lives: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 113th Congress, April 3, 2014 (testimony of Chad Berginnis). Berke, P. B., Cooper, J., & Salvesen (2010). Disaster plans: Challenges and choices to build resiliency of vulnerable populations. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 28(3), 368-394. Bharosa, N., Meijer, S., Janseen, M., & Brave, F. (2010). Are we prepared? Experiences from developing dashboards for disaster preparation. In proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Seattle, WA.

Blakie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, T. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. New York, NY: Routledge. Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Blanchard, W. (2007). Emergency management-related terms and definitions guide. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Bolin, B. (2006). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & Dynes, R. R. (Eds.). Handbook of disaster research. New York, NY: Spring, (pp. 113-129). Boyd, D. M. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Burton, C., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). Levee failures and social vulnerability in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area. Natural Hazards Review, 9(3), 136-149. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1978). The environment as hazard. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Functional needs in disaster. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Merck Company Foundation. (2007). The state of aging and health in America. Whitehouse Station, NJ: The Merck Company Foundation. Charveriat, C. (2000). Natural disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean: An overview of risk. (Working paper #434). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Chung, S. & Shannon, M. (2007). Reuniting children with their families during disasters: A proposed plan for greater success. American Journal of Disaster Medicine, 2, 113-117. Clary, C., & Pui-Ka So, A. (2010). Changing the nature of special needs: Utilizing a function-based approach to special needs planning. Journal of Emergency Management, 8(2), 11-19. Cooper, C. R. and Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Cornette, E. C., & Pui-Ka So, A. (2011). Children and disaster planning: The National Commission on Children and Disasters’ findings and recommendations. Journal of Emergency Management, 9(2), 11-16. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2009). The selection of a research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Cutter, S. L., Emrich, C. T., Webb, J. J., & Morath, D. (2009). Social vulnerability to climate variability hazards: A review of the literature. Final report to Oxfam America. Dash, N., Peacock, W. G., & Morrow, B. H. (1997). And the poor get poorer: A neglected black community. In: W. G. Peacock, B. H. Morrow, & H. Gladwin (Eds.). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, gender, and the sociology of disaster. London: Routledge, (pp.206-225). Day, C. L., & Jencik, A. N. (2011). Aging and disaster: Coping in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Emergency Management, 9(3), 23-36. DeVore, J. (2000). Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organizational Science, 12(4), 250-267. Drabek, T. E. (1986). Human systems responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Drabek, T. E. (2009). The human side of disasters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Drabek, T. E. (2013). The human side of disasters (2nd ed). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Dynes, R. R., & Drabek, T. E. (1994). The structure of disaster research: Its policy and disciplinary implications. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, (12) 5-23. Dynes, R. R., DeMarchi, B., & Peland, C. (1987). Sociology to disaster research. Milano, Italy. Franco Angeli.

Dynes, R. R. (1970). Organized behavior in disaster. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health. Ernarson, E., & Dhar Chakrabarti, P. G. (2003). Women, gender and disaster. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996). Guide for all-hazard emergency operations planning. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2006). Guide to natural hazard mitigation planning. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2008). National incident management system. Washington, DC: FEMA Printing Office. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). Principles of emergency management. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2012). Planning guide for state, tribal and local emergency management. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2013). Natural hazard mitigation plan guidance document. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), 3. Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. (2004). Gender, risk and disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14, 33-56. Fox, M. H., White, G. W., & Rooney, C. (2007). Disaster preparedness and response for persons with mobility impairments. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 196-205. Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 293-303. Gosset, W. S. (1908). The Probale Error of a Mean. Biometrika, 6(1). 1015). Greenberger, M. (2007). Preparing vulnerable populations for disaster: Inner city emergency preparedness. Who should take the lead? Journal of Health Care Law, 10, 291-307.

