STEP 1d: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

A Vulnerability Assessment gives quantitative estimates of the people and property in your community that are
vulnerable to each hazard. The simplest technique to assess vulnerabilities is to compare the community profile
map with hazard maps for the same area, to find areas where hazards overlap with the locations of people,
structures and infrastructure. Areas where hazards overlap with development should be examined more closely
to estimate what kinds of damages might occur during an emergency event. The goal should be to produce
specific information that measures the threats from each hazard (depth of flooding, amount of service
interruption, amount of traffic delays, number of casualties, amounts of physical damage, economic costs,
number of families displaced, and so on). As shown in the last section (on Risk Assessment), information such
as the number of persons at risk, the number of structures vulnerable to damage, or estimates of economic
losses, are all quantifiable concepts. There is no need at this point to reach perfect accuracy with these
measurements. In the hazard analysis, they will mainly be used to compare hazards with each other, to prioritize
them and determine which ones your community is most vulnerable to. An advanced hazard analysis can also
allow a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, which will mathematically justify the expense of mitigation
projects, land use restrictions, and other important policy decisions. A Risk Assessment Table, as shown
previously, is often merely a convenience to summarize the results of a detailed analysis. In a detailed analysis,
hazard-specific disaster scenarios can be considered, in which "worst-case scenarios" are considered. Such
scenarios are essentially a brainstorming activity to aid in determining what additional impacts each hazard
might cause. The types of impacts that may be considered include:

• Impacts on specific sectors of the community (see previous page regarding multi-jurisdictional plans)
• Damage to structures – the number and type of structures, estimated costs of damage (including contents)
• Life safety consequences and issues (potential deaths, injuries, search and rescue situations, etc.)
• Critical loss of function consequences and issues (lifelines, police/fire/EMS, special needs groups, etc.)
• Public health consequences and issues such as contaminated water, disease, vector control (insects and
animals that can spread disease to humans), etc.
• Economic consequences and issues (loss of business activity, unemployment, response and recovery costs)
• Recovery issues and concerns (re-building public and private facilities, housing needs, project funding,
hazard mitigation, etc.)
After applying the various hazard-specific disaster scenarios, the community will have a good idea, in terms of
potential numbers, of what it could reasonably expect to encounter in similar situations. It may not be necessary
to develop and apply scenarios for EVERY known hazard in the community. At this stage of the analysis,
efforts may be focused toward the most important hazards. Each community will have to make that
determination based on its needs, priorities and resources. Vulnerabilities will later be addressed through
specific mitigation strategies. (See steps 2 through 5.) Your plan should contain enough detail to help
FEMA estimate whether a particular mitigation project will pass a cost-benefit analysis (see Appendix B).
Text, tables and maps can be used to depict the consequences, issues and considerations raised in the disaster
scenarios. This could then serve as a basis for determining community priorities for mitigation activities,
emergency planning, and resource allocation. The results should also be used by the community’s land use and
public facility planners to avoid allowing future developments in hazardous areas.
A Flood Vulnerability map appears on the next page as an example of identifying areas where a hazard overlaps
with urban developments. Notice that this vulnerability map allows more detail because it focuses only on one
small portion of a community, in which a floodplain overlaps with developed areas. The background layer of
the map (identifying structures, water bodies, and other community features) was adapted from existing USGS
information. (Such information can be obtained at http://www.topozone.com/, among other sources.) Areas on
this base map were then highlighted and marked with descriptive text boxes, using ordinary office software, to
produce a customized flood vulnerability map suitable for use in a hazard mitigation plan.
A second map (produced in the same way) follows the first one, to give some more ideas of the type of analysis
that is desirable when analyzing spatial hazards such as urban, riverine, and shoreline flooding. As noted
before, these maps were originally in color to help readers sort through the provided information.
57 2/03
 Recurrent and
problematic street
flooding

