|
Showing 1 - 25 of
317 matches in All Departments
The datasets developed during a project are provided to the
community, and the information allows the community to determine
whether the higher risk areas require more stringent building
codes. Both regulatory and non-regulatory products are presented to
the community in a series of Risk MAP meetings. The meetings also
include information about Building Science Branch resources, such
as the Building Science Toolkit CD, NFIP technical bulletins,
disaster recovery advisories, building code assistance, web links,
desk references, training resources, and technical publications,
all of which can help the community meet FEMA's goal of fostering
resilience through hazard-resistant structure design that leads to
reducing the loss of life and property in hazard events.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies regardless of service
delivery model have sought guidance on how to better integrate
their emergency preparedness and response activities into similar
processes occurring at the local, regional, State, tribal and
Federal levels. The primary purpose of this project is to begin the
process of providing that guidance as it relates to mass care
incident deployment. The World Bank reported in 2005 that on
aggregate, the reported number of natural disasters worldwide has
been rapidly increasing, from fewer than 100 in 1975 to more than
400 in 2005. Terrorism, pandemic surge, and natural disasters have
had a major impact on the science of planning for and responding to
mass care incidents and remain a significant threat to the
homeland. From the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the subsequent
use of anthrax as a biological weapon, to the more recent surge
concerns following the outbreak of H1N1 influenza, EMS have a real
and immediate need for integration with the emergency management
process, and to coordinate efforts with partners across the
spectrum of the response community. The barriers identified from
the literature review and interviews with national EMS leadership
include: lack of access to emergency preparedness grant funding;
underrepresentation on local, regional, and State level planning
committees; and lack of systematic mandatory inclusion of all EMS
provider types in State, regional, and local emergency plans. In
December 2004, New York University's Center for Catastrophe
Preparedness and Response held a national roundtable that included
experts from major organizations representing the EMS system as a
whole. The report from that meeting concluded that: "EMS providers,
such as fire departments and hospital-based, commercial, and air
ambulance services, ensure that patients receive the medical care
they need during a terrorist attack. While EMS personnel, including
Emergency Medical Technicians and paramedics, represent roughly
one-third of traditional first responders (which also include law
enforcement and fire service personnel), the EMS system receives
only four percent of first responder funding. If EMS personnel are
not prepared for a terrorist attack, their ability to provide
medical care and transport to victims of an attack will be
compromised. There will be an inadequate medical first response."
In 2007, the Institute of Medicine in its landmark report Emergency
Medical Services at the Crossroads issued a recommendation that
stated: "The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the
Department of Homeland Security and the States should elevate
emergency and trauma care to a position of parity with other public
safety entities in disaster planning and operations." Since the
time of these reports Federal progress to address these issues has
included the creation of the Office of Health Affairs (OHA) within
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the creation of the
Emergency Care Coordination Center (ECCC) within HHS, and the
creation of the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS)
Preparedness Committee. In an effort to increase the level of
preparedness among EMS agencies, the National Emergency Medical
Services Management Association (NEMSMA) approached the DHS and OHA
to engage them in a partnership that would provide a greater
understanding of the shortfalls in EMS emergency preparedness and
provide resources to fill those gaps. The primary objective of this
project is to understand model policies and practices across a
spectrum of disciplines and provider types that will lead to a
better prepared EMS deployment to mass care incidents. This project
should serve as a foundation for further development of EMS
specific policies and templates that improve EMS readiness to
manage the full spectrum of hazards that face their communities.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive - 7 (December 2003)
established the requirement to protect national critical
infrastructures against acts that would diminish the responsibility
of federal, state, and local government to perform essential
missions to ensure the health and safety of the general public.
HSPD-7 identified the Emergency Services as a national critical
infrastructure sector that must be protected from all hazards. The
Emergency Management and Response-Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (EMR-ISAC) activities support the critical infrastructure
protection and resilience of Emergency Services Sector departments
and agencies nationwide. The fire service, emergency medical
services, law enforcement, emergency management, and 9-1-1 Call
Centers are the major components of the Emergency Services Sector.