Halpern, J., & Tramontin, M. (2007). Disaster mental health: Theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks. Hewitt, K., & Burton, I. (1971). The hazardousness of a place: A regional ecology of damage events. University of Toronto. Hewitt, K. (1983). Interpretations of calamity: From the viewpoint of human ecology. Unwin Hyman. Hoard, M., Homer, J., & Manley, W. (2010). Systems modeling in support of evidence-based disaster planning for rural areas. Journal of Hygienists and Environmental Health, 208 (1-2), 117-125. Horney, J. A., Nguyen, M., Cooper, J., Simon, M., Ricchetti-Masterson, K., Grabich, S., Salvesen, D., & Berke, P. (2013). Accounting for vulnerable populations in rural hazard mitigation plans: Results of a survey of emergency managers. Journal of Emergency Management, 11(3), 201-211. H. R. 707-106th Congress: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (1999). In www.GovTrack.us Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr707 H. R. 1953 – 112th Congress: To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (2011). In www.GovTrack.us . Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1953 Huerta, F., & Horton, R. (1978). Coping behavior of elderly flood victims. Gerontologist, 17(3), 262-268. Hurley, M. A. (2011). Perception of risk of natural hazards: A hazard mitigation plan framework Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (No. 1493875). Huss, S. M., Sadiq, A. A., & Weible, C. M. (2012). Organizations and emergency Management: Information, trust, and preparedness. Journal of Emergency Management, 10(5), 359-372. International Association of Emergency Managers (2014). IAEM-USA Special Needs Caucus. Retrieved from http://www.iaem.com/page.cfm?p=groups/

caucuses/special-needs&lvl=2 Isralowitz, R., & Findley, P. (2009). Emergency preparedness and vulnerable populations: Lessons learned for education and training. Journal of Emergency Management, 7(6), 29-50.

Janssen, M. A. (2007). Synthesis: an update on the scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 1-9. Janssen, M., Lee, J., Bharosa, N., & Cresswell, A. (2010). Advances in multi-agency disaster management: Key elements in disaster research. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 1-7. Kafle, S. K. (2012). Measuring disaster-resilient communities: A case study of coastal communities in Indonesia. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5(4), 316-326. Kailes, J. I., & Enders, A. (2007). Moving beyond “special needs”: A functional based framework for emergency management and planning. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(4), 231-232. Karami, A., Rowley, J., & Analoui, F. (2006). Research and knowledge building in management studies: An analysis of methodological preferences. International Journal of Management, 23(1), 43-52. Kaufman, D. (2012). A whole community approach to emergency management. Retrieved from http://blog.fema.gov/2012/whole-community-approach-

to-emergency.html Kemp, R. L. (2007). Vulnerability assessments for public and private facilities. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 1(3), 245-251. Kemp, M. A., Martin, D., & Abe, D. (2013). A study of community hazard risk assessment methodologies: Practical challenges and methodological solutions for THIRA. Comprehensive Emergency Management Research Center. Retrieved from http://cemr-network.org/page/cemrn-resources. Koon, B. (2014). Disaster mitigation: Reducing costs and saving lives: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 113th Congress, April 3, 2014 (testimony of Bryan Koon). Kreps, G. A., Bosworth, S. L., Mooney, J. A., Russell, S. T., & Myers, K. A. (1994). Organizing, role enactment, and disaster: A structural theory. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press. Kreps, G. A. (1984). Sociological inquiry and disaster research. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 309-330.

Kreps, G. A. (1978). The organizational disaster response: Some fundamental theoretical issues. Disasters Theory and Research, 65-87, London, England: Sage Publications. Langston, L. (2014). Disaster mitigation: Reducing costs and saving lives: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 113th Congress, April 3, 2014 (testimony of Linda Langston). Lawriter Ohio Laws and Rules (2014). Ohio revised Code Chapter 5502, Department of Public Safety. Available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5502 Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2007) Emergency management: Principles and practice for local governments. Washington, DC: ICMA Press. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2006). Behavioral foundations of community emergency planning. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). Do planners matter? Factors driving the incorporation of land use approaches into hazard mitigation plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(5), 792-811. Majchrazak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147-161. Major, A. M. (1998).The utility of situational theory of publics for assessing public response to a disaster prediction. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 489-508. May, P. J. (1986). Disaster policy implementation: Managing programs under shared governance. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Martin, J. R., & Olgun, C. G. (2011). Emerging vulnerabilities and disaster risk management solutions for multihazard resilience. Journal of Emergency Management, 9(1), 13-26. McGaffigan, E., Oliveria, C., & Enochs, D. (2009). Emergency planning and people with disabilities: Massachusetts’ lessons learned. Journal of Emergency Management, 7(3), 68-75. McManus, D. J., & Carr, H. H. (2001). Business continuity planning: Protecting your organization’s life. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications. Menard, L. A., Slater, R. O., & Flaitz, J. (2011). Disaster preparedness and educational attainment. Journal of Emergency Management, 9(4), 45-52.

Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Miller, D. (2014). Disaster mitigation: Reducing costs and saving lives: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Building and Emergency Management of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 113th Congress, April 3, 2014 (testimony of David Miller). National Commission on Children and Disasters (2010). Report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Institute of Business Sciences (2005). Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities. Retrieved from http://www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/MMC-7.pdf Neal, D. M. (1997). Reconsidering the phases of disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 15(2), 239-264. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ngo, E. (2001). When disasters and age collide: Reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Natural Hazards Review, 2(2), 80-89. O’Brien, C., Selod, S., & Escamilla, V. (2007). Prepare: A study of disaster planning in senior living. Seniors Housing Care Journal, 15(1), 57-66. Ogden, J. , & Lo, J. (2012). How meaningful are data from Likert scales? An evaluation of how ratings are made and the role of the response shift in the socially disadvantaged. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(3), 350-361. Ohio Emergency Management Agency (2014). Mitigation planning: A guide for county plans. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Public Safety. Oliver-Smith, A. (1999). The angry earth: Disaster in anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Oyola-Yemaiel, A., & Wilson, J. (2005). Social science hazard/disaster research: Its legacy for emergency management higher education presented at the 2005 FEMA Higher Education Conference. Accessed at http://training.fema.gov/

EMI/Web/edu/emfuture.asp . Quarantelli, E. L. (2000). Disaster research: In H. E. F. Borgatta, & R. J. Montgomery, (Eds.). Encyclopedia of sociology (2nd ed). New York, NY: Macmillan, 681-688.

Rose, A., & Limb, D. (2002). Business interruption losses from natural hazards: Conceptual and methodological issues in the case of the Northridge earthquake. Environmental Hazards, 4, 1-14. Rosenwald, L. B., Caye, J. S., & Ayalon, O. (2005). When their worlds fall apart: Helping families and children manage the effects of disaster. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Rotanz, C. S. (2007). Applied Response Strategies, Chapter 8 in Emergency

management: Principles and practices for local government (2nd ed), W. L. Waugh, & K. Tierney (Eds.). Washington, DC: ICMA Press.

Rooney, C., & White, G. W. (2007). Narrative analysis of a disaster preparedness and emergency response survey from persons with mobility impairments. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 17, 206-215. S. 3721-109th Congress: Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (2006). In www.GovTrack.us . Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3721 Sadiq, A. A., & Weible, C. (2010). Obstacles and disaster risk reduction: Survey of Memphis organizations. Natural Hazards Review, 11(3), 110-117. Sadiq, A. A. (2010). Digging through disaster rubble in search of the determinants of organizational mitigation and preparedness. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy, 1(2), article 2. Saenz, R., & Peacock, W. G. (2006). Rural people, rural places: The hidden costs of Hurricane Katrina. Rural Realities, 1(2). 1-11. Scanlon, T. J. (1988). Disaster’s little known pioneer: Canada’s Samuel Henry Prince. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 6, 213-232. Schroeder-Butterfill, E., & Marianti, R. (2002). A framework for understanding old-age vulnerabilities. Aging Society, 26, 9-35. Selod, S., Heineman, J., O’Brien, C., & King, S. P. (2011). Long-term care and disaster preparedness: A study of organizational types and levels of preparedness for a disaster or emergency. Journal of Emergency Management, 9(2), 39-48. Shenk, D., Ramos, B., & Lalaw, K. (2009). History, memory, and disaster among older adults: A life course perspective. Traumatology, 15(2), 20-30. Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K., & Burke, J. M. (2007). Media use and information needs of the disabled during a natural disaster. Journal of Public Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 18, 394-404.

Staley, J. A., Alemagno, S., & Shaffer-King, P. (2011). Senior adult emergency preparedness: What does it really mean? Journal of Emergency Management, 9(6), 47-55. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Tierney, K. J. (2006). Business and disasters: Vulnerability, impact, and recovery. In H. Rodriguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.). Handbook of disaster research, New York, NY: Springer, 275-296. Tierney, K. J., Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2001). Facing the unexpected: Disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Washington, DC: John Henry Press. Tootle, D. (2009). Disaster recovery in rural communities: A case study of southwest Louisiana. Southern Rural Sociology, 22(2), 6-27. United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), (2008). Working conference on emergency management and individuals with disabilities and the elderly. Retrieved June 5, 2013 from http://www.add-em-conf.com/ United States, Executive Office of the President, (2006). The federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, (228). United States, Executive Office of the President (2011). President policy directive-8: National preparedness. Retrieved from http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=7423 Waugh, W. L. (2000). Living with hazards, dealing with disaster: An introduction to emergency management. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Waugh, W. L. (2007). Terrorism and disaster. H. Ridruquez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.). Handbook of Disaster Research. New York, NY: Springer, 388-404.