Recurrent and
Higher-risk problematic
floodplain areas street flooding

HARRISON
TOWNSHIP

Higher-risk
floodplain areas

EXAMPLE OF FLOOD HAZARD SECTOR MAP

FOR A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Appropriate text description would accompany these sorts of maps in an actual mitigation plan. Areas of
identified vulnerabilities would also be included in the community's mitigation goals as they proceed from their
hazard analysis into developing an actual hazard mitigation plan. (This will be covered in the next section:
"Step 2: Define Goals and Objectives.")
The areas identified on vulnerability maps can be compared with tax assessment or decennial census data to
estimate the nature and number of persons and property at-risk. For commercial businesses, direct inquiries,

58 2/03
surveys, or government information (from the economic census, County Business Patterns, the Regional
Economic Information System) can be helpful for determining loss of jobs, productivity, and so on.

Floodplain areas
near drains HARRISON
TOWNSHIP

Street flooding
encroaches on
homes Will benefit from
pumping station
improvements

Shoreline flood
risk areas

Impacts on area infrastructure and services should also be noted where possible. The locations of specific
mitigation projects (such as the "pumping station improvements" in the map above) can also be identified, once
these projects have been determined to be desirable for the community.

What is the Difference between Risk and Vulnerability?

This workbook has tended to blend the Risk and Vulnerability Assessments together, because in hazard
mitigation planning, there is not firm agreement about exactly where the line is drawn between these
concepts when creating a hazard analysis. One tradition holds that risk is a more general concept, and
vulnerability is a more specific, quantitative assessment of the anticipated effects of hazards. In a similar
sense, one can see "risk" as describing specific hazards such as severe weather (a particular chance of a
certain amount of snowfall, for example), while vulnerability then examines the sort of impact that such
hazards are actually likely to have on the community. A house may exist in a floodplain (according to a risk
assessment) but if the house has been elevated above expected flood levels, it may not actually be vulnerable
to such a hazard.
Any of these approaches can be fine, as long as the ultimate goals of a hazard analysis are achieved. Hazards
should be assessed and vulnerable areas of the community should be identified. Priorities should be set,
because any good analysis will reveal that some risks are more threatening than others. The best available
information and planning expertise should be utilized to sort through the many potential hazard impacts that
exist. The nature of hazards, information, and planning resources will vary in each community

As with Risk Assessment information, a summary table can be produced that summarizes different types of
identified hazard vulnerabilities in your community. Some of these may not be easily quantified, but are still
important to consider. A table appears on the next page to illustrate this.

59 2/03
 (name of community) Vulnerability Determination: (year)
(EXAMPLE)

HAZARD Sector Issues Life Safety Loss of

Issues Function Issues
1. (FOR a. 80% of Pine Twp. a. Flash flood on Pine a. No backup
EXAMPLE): residents are elderly River could result in generator in police
Riverine Flooding b. Only bridge in many deaths and station in City of
Village of Stormy is injuries Rolling Hills
floodprone b. Large number of b. Rolling Hills fire
c. Seafarer Twp. has elderly residents in station located in
summer population county makes warning floodplain
increase of 35,000 difficult c. Several sewage lift
people c. County has limited stations in Pine Twp.
d. City of Rolling water rescue capability are prone to flood
Hills has many d. Propane tanks in damage
businesses in Pine floodplain not d. Gas main under
River floodplain anchored Pine River bridge
vulnerable
Public Health Economic Recovery Issues
Issues Issues

a. Flooding a. Businesses in Pine a. Damaged public

contaminates private River floodplain must facilities cannot be
wells in Pine Twp. close for up to two used for up to two
b. Flooded buildings weeks weeks after flood
become contaminated b. Post-flood recovery b. Flooded residents
c. Mosquito, rodent and cleanup costs are must be temporarily
and snake populations very high housed for up to two
swell after flooding c. Public facilities in weeks
d. Flood-soaked debris Rolling Hills incur c. Potential for
gets piled up for long repetitive damage business closures due
periods of time to repetitive flood
damage