These components include search and rescue, hazardous materials
(HAZMAT) teams, special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT), bomb
squads, and other emergency support functions. This Job Aid is a
guide to assist leaders of the Emergency Services Sector (ESS) with
the process of critical infrastructure protection (CIP). The
document intends only to provide a model process or template for
the systematic protection of critical infrastructures. It is not a
CIP training manual or a complete road map of procedures to be
strictly followed. The CIP process described in this document can
be easily adapted to assist the infrastructure protection
objectives of any community, service, department, agency, or
organization.
Firefighters, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and other
emergency responders face many dangers daily from exposure to
smoke, deadly temperatures, and stress to issues surrounding
personal protective equipment (PPE), vehicle safety, and personal
health. Although publicized firefighter fatalities are associated
more often with burns and smoke inhalation, cardiovascular events,
such as sudden cardiac death, account for the largest number of
nonincident firefighter fatalities. Both the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) and the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) have been tracking firefighter fatalities since 1977.
According to NFPA statistics, the number of sudden cardiac deaths
has averaged between 40 and 50 deaths per year since the early
1990s. USFA statistics show that firefighters, as a group, are more
likely than other American workers to die of a heart attack while
on duty (USFA, 2002). Additional pertinent findings in the NFPA's
2005 U.S. Firefighter Fatalities Due to Sudden Cardiac Death,
1995-2004 include: Four hundred and forty firefighters out of 1,006
(or 43.7 percent) who died on the job experienced sudden cardiac
death, typically triggered by stress or exertion; Fifty percent of
all volunteer firefighter deaths and 39-percent of career
firefighter deaths resulted from a heart attack; Ninety-seven
percent of the victims had at least a 50-percent arterial blockage;
Seventy-five percent of the firefighters who died of a heart attack
were working with known or detectable heart conditions or risk
factors, such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and
diabetes. While sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death
among firefighters, other factors affecting firefighters' health,
wellness, and safety result in multiple deaths and injuries each
and every year. Through the collection of information on
firefighter deaths, the USFA has established goals to reduce loss
of life among firefighters (USFA, 2006). In order to achieve this
goal, emphasis must be placed on reducing the risk factors
associated with cardiovascular disease as well as on the mitigation
of other issues affecting the health and safety of the Nation's
firefighters. As part of another effort to determine the specific
issues affecting firefighter health and wellness, the National
Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) Foundation developed a questionnaire
to determine personal health, well-being, and safety practices
among firefighters. A summary of findings from this study was
shared with the NVFC and USFA for use in this project. The
questionnaire was distributed to a study population of 364
firefighters, of which 149 were career firefighters, 165 were
volunteers, and 50 indicated they were both volunteer and career.
Results from the questionnaire revealed several trends in this
sample firefighter population; however, the study population was
not large enough to generalize these trends for all firefighters.
Results from the NVFC Foundation's questionnaire are presented
here. Based on these findings, it is clear that a structured
personal health and fitness program, as well as safe operations to,
from, and while at emergency scenes, become critical to
firefighters' safety, well-being, and survival. As a result, we
present this document on emergent health and safety issues for the
volunteer fire and emergency services.
This report contains research on behaviors and other factors
contributing to the rural fire problem; identifies mitigation
programs, technologies, and strategies to address those problems;
and proposes actions that USFA can take to better implement
programs in rural communities. In the Spring of 2004, the U S Fire
Administration (USFA) partnered with the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) in a cooperative agreement project entitled
Mitigating the Rural Fire Problem. The purpose of the project was
to examine what can be done to reduce the high death rate from
fires in rural U S communities. Rural communities, defined by the U
S Census Bureau as communities with less than 2,500 population,
have a fire death rate twice the national average. The objectives
of the project were to a) conduct research on behaviors and other
factors contributing to the rural fire problem, b) identify
mitigation programs, technologies, and strategies to address those
problems, and c) propose actions that USFA Public Education
Division can take to better implement programs in rural
communities. Research sources included a review of the published
literature, some original statistical analysis, and information
from national technical experts who have worked with NFPA.