APPENDIX A. DATA COLLECTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT

EM Project: Vulnerable Populations / Disaster Planning Study Survey of Emergency Managers in Ohio Community Context (1) What is your title? Emergency manager Building inspector County manager or administrator County engineer

Other (2) Approximately what percent of property in the county lies in areas prone to natural hazards? 0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% >20% (3) Has the county ever experienced a presidentially-declared disaster? Yes

No Don’t know

(3A) [If yes] How many presidentially-declared disasters in the last five years? # _____ (4) Local elected officials are concerned about the risks posed by natural disasters. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Agree disagree (5) Community members are concerned about the risks posed by natural disasters. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Agree Vulnerability (6) How would you rank the county’s vulnerability to natural disasters? 1 2 3 4 5

Extremely Not Vulnerable Vulnerable

(7) Which natural hazards pose the greatest threat to the county? (Rank in order of risk) [add ranking] Tornadoes Earthquakes Floods Hurricanes Nor’easters Landslides Wildfires

Other: (Please specify): _____________ (8) In your opinion, which of the following factors or conditions have increased the county’s vulnerability to natural hazards? (Select all that apply) [we could ask respondents to rank items in the list below] Aging of the population Physical isolation Lack of social services Poverty Lack of awareness of risks posed by natural hazards People who speak English as a second language Lack of political support for measures to reduce risks to natural hazards People with disabilities Growing population of minorities

None of the above Other (Please specify): ___________

(9) Please select below the facilities in the county that are located in areas vulnerable to natural hazards: (Select all that apply). Hospital School Police station Fire station Emergency shelter Daycare center Retirement home or assisted living facility

Water treatment plant Sewage treatment plant

None of the above Planning Process (10) What techniques were used to recruit stakeholders (per Burby) to participate in the planning process? (Select all that apply)

Public notice in newspaper Radio announcements Flyers distributed to nonprofit organizations Posting on government website

Announcements in schools Announcements in churches Targeted outreach to vulnerable (should probably copy list from below and

include here such as racial / ethnic minorities, low income, elderly, etc) groups Language translation of announcement materials Partnerships with local government agencies (town or city offices, office of

minority business development) Partnerships with local agencies or non-governmental organizations (Council on

Aging, American Red Cross, Ruritan) Other (please specify): ______________

(11) What techniques were used to engage stakeholders in the planning process? (Select all that apply)

Formal public hearing Community forum/meetings Non-moderated public comment period (such as at a public library) Focus groups Household survey Charrette Hotline Interviews with key informants Other (please specify): ______________

(12) To what extent did the following stakeholder groups participate in the planning process? (Select all that apply) 1 2 3 4 5 Little or no Extensive Participation Participation Affordable housing groups (e.g. Habitat for Humanity) Agriculture or forest industry groups (e.g. Ruritan) Business groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) Environmental Associations (e.g. local chapter of the Sierra Club) Groups representing disadvantage people exposed to hazards (e.g. environmental justice groups) Local government departments Local elected officials Media representatives (e.g. newspapers, radio, television) Neighborhood groups Older people’s groups (e.g. local chapter of American Association of Retire Persons, local Council on Aging) Port, fishing and marine industry groups Professional groups (e.g. associations of architects or engineers) Property owners groups Special districts (e.g. school districts)

(13) Where were public meetings held? (Select all that apply) Churches Government buildings YMCA Library Community center Other (please specify): ___________________ (14) How many public participation meetings were held? 0-3 4-6 7-9 10+ (15) What was the main purpose of involving the public in the process of preparing the hazard mitigation plan? Educate the public about the hazard mitigation plan Assess resident’s preferences and values Develop strategies for reducing damages from natural hazards Gain public support for the hazard mitigation plan Meet federal or state requirement

Learn from resident’s knowledge and experience with disasters To improve the plan through citizen involvement

Other (please specify): ______________ Capacity (16) Does the county have an office or department of emergency management? Yes No (17) How many full time equivalent staff are responsible for implementing the hazard mitigation plan? # ____ [I’ll insert a drop down menu of numbers from 0 – 20]

Don’t know [If answer to this question is 0, then skip the next question] (17a) Of these, how many are certified, e.g., by the International Association of Emergency Managers, Floodplain Managers Association, or other professional groups

# ____ [I’ll insert a drop down menu of numbers from 0 – 20] Don’t know

(18) Approximately what percent of the county’s budget is allocated to hazard mitigation?