Another Technique for Prioritizing Hazards

A useful task in the Vulnerability Assessment is to rank hazards according to how vulnerable your community is
to each of them. The Risk Assessment Summary Table shown previously had a column in which this ranking
could be inserted. Such ranking will help to prioritize mitigation efforts according to the severity of a hazard's
risks which they address. The technique of assigning appropriate monetary values to the various types of harm
that could occur has already been suggested as a vital part of an advanced hazard analysis document. As part of
a standard hazard analysis (or when certain types of vulnerability are not readily quantifiable in dollar terms), a
somewhat simpler technique may be used to determine priorities and provide a framework for awareness,
analysis, debate, and consensus-building in your community. The essential concept of this technique is to break
each hazard into different components of risk and to weigh hazards against each other using a "weighted
average." Instead of a normal average which would treat each aspect of a hazard as equal, a weighted average
specifies that although all effects of a hazard may be significant, some hazard impacts are much more important
than others, and therefore weigh more heavily in an overall assessment of the community's risks and priorities.
The next few pages give a step-by-step description of how this technique can be used to determine your
community's priorities, and to guide public understanding, input, debate, and agreement on the topics.
(NOTE: This information was presented as an optional technique under Appendix B in the previous edition of
this workbook. It is now recommended that this, some similar technique such as the economic quantification
described in the Risk Assessment section of this workbook, or a similarly detailed method shall be used to
explain how risks to your community were assessed and prioritized in your hazard analysis. The technique
given over the next few pages is really not that difficult so long as the instructions are understood and followed
step-by-step. If any questions arise, or if you wish to request more specific instruction, please contact the Mike
Sobocinski, Local Hazard Mitigation Planner with MSP-EMD, at 517/336-2053 or [email protected].)

60 2/03
This "weighted average" technique of assessing and prioritizing your hazards should be used if you have trouble
using another technique to quantify and compare the different hazards facing your community. It will also be
extremely useful to describe to others (at meetings, or those reading your hazard analysis and hazard mitigation
plan) how you assessed that your community is more vulnerable to some hazards than to others. You will
especially want to use a technique like the Hazard Assessment Ratings described here if you do not have the
information or resources to assess your risks in economic terms using the cost-benefit analysis or some
comparable technique as described in the Risk Assessment Section.
This section will describe each step of the process. Even if you are unfamiliar with the reasoning behind the use
of a "weighted average," in the end the results should make sense to you. You will probably want to discuss
your choices and use of this technique with other local officials to be certain that your conclusions reflect the
goals and attitudes of your community. If they do, it will be much easier to gain community support and official
approval for your emergency management goals and mitigation projects as a result of the mitigation plan that
will emerge from this process.

1. Choose evaluation criteria – A hazard can be seen in terms of the many potential impacts it can have on your
community. Let us begin the analysis by considering these aspects of hazards. A list of suggested hazard
aspects appears in the left column of the table below. Look over this list and determine what aspects of a hazard
are of most concern to those in your community. (If you need to, look over the list of natural, technological, and
social/societal hazards on the next page. These are the types of hazards you will be prioritizing based on this list
of hazard aspects.) Are rare but destructive events of greater concern than persistently annoying hazards? If so,
then you will want to pick hazard aspects that reflect that judgement. Go through the list (you may add new
items to it if you like) and determine (in consultation with others whenever possible) which items you and those
in your community feel would be useful in evaluating each hazard. Check the column that you feel best
describes how important each aspect of a hazard is. If you decide not to consider a particular aspect, mark the
right column called "Not Worth Considering." Those aspects will not be considered in the assessment that will
follow. Marking any other column means that an aspect will at least be given a little bit of consideration in
assessing which hazards are more important. You may select these columns for only a few aspects, or may
select the entire list as at least worth considering, and even add a few more of your own items to the end of the
list (such as recovery issues or public health concerns, as listed in the Vulnerability Determination Table). The
important point is to select at least some items as a basis for assessing hazard vulnerabilities in your area.
Hazard Aspect Always Usually Sometimes Rarely of Not Worth
Very Important Important Importance Considering
Important
Likelihood of Occurrence
Capacity to cause physical damages
Size of Affected Area
Speed of Onset (amount of warning time)
Percent of population affected
Potential for causing casualties
Potential for negative economic effects
Duration of threat from hazard
Seasonal risk pattern
Environmental impact
Predictability of hazard
Ability of hazard impacts to be mitigated
Availability of warning systems
Public awareness of hazard
Corollary effects (ability to cause other hazards)
(Other considerations may be added to this list)