Each year, approximately 1,100 Americans 65 and older die in home
fires and another 3,000 are injured. These statistics, combined
with the fact that adults ages 50 or more care for and will soon
enter this high-risk group, inspired USFA to develop a new public
education campaign targeting people ages 50-plus, their families
and caregivers. People between 65 and 74 are nearly twice as likely
to die in a home fire as the rest of the population. People between
75 and 84 are nearly four times as likely to die in a fire. People
ages 85 and older are more than five times as likely to die in a
fire. A Fire Safety Campaign for People 50-Plus encourages people
ages 50 and older - including the high risk 65-plus group - to
practice fire-safe behaviors to reduce fire deaths and injuries.
The strategy is to inform and motivate adults as they enter their
fifties so that stronger fire safety and prevention practices are
integrated into their lives prior to entering the higher fire-risk
decades. In addition, many Baby Boomers are currently caring for
family members ages 65-plus and can encourage fire safe habits.
The United States Fire Administration (USFA) is committed to using
all means possible for reducing the incidence of injuries and
deaths to firefighters. One of these means is to partner with other
people and organizations who share this same admirable goal. One
such organization is the International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF). The IAFF has been deeply committed to improving the safety
of its members and all firefighters as a whole. This is why the
USFA was pleased to work with the IAFF through a cooperative
agreement to develop this revised edition of Emergency Incident
Rehabilitation.
Earthquakes are potentially the most destructive of all natural
disasters in both loss of life and property damage. Casualties and
structural damage result from intense ground shaking and such
secondary effects as fires, landslides, ground subsidence, and
flooding from dam collapse or tsunamis. While earthquakes in the
United States are commonly associated with the West Coast,
particularly California, 39 states altogether face some degree of
seismic risk. Seventy million people and at least nine metropolitan
areas are susceptible to severe earthquakes. Nevertheless,
California has been the focal point of most earthquake studies due
to its high frequency of events (two thirds of all earthquakes have
occurred in California), large population and extensive property
development. But the high frequency of earthquakes alone does not
warrant the amount of official and scientific attention these
events have received. It is the rare and devastating earthquake
such as the 1906 San Francisco quake and the 1964 Alaska event,
both of which measured more than 8 on the Richter Scale.
Earthquakes of this magnitude could be expected in the United
States, and most likely in California, every 60 to 100 years and
less severe but major earthquakes every 15 to 20 years (Anderson,
et al., 1981). The area currently believed to be at greatest risk
of a massive earthquake is the Los Angeles-San Bernardino region.
An event which could exceed 8 on the Richter Scale has an estimated
annual probability of occurrence of 2 to 5 percent and its
likelihood of occurrence in the next 20 to 30 years is regarded as
-high." This earthquake could kill and injure between 15,000 and
69,000 persons (depending upon time of occurrence) and cause up to
$17 billion in property damage (NSC/FEMA, 1980). Some studies have
placed the property damage estimates as high as $50 billion (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1969). This report grew out of the City of
Los Angeles Planning Partnership for which the Southern California
Earthquake Preparedness Project (SCEPP) was asked to research and
report on several issues pertaining to earthquake insurance. In the
course of this research, it became obvious to both SCEPP and
SCEPP's Policy Advisory Board that earthquake insurance and its
role in the recovery process was a major policy issue. Thus, the
research effort was expanded to incorporate broader issues and
circulation of the report beyond the Los Angeles Planning
Partnership. The report has five goals which correspond to its
organization: (1) to outline the provisions (coverages, rates,
deductibles, etc.) of earthquake insurance policies currently
available to the major classes of insurance consumers-homeowners,
businesses, local governments and special districts; (2) to
determine the extent to which earthquake insurance is purchased by
these parties and explore the circumstances surrounding purchase or
non-purchase; (3) to review the salient issues in earthquake
insurance from the standpoints of purchasers and providers; (4) to
explore potential Federal roles in resolving these issues and in
providing or promoting earthquake insurance; and finally, (5) to
make reasonable policy recommendations involving both the Federal
Government and other stakeholders in earthquake insurance toward a
more adequate system of coverage.
