1 / 17

Benefits and Costs of Mitigation Natural Hazards Workshop, 2004

Benefits and Costs of Mitigation Natural Hazards Workshop, 2004. Linda B. Bourque Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center, Center for Public Health and Disasters, School of Public Health University of California, Los Angeles.

gersemi-hannes
Télécharger la présentation

Benefits and Costs of Mitigation Natural Hazards Workshop, 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Benefits and Costs of MitigationNatural Hazards Workshop, 2004 Linda B. Bourque Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center, Center for Public Health and Disasters, School of Public Health University of California, Los Angeles

  2. SampleNon-probability combining aspects of purposive and quota • Quota Sampling • “Hard” rules governing representation of variables & variable levels in chosen sample; • Ensures desired diversity. • Analogous to stratified sampling methods; • Purposive Sampling: dependent on “expert” judgment.

  3. SampleCriteria for Selecting from NEMIS • Received awards listed in NEMIS whose objective was to mitigate damage from earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; • At high or medium risk of earthquakes, flood, and/or wind; • Single jurisdiction within a state with the legal title: city, town, borough, village or county; • Both project and process (includes Project Impact) activities were funded; • Received project and process awards totaling  $500,000; • Received a total of  15 awards; • At least one mitigation award has been completed/closed; • Population of at least 10,000.

  4. SampleApplying Criteria to NEMIS • Step 1—All grants in NEMIS data set of 8/6/03, (N=8,030). • Step 2—Valid perils: earthquake, wind, flood (n=7,047). • Step 3—Valid project status: approved, awarded, closed, completed (n=7,047). • Step 4—Eliminate territories (n=6,833). • Step 5—Eliminate invalid communities: statewide entities, special districts, non-profits (n=5,267). • Step 6—Rename like subgrantees (n=5,267). • Step 7—Aggregate on subgrant (n=2,660). • Step 8—Flag Project Impact Communities in NEMIS (n=2,660; Project Impact: n=102). • Step 9—Apply eligibility criteria (n=113).

  5. SampleCriteria Used to Select from the 113 communities • The combination of hazards for which communities had received FEMA awards; • Available hazard maps identified community at “high risk” of at least one hazard; • Community identified as small (10,000-49,999), medium (50,000-499,999), or large (500,000); and • FEMA region.

  6. Distribution of Communities by FEMA Awards and Quota Limits Set (N = 113)

  7. Distribution of Communities and Quota Limits Set for Being at High Risk of Earthquake, Flood or Wind Hazard (N = 113)1 1Adds to more than 113 because some some communities are at high risk of two or three hazards.

  8. Distribution of Communities and Quota Limits Set by Population Size (N = 113)

  9. Distribution of Communities and Quotas Set by FEMA Region (N = 113)

  10. Hazard Characteristics of Ten Selected Communities

  11. Demographic Characteristics of Two Selected Communities: Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.

  12. Demographic Characteristics of Two Selected Communities: continued Source: Census 2000 Summary File, DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000.

  13. Demographic Characteristics of 10 Communities

  14. Demographic Characteristics of 10 Communities, continued

  15. Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Coordination with Region Conference Call FEMA Letter Confirmation of Letter Preliminary Research Regional Office Visit Contact Community Confirm FEMA Awards Telephone Interviews Community Visits and Economic Analyses Description of Spin-offs List of Participants and Interviews Data Files

  16. Protocol Followed in Setting Up Interviews Confirmation that FEMA Letter Received, Given OK to Proceed Send Introduction Letter to Primary Contact (Email, Fax, Mail) Telephone Primary Contact: Describe Study, Get Referrals, Schedule Interview Send Introduction Letter to Referrals (Email, Fax, Mail) Telephone Referrals: Schedule Interviews, Get Referrals Conduct Interviews Send Thank You Letters to Participants

  17. Example Flow Chart of Interview Network Contact #2, Originally agreed Then REFUSED Referred back to #1 Contact #9 INTERVIEWED Contact #3 INTERVIEWED Contact #10 REFUSED Contact #41 INTERVIEWED Contact #1 REFUSED Contact #7 REFUSED FEMA Contact #8 REFUSED Contact #11 INTERVIEWED Contact #5 REFUSED Contact #12 INTERVIEWED2 Contact #6 INTERVIEWED 1Index Informant 2Independent Network Contact #13 INTERVIEWED2

More Related