2. Assign "weights" to express the importance of each hazard aspect – If you have decided that some hazard
aspects are not worth considering, remove them from the list. All remaining hazard aspects are of at least a little
importance to you, and you now need to convert your initial selections into a clearer means of weighing the
importance of some hazard aspects against others. You may have picked the entire list as being of some
importance, or you may have picked only a few aspects as worth considering. (The fewer you pick, the easier
the analysis will be, but at minimum you should probably include the likelihood of occurrence [risk], and some
measures of harm that could be caused [such as casualties and physical destructiveness].) Your task now is to

61 2/03
convert your choices into a set of numbers that all add up to 100 (or, as percentages that all add up to the number
one).
Envision in your mind the total effect of things you consider harmful to your community. (These things should
be covered in some way on the list of hazard aspects you have selected.) Now picture harm to your community
as being made up of the sum of all these different aspects that you have selected as important: negative
economic effects, property damage, loss of life, and so on. Now picture that since harm is composed of these
things, each of them makes up a portion of the whole, just as slices of pie make up the entire pie. If you have
picked some hazard aspects as being more important than others, the ones that were considered most important
should therefore make up larger slices of the overall pie. You might feel that casualties were the most important
hazard aspect, followed by the likelihood of occurrence, but that environmental impacts and political awareness
of the hazard must not be completely ignored. If we picture these hazard aspects as slices of a pie, you should
estimate how big a slice is adequate to give to each one of these concerns about hazards. If the importance of
casualties is greater than current political awareness of a given hazard, you should assign that a larger slice of
pie. The size of each slice will be measured as a percentage of the whole. Take 100 percentage points and
divide them up between all the hazard aspects you have selected above, so that more important aspects are given
more points than less important ones. It doesn't need to be perfect at first; you can go back and change the
numbers later on after you've thought about it more and discussed it with others in your community.
The result of your "pie-slicing" will be numbers attached to each selected hazard aspect, which will add up to a
total of 100 percentage points (which equals a whole). If you have picked four aspects and they are all equally
important, each one accounts for 25% of the whole. Perhaps they are not equal; maybe the casualties slice of the
pie is 50 percent of the whole, being considered twice as important as another that then accounts for 25 percent.
The other two aspects will have 25 percent together (possibly 10% for one and 15% for the other) so that the
total of all hazard aspects will be 100%. The degree of importance you gave each aspect in the table above can
help you estimate what percentage (from the total of 100) to assign it. Those considered "always very
important" should be assigned a greater percentage than those considered "Usually Important" or "Sometimes
Important," and so on. After you have compared these hazard aspects for a while, make sure the add up to
100% and roughly express how casualties compare with economic impacts, and so on, in your view of what is
most important or potentially harmful to your community. You will then be ready to use these "weights" to
make a balanced comparison of your community's hazards, based on the aspects of hazards that were considered
important.

3. Begin to make a Hazard Assessment Rating Table – Make a table with a list of all significant hazards going
down the left-most column. In the top row, label the other columns of the table with the aspects for hazard
evaluation that you have just selected and assigned percentages to. Do not yet place numbers into any of the
cells within this table. Merely begin by listing the hazards along the left, and the evaluation criteria along the
top. An example appears on the next page.