This Orientation Manual provides practical information: both rescue
techniques, and preparedness information for the first responder
who will encounter people with visible and non-visible disabilities
through their work. This publication can assist first responders in
advance or make critical emergency decisions. This publication will
help first responders to confidently work with the disability
community toward the goal of protecting and saving lives and
minimizing trauma.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies regardless of service
delivery model have sought guidance on how to better integrate
their emergency preparedness and response activities into similar
processes occurring at the local, regional, State, tribal, and
Federal levels. This primary purpose of this project is to begin
the process of providing that guidance as it relates to mass care
incident deployment.
The original Earthquakes -A Teacher's Package for K-6 (FEMA 159)
was developed as a joint effort of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
under contract with FEMA. NSTA's project team produced an excellent
product. Since its publication in 1988, over 50,000 teachers have
requested copies. This revised version brought members of the
original project team together with a group of teachers who had
used the materials extensively in their classroom and served as
teacher-educators at FEMA's Tremor Troop workshops. About 75% of
the original material remains unchanged: a few activities were
removed and a few added. A major change was the addition of
assessments throughout the units. The examples we provide relate to
life outside the classroom and/or activities similar to those of
scientists. We also added matrices linking activities to the
National Science Education Standards. The Teacher's Package has
five units. Each of the first four units is divided into three
levels: Level 1, for grades K-2; Level 2, for grades 3-4; and Level
3, for grades 5-6. Since classes and individuals vary widely you
may often find the procedures in the other levels helpful for your
students. The last unit has four parts with activities for students
in all grades, K-6. Unit L, Defining an Earthquake, builds on what
students already know about earthquakes to establish a working
definition of the phenomenon. Legends from near and far encourage
children to create their own fanciful explanations, paving the way
for the scientific explanations they will begin to learn in this
unit. Unit I, Why and Where Earthquakes Occur, presents the modern
scientific understanding of the Earth's structure and composition,
and relates this to the cause of earthquakes. Unit II, Physical
Results of Earthquakes, provides greater understanding of the
processes that shape our active Earth. Earthquakes are put in the
context of the large- and small-scale changes that are constantly
at work on the continents as well as the ocean floor. Unit IV,
Measuring Earthquakes, explains earthquakes in terms of wave
movement and introduces students to the far-ranging effects of
earthquakes. Unit V, Earthquake Safety and Survival, focuses on
what to expect during an earthquake; how to cope safely; how to
identify earthquake hazards; and how to reduce, eliminate, or avoid
them.
This FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for
Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, is the first of a two-volume
publication on a recommended methodology for rapid visual screening
of buildings for potential seismic hazards. The technical basis for
the methodology, including the scoring system and its development,
are contained in the companion FEMA 155 report, Rapid Visual
Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting
Documentation. The rapid visual screening procedure (RVS) has been
developed for a broad audience, including building officials and
inspectors, and government agency and private-sector building
owners, to identify, inventory, and rank buildings that are
potentially seismically hazardous. Although RVS is applicable to
all buildings, its principal purpose is to identify (1) older
buildings designed and constructed before the adoption of adequate
seismic design and detailing requirements, (2) buildings on soft or
poor soils, or (3) buildings having performance characteristics
that negatively influence their seismic response. Once identified
as potentially hazardous, such buildings should be further
evaluated by a design professional experienced in seismic design to
determine if, in fact, they are seismically hazardous. The RVS uses
a methodology based on a "sidewalk survey" of a building and a Data
Collection Form, which the person conducting the survey (hereafter
referred to as the screener) completes, based on visual observation
of the building from the exterior, and if possible, the interior.
The Data Collection Form includes space for documenting building
identification information, including its use and size, a
photograph of the building, sketches, and documentation of
pertinent data related to seismic performance, including the
development of a numeric seismic hazard score. Once the decision to
conduct rapid visual screening for a community or group of
buildings has been made by the RVS authority, the screening effort
can be expedited by pre-planning, including the training of
screeners, and careful overall management of the process.
Completion of the Data Collection Form in the field begins with
identifying the primary structural lateral-load-resisting system
and structural materials of the building. Basic Structural Hazard
Scores for various building types are provided on the form, and the
screener circles the appropriate one. For many buildings, viewed
only from the exterior, this important decision requires the
screener to be trained and experienced in building construction.