0-2% 3-5 6-8 9-11 over 11% (19) What other sources of funding have been used by the county to mitigate risks posed by natural hazards? (Select all that apply) Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds Flood mitigation assistance grants State hazard mitigation funds

Small Business Administration Loans Grants from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Other (please specify): _____________

(20) Does the county have Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities (e.g., the ability to produce maps using GIS)? Yes No [if no, skip the next question) (21) How does the county use GIS in planning for or responding to disasters? (Select all that apply) Dispatch response units Identify hazard-prone areas Identify special populations

Identify people or facilities (e.g., schools or nursing homes) to notify about potential disasters

Other (Please specify): __________ Hazard Mitigation Plan (22) How would you rate the quality of the county’s hazard mitigation plan? 1 2 3 4 5 Low High quality quality (23) To what extent does the hazard mitigation plan address the needs of vulnerable populations such as the racial and ethnic minorities, low income, elderly, people with disabilities, people who speak English as a second language, people who live in areas identified as vulnerable (flood plains, mobile home parks) Community agencies or non-governmental organizations that may represent vulnerable groups (e.g. Council on Aging) Faith-Based organizations elderly, poor, minorities or people with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5

Does not Fully

address addresses (24) To what extent is the hazard mitigation plan integrated with other county plans, including: 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Not at all Fully integrated integrated

Comprehensive plan Parks and recreation plan Capital improvement plan Transportation plan Greenways plan Other (please specify): ___________ Plan Implementation (25) Which of the following measures has the county implemented to reduce or mitigate the impacts of natural disasters? (Select all that apply): Note: the responses will be tailored to each county’s plan. The responses could include, for example:

• Maps of flood hazard areas  • Public education campaign  • Limits on extending public infrastructure to flood hazard areas  • Flood warning system  • Elevation of structures in flood hazard areas  • Acquisition or relocation of properties in flood hazard areas  • Minimum setback requirements or buffers from flood hazard areas  • Levees, seawalls or other protection measures  • Development restrictions in flood hazard areas  • Stormwater management regulations  • Building codes geared toward mitigating flood hazards  • Identification of housing relocation sites  • Providing maps to the public to communicate vulnerability  • Other (please specify):  __________ 

(26) Among the measures implemented, which ones have had the greatest impact on reducing the county’s vulnerability to natural hazards? [Insert list of measures that were selected in the previous question]

(27) In general, how important are the following issues to local elected officials in terms of the implementation of the plan:

1 2 3 4 5 Not Very Important Important

• Economic development  • Environmental protection  • Hazard mitigation  • Affordable housing  • Open space protection  • Citizen involvement  • Private property rights  • Planning/land use regulation 

  (28) Which offices or agencies are responsible for implementing the county’s hazard mitigation plan? (Select all that apply) Emergency Management Planning Parks and Recreation Public Works Building Inspection Engineering Other (please specify): ___________________ (29) To what extent do county agencies coordinate in implementing the hazard mitigation plan? 1 2 3 4 5 Little or Extensive

No Coordination Coordination (30) To what extent do county agencies coordinate with state and federal agencies in implementing the hazard mitigation plan? 1 2 3 4 5 Little or Extensive

No Coordination Coordination (31) Does the county have any of the following? (Select all that apply):

• Mutual aid agreement with other jurisdictions to provide assistance in the  event of a disaster 

• Memoranda of understanding with other governments on matters relating to  emergencies or disasters 

• Rainy day funds to pay for emergencies or disasters  • Multi‐jurisdiction disaster plans 

Outcomes (32) What have been the main outcomes of implementing the hazard mitigation plan in your county? (Select all that apply)

Increased awareness of the risks posed by natural hazards Safer, more resilient community Enhanced awareness of the needs of vulnerable populations Improved interagency coordination Greater involvement of residents in mitigating natural hazards Greater involvement of other stakeholders Stronger support for hazard mitigation among elected officials Other (Please specify): ____________

APPENDIX B. DEMOGRAPHICS DATA OF SAMPLE POPULATION Figure B1

Figure B2

Approximate percentage of county's budget allocated to

hazard mitigation

74%

20%

0-2%

3-5%

6-8%

9-11%

>11%

What is your title?

95%

Em ergency Manager

County Manager

County Engineer

Building Inspector

Other

Figure B3

Number of full time equivalent staff members responsible for

implementing hazard mitigation planning

10%

63%

20%

2% 0%

None