62 2/03
 Hazard Assessment Rating Table
EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Hazard Likelihood Percent of Potential for Potential for Corollary Public
of population causing negative effects awareness of
Occurrence affected casualties economic (10%) hazard
(30%) (20%) (20%) effects (5%)
(15%)
Civil disturbances
Drought
Earthquakes
Extreme temperature
Scrap tire fires
Structural fires
Wildfires
Dam failures
Riverine flooding
Shoreline flooding
Fixed site hazmat incident
Hazmat transportation incident
Infrastructure failures
Nuclear attack
Nuclear power plant accidents
Oil & gas well accidents
Pipeline accidents
Public health emergencies
Terrorism/sabotage/WMD
Subsidence
Hail
Lightning
Severe winds
Tornadoes
Transportation accidents
Winter weather hazards
EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

4. Select rating scale for each hazard evaluation aspect – Next, each cell in the table will be filled in with a
number from a specific rating scale, such as from 0 to 10. Using this scale, a rating of 0 would represent a
condition that poses no threat to the community, while a rating of 10 would represent a condition of serious and
unmitigated threat. Numbers in between 0 and 10 will represent conditions between these two extremes. Each
number in a cell will represent the seriousness of a hazard in terms of one of the hazard evaluation aspects you
have chosen. (NOTE: this new scale from 0 to 10 is not related to the 100 percentage points that you previously
assigned among these criteria – those percentages are use to show how much weight each hazard aspect is being
given; each rating from 0 to 10 will be adjusted by the percentage weights in a later step of this process.)
Before you fill in any specific numbers, you should give some thought to what the numbers between 0 and 10
will mean. This will help your rating of the hazards to be consistent and accurate. To illustrate, let's consider
the criterion of "Likelihood of Occurrence." This is a measure that you may have chosen (and may have already
estimated in a Risk Assessment Summary Table). A rating of zero on this measure that would represent the
least threatening condition, which would mean that there is no chance of occurrence in your community. A
rating of 10 would represent a continually occurring hazard. In between these extremes, you might place
numbers such as "3: usually occurs once every 10 years", "5: occurs every year", "8: occurs every week", or any
other estimates that you consider appropriate for the hazards affecting your community. Think about the range
of likelihoods for all the hazards in your area and use that to determine what a "3," "5," "7," and other numbers
will actually stand for. Once you have written out your rating scale, you should be able to use it to rate all your
communities hazards from 0 to 10 on this aspect of threat (in this example, "likelihood of occurrence" is the
aspect being considered).
Proceed on to your next chosen criterion and again come up with some ideas about a rating scale from 0 to10.
For example, "size of affected area" would have conditions ranging from "0: none of my community would be
affected" to "10: my entire community would be affected." Go through your entire list of selected hazard
aspects and define what numbers from 0 to 10 can be used to describe the range of conditions, from the least
63 2/03
threatening to the most, for that particular aspect of any hazard. Make sure that 0 is always the least threatening
condition. For example, on "Ability of hazard impacts to be mitigated," the least threatening condition would be
a hazard that is easy to completely eliminate, while the most threatening condition is one that is impossible to
mitigate. (Strategies to improve preparedness, response, or recovery would be appropriate for such hazards, if
they truly can't be mitigated.)
5. Rate each hazard from 0 to 10 on all the aspects you have chosen – Now you should begin to insert values
into each cell of the table you have made. It is recommended that this be done in pencil, or that extra space be
left to change these values later in the analysis. A computer spreadsheet can also be used, which allows changes
to be made very easily in the table.
For each hazard listed in the left column, go across its row to the right and fill in a rating from 0 to 10. The
numbers represent your assessment of each aspect of the hazard, using the rating scales you have just created.
Below is an example of what a table might look like after this step has been completed. After you have filled in
all empty cells of your table with a number from 0 to 10 like this, you will then be ready to calculate the overall
risk from each hazard.

