Increasing interest in fostering resilient communities requires a more comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation planning that overcomes the limitations of traditional hazard assessments, notably the failure to explicitly incorporate an analysis of social vulnerability. We statistically analyzed a random sample of 1500 damage assessments of single-family homes collected following Hurricane Ike to assess the contributions of hazard exposure, structural vulnerability, and social vulnerability. The results indicate that hazard exposure, structural characteristics, and socioeconomic characteristics are significant predictors of structural damage. The implications suggest that comprehensive hazard assessments can provide additional insights for mitigation planning and community resiliency.

In an effort to counteract mounting flood losses, FEMA introduced the Community Rating System (CRS) in 1990 as a way to encourage local jurisdictions to exceed the National Flood Insurance Program’s minimum standard for floodplain management. While the program has grown since its inception, there is little understanding of the degree to which mitigation activities have reduced flood-related losses to buildings and their contents over time. The effectiveness gap is addressed through the longitudinal statistical analysis of 450 CRS-participating communities. For each selected community, CRS point totals are tracked on a yearly basis over an 11-year study period from 1999 to 2009 and their impacts on insured loss claim payments based on claim type and floodplain location are tested. Results indicate that three CRS activities, freeboard requirements, open space protection, and flood protection, significantly reduce flood damage.

As property damage from flooding continues to increase, particularly in coastal areas, the adoption of strategies to mitigate these losses has never been more important to protecting the health and safety of coastal communities. Both structural and non-structural flood mitigation activities are being considered to buffer the adverse consequences of building structures in areas exposed to flood risk. However, little research has been conducted on the effectiveness of flood mitigation practices, particularly non-structural approaches at the parcel level. Our study addresses this lack of critical knowledge by examining the effect of mitigation activities adopted under the FEMA community rating system on insured property losses across multiple communities within the Clear Creek watershed located just south of Houston, TX and adjacent to Galveston Bay. Specifically, we statistically identify the degree to which various mitigation strategies adopted by a community reduce flood loss claims among 9,555 parcels from 1999 to 2009. Results indicate that several mitigation policies adopted at the community level result in significant savings in property damage for homeowners in the Clear Creek watershed.

Adopting effective flood mitigation practices for repetitive flood events in the United States continues to play a prominent role in preventing future damage and fostering resilience to residential flooding. Two common mitigation practices for reducing residential flood risk consist of raising an existing structure to or above base flood elevation (BFE) and acquiring chronically damaged properties in flood prone areas and restoring them back to serve their natural functions as green open spaces. However, due to data accuracy limitations, decision makers are faced with the challenge of identifying the financially optimal approach to implementing mitigation measures. We address this problem through the following research questions: What does the optimal allocation of flood mitigation resources look like under data uncertainty, and what are the optimal methods to combining mitigation measures with consideration for the best economic benefits? Using a robust decision making (RDM) approach, the effects of uncertainty in property values, construction and demolition costs, and policy implementation options such as structure selection and budget allocation were measured. Our results indicate that the amount budgeted for mitigation and how those funds are allocated directly influence the selection of the most economically viable mitigation practices. Our research also contributes to the growing need for evaluating specific flood mitigation strategies.