Hazard Assessment Rating Table

EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
ALL NUMBERS IN TABLE Likelihood Percent of Potential for Potential for Corollary Public
SHOW HOW EACH of population causing negative effects awareness of
HAZARD RATES ON A Occurrence affected casualties economic (10%) hazard
SCALE FROM 0 TO 10. (30%) (20%) (20%) effects (5%)
(15%)
Hazard:
Civil disturbances 2 2 3 6 3 1
Drought 3 7 1 5 3 2
Earthquakes 1 5 1 2 2 1
Extreme temperature 7 9 3 3 4 4
Scrap tire fires 1 1 1 4 2 1
Structural fires 9 1 4 4 2 5
Wildfires 5 5 5 5 3 9
Dam failures 2 2 8 7 5 3
Riverine flooding 7 2 4 4 5 8
Shoreline flooding 4 1 2 4 2 7
Fixed site hazmat incident 3 1 6 4 2 4
Hazmat transportation incident 6 3 6 4 3 2
Infrastructure failures 7 9 3 5 5 8
Nuclear attack 1 10 7 10 9 3
Nuclear power plant accidents 1 1 1 2 2 2
Oil & gas well accidents 2 1 3 3 3 1
Pipeline accidents 2 3 5 6 5 2
Public health emergencies 3 4 4 5 3 2
Terrorism/sabotage/WMD 2 4 7 7 8 1
Subsidence 1 1 1 1 2 1
Hail 5 4 1 2 3 2
Lightning 5 2 2 4 4 2
Severe winds 6 9 3 4 6 4
Tornadoes 3 6 6 8 7 8
Transportation accidents 6 2 5 6 4 2
Winter weather hazards 8 9 4 5 7 4
SCALE: from 0 (poses the least threat) to 10 (poses the greatest threat)
EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

6. Calculate the overall hazard assessment ratings – The math is quite simple, since it only uses addition and
multiplication. A new column should be added on the right side of the Hazard Assessment Rating Table. The
new column will contain the overall rating for each hazard, which will be calculated now. Take the percentage
weight for each column and multiply it by the number in each cell that you have given a rating on the 0 to 10
scale. Make sure that the same percentage is used for each entire (vertical) column in the table. In the example
table above, each cell in the column marked "Likelihood of Occurrence (30%)" will be multiplied by .30—the
numerical equivalent of the percentage that was assigned to that aspect of the hazards. The next column marked
"Percent of Population Affected (20%) will have each number multiplied by .20. After all the cells in the table
64 2/03
have been multiplied by the appropriate percentages, the results from the cells in each row of the table should be
added together from left to right. This will result in a single number from 0 to 10 for each hazard, called the
hazard assessment rating, and can be entered into the new column that was added onto the right side of the table,
as seen in the example table below.

Hazard Assessment Rating Table

EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Hazard Likelihood Percent of Potential Potential Corollary Public Total rating:
of population for for effects aware- sum of all
Occurrence affected causing negative ness of columns
casualties economic hazard (100%)
effects
30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 5%
Civil disturbances 2 x 0.30 = 2 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.6 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.05 2.85
Drought 3 x 0.30 = 7 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
0.9 1.4 0.2 0.75 0.3 0.1 3.65
Earthquakes 1 x 0.30 = 5 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 2 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.3 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.05 2.05
Extreme temperatures 7 x 0.30 = 9 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.15 = 4 x 0.10 = 4 x 0.05 =
2.1 1.8 0.6 0.45 0.4 0.2 5.55
Scrap tire fires 1 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.05 1.55
Structural fires 9 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 5 x 0.05 =
2.7 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.25 4.75
Wildfires 5 x 0.30 = 5 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 9 x 0.05 =
1.5 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.3 0.45 5.00
Dam failures 2 x 0.30 = 2 x 0.20 = 8 x 0.20 = 7 x 0.15 = 5 x 0.10 = 3 x 0.05 =
0.6 0.4 1.6 1.05 0.5 0.15 4.30
Riverine flooding 7 x 0.30 = 2 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 5 x 0.10 = 8 x 0.05 =
2.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 4.80
Shoreline flooding 4 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 2 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 7 x 0.05 =
1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.35 2.95
Fixed site hazmat incident 3 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 4 x 0.05 =
0.9 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.30
Hazmat transportation incident 6 x 0.30 = 3 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
1.8 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 4.60
Infrastructure failures 7 x 0.30 = 9 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.15 = 5 x 0.10 = 8 x 0.05 =
2.1 1.8 0.6 0.75 0.5 0.4 6.15
Nuclear attack 1 x 0.30 = 10 x 0.20 = 7 x 0.20 = 10 x 0.15 = 9 x 0.10 = 3 x 0.05 =
0.3 2.0 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.15 6.25
Nuclear power plant accidents 1 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 2 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.30
Oil & gas well accidents 2 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.6 0.2 0.6 0.45 0.3 0.05 2.20
Pipeline accidents 2 x 0.30 = 3 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.15 = 5 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.1 3.70
Public health emergencies 3 x 0.30 = 4 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
0.9 0.8 0.8 0.75 0.3 0.1 3.65
Terrorism/sabotage/WMD 2 x 0.30 = 4 x 0.20 = 7 x 0.20 = 7 x 0.15 = 8 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.6 0.8 1.4 1.05 0.8 0.1 4.75
Subsidence 1 x 0.30 = 1 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.15 = 2 x 0.10 = 1 x 0.05 =
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.1 1.15
Hail 5 x 0.30 = 4 x 0.20 = 1 x 0.20 = 2 x 0.15 = 3 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.20
Lightning 5 x 0.30 = 2 x 0.20 = 2 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 4 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
1.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 3.40
Severe winds 6 x 0.30 = 9 x 0.20 = 3 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.15 = 6 x 0.10 = 4 x 0.05 =
1.8 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 5.60
Tornadoes 3 x 0.30 = 6 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.20 = 8 x 0.15 = 7 x 0.10 = 8 x 0.05 =
0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 5.60
Transportation accidents 6 x 0.30 = 2 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.20 = 6 x 0.15 = 4 x 0.10 = 2 x 0.05 =
1.8 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.1 4.60
Winter weather hazards 8 x 0.30 = 9 x 0.20 = 4 x 0.20 = 5 x 0.15 = 7 x 0.10 = 4 x 0.05 =
2.4 1.8 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.2 6.65
EXAMPLE: FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

This work can be quite simple for those who use spreadsheet software, but such software is not necessary so
long as the basic math has been done carefully, and double-checked for correctness. The result of these
estimates and calculations is that each hazard is given a specific rating which can be used to establish (and

65 2/03
explain) mitigation priorities in your community. In the example table on the next page, each hazard has ratings
assigned in the right-most column, and if these are placed in descending order, the example community's top
hazards have been calculated as follows:
1. Winter weather hazards (rated 6.65)
2. Nuclear attack (6.25)
3. Infrastructure failures (6.15)
4 & 5. Tornadoes and severe winds (5.60)
6. Extreme temperatures (5.55)
7. Wildfires (5.00)
8. Riverine flooding (4.80)
9 & 10. Structural fires and terrorism/sabotage/WMD
11 & 12. Transportation accidents/transportation hazardous material incidents
13. Dam failures

For this hypothetical community, other significant hazards are pipeline accidents, drought, public health
emergencies, lightning, fixed site hazardous material incidents, hail, shoreline flooding, and civil disturbances.
The hypothetical community's least significant hazards were calculated to be oil & gas well accidents,
earthquakes, scrap tire fires, nuclear accidents, and subsidence. For other communities, these calculations
would probably be much different. In multi-jurisdictional plans, it may be necessary to identify different
priorities for each of the communities that are covered by the plan.
The results of this detailed technique are hazard rankings that can be entered into the Risk Assessment Table and
used to establish which hazards are higher-priority. Proper use of this technique also provides a way to build
consensus about these priorities, and to explain (or defend) decisions that have been made from these priorities.

How much analysis is needed?

This workbook tends to avoid giving fixed requirements about exactly how much analysis is required,
because your mitigation plan must assess and then address all hazards that are significant for your
community rather than to follow a specific blueprint or preconceived formula. Avoiding a "boiler plate"
approach keeps community mitigation plans flexible, so they can be easily customized to meet an area's
needs with the resources that are available to it. One community may already have plenty of data and
planning resources available, while another community may feel completely strapped and overwhelmed. A
good general principle is to use "best available data" in a way that is efficient and most pertinent to your
community's resources and challenges. (Each community's hazards, priorities, and resources are different, so
their plans will be also.) On the negative side, those who are new to mitigation planning may find it easier to
be given specific lists of what to do, to swiftly complete a quality hazard mitigation plan simply by
completing each step on a checklist. Although this document remains flexible by providing few specific
checklists, you should study Appendix C if your plan is intended to fulfill grant requirements for federal
hazard mitigation programs and meet the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. If
you seek "best practices" for analyzing high-priority hazards, please refer to the information in Appendix B.

The Vulnerability Assessment, and indeed the entire Hazard Analysis, can be considered complete when (1)
specific areas of the community have been identified that are vulnerable to harm from hazards, (2) these areas of
vulnerability have been prioritized with estimates of which threats are most important to address, and (3)
defensible explanations have been given as to why these areas are believed to be vulnerable to hazards, or how
such vulnerabilities were determined. You will then be ready to plan how to mitigate such vulnerabilities.
Having a presentable and complete document explaining your hazard analysis will allow the information you've
researched to be examined and used by many important people in your community, whether planners, officials,
or others in emergency management. Feedback and suggestions from these people can be very useful and
important for making the hazard analysis as accurate and useful as possible.
This section has given only a few examples of the techniques that can be used to assess risks, identify
vulnerabilities, and establish priorities. For more information about specific types of information and techniques

66 2/03
that can be used to analyze different sorts of hazards in your community, please refer to Appendix B in this
workbook. It will describe the ways that you can think about and measure the risk from each type of hazard that
may be a priority in your community.
If your community is developing a hazard mitigation plan so as to meet the requirements of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (and the federal regulations that are based on it), please refer to Appendix C in this
workbook. Appendix C will also be a necessary reference if you are receiving federal grant money from the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMAP), the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Program (PDMP) or Project Impact (PI). Although it has been stated that FEMA intends to
standardize the planning requirements for all these programs into a single set of standards under the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2000), it may be important for you to distinguish between the new DMA2000
requirements and the standards that had previously been used for hazard mitigation planning under other
programs. Appendix C should be extremely helpful on these matters.
Because hazard mitigation planning is new to many communities and planning offices, most communities in
Michigan will be dealing with it for the first time during the years 2003 and 2004, when FEMA is funding these
activities to assist in meeting their new requirement that communities will be required to have an locally adopted
and FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive federal hazard mitigation
project funds under the grant programs named above. Most communities will therefore be creating a document
that specifically addresses hazard mitigation at the local level—this document would be called a "stand-alone"
plan if it only addresses hazard mitigation. The alternative to this is to integrate hazard analysis and mitigation
activities into community comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans are documents that guide land use and
development in a community for a number of years into the future (usually between 5 and 20 years).
Comprehensive plans may also be called master plans, development plans, or land use plans. They generally
contain a broad and integrated perspective on your community's needs and goals, with more detailed subsections
that address topics such as zoning, economic development, transportation, recreation, environment and open
space, energy, infrastructure, and capital facilities. There may be related plans that have been produced for your
community, such as for solid waste management or watershed management. If your community is in the
process of updating one or more of these plans during the next year or two, it may be possible to integrate
hazard mitigation into such planning activities. Appendix D in this workbook gives information on how such
integration can be achieved. Because many hazards can be created or worsened by long-term decisions that did
not take such issues into account, it is important that such a problem be corrected by including hazard mitigation
in future planning considerations. A long-term goal of the Michigan State Police Emergency Management
Division, and the governor-appointed Michigan Hazard Mitigation Coordinating Council (MHMCC), is that
coordination and partnerships be formed between planning and emergency management activities and
professions throughout the state.

Summary
At this stage, your community should have a good idea of what the its problems are, which will provide a solid
foundation for setting hazard mitigation goals and identifying more specific hazard mitigation activities as part
of its planning process. In the next step of the planning process, you will develop broad goals and more specific
objectives as you use your hazard analysis to determine what your community will do to lessen its potential to
be harmed by natural, technological, and social/societal hazards.
67 2/03