The procedure presented in this Handbook is meant to be the
preliminary screening phase of a multi-phase procedure for
identifying potentially hazardous buildings. Buildings identified
by this procedure must be analyzed in more detail by an experienced
seismic design professional. Because rapid visual screening is
designed to be performed from the street, with interior inspection
not always possible, hazardous details will not always be visible,
and seismically hazardous buildings may not be identified as such.
Conversely, buildings initially identified as potentially hazardous
by RVS may prove to be adequate.
Following the two damaging California earthquakes in 1989 (Loma
Prieta) and 1994 (Northridge), many concrete wall and masonry wall
buildings were repaired using federal disaster assistance funding.
The repairs were based on inconsistent criteria, giving rise to
controversy regarding criteria for the repair of cracked concrete
and masonry wall buildings. To help resolve this controversy, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a project on
evaluation and repair of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry
wall buildings in 1996. The ATC-43 project addresses the
investigation and evaluation of earthquake damage and discusses
policy issues related to the repair and upgrade of earthquake
damaged buildings. The project deals with buildings whose primary
lateral-force-resisting systems consist of concrete or masonry
bearing walls with flexible or rigid diaphragms, or whose
vertical-load-bearing systems consist of concrete or steel frames
with concrete or masonry infill panels. The intended audience is
design engineers, building owners, building regulatory officials,
and government agencies. The project results are reported in three
documents. The FEMA 306 report, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual,
provides guidance on evaluating damage and analyzing future
performance. Included in the document are component damage
classification guides, and test and inspection guides. FEMA 307,
Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings, Technical Resources, contains supplemental information
including results from a theoretical analysis of the effects of
prior damage on single-degree-of-freedom mathematical models,
additional background information on the component guides, and an
example of the application of the basic procedures. FEMA 308, The
Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings,
discusses the policy issues pertaining to the repair of earthquake
damaged buildings and illustrates how the procedures developed for
the project can be used to provide a technically sound basis for
policy decisions. It also provides guidance for the repair of
damaged components.
Following the two damaging California earthquakes in 1989 (Loma
Prieta) and 1994 (Northridge), many concrete wall and masonry wall
buildings were repaired using federal disaster assistance funding.
The repairs were based on inconsistent criteria, giving rise to
controversy regarding criteria for the repair of cracked concrete
and masonry wall buildings. To help resolve this controversy, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a project on
evaluation and repair of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry
wall buildings in 1996. The ATC-43 project addresses the
investigation and evaluation of earthquake damage and discusses
policy issues related to the repair and upgrade of earthquake
damaged buildings. The project deals with buildings whose primary
lateral-force-resisting systems consist of concrete or masonry
bearing walls with flexible or rigid diaphragms, or whose
vertical-load-bearing systems consist of concrete or steel frames
with concrete or masonry infill panels. The intended audience is
design engineers, building owners, building regulatory officials,
and government agencies. The project results are reported in three
documents. The FEMA 306 report, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual,
provides guidance on evaluating damage and analyzing future
performance. Included in the document are component damage
classification guides, and test and inspection guides. FEMA 307,
Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings, Technical Resources, contains supplemental information
including results from a theoretical analysis of the effects of
prior damage on single-degree-of-freedom mathematical models,
additional background information on the component guides, and an
example of the application of the basic procedures. FEMA 308, The
Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings,
discusses the policy issues pertaining to the repair of earthquake
damaged buildings and illustrates how the procedures developed for
the project can be used to provide a technically sound basis for
policy decisions. It also provides guidance for the repair of
damaged components.
Among the FEMA documents covering the topic of making existing
buildings more resistant to the effects of earthquakes, this volume
occupies a unique position: it is the only one that fulfills a
historical need. When the decision was made to convert the
performance-based Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, FEMA 273, into a prestandard containing mandatory
language (FEMA 356), there was considerable concern among design
professionals that some of the major characteristics and salient
features of the original document (or indeed its very fabric) would
be adversely affected in the conversion process. This Global Topics
Report is the third in a series of reports chronicling the
development of the FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings into the FEMA 356 Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. The purpose
of this report is to provide a narrative discussion and permanent
record of the technical changes made to Guidelines as the document
evolved into the Prestandard. It is the vehicle by which new
technical information was introduced into the Prestandard, as
issues were identified and, when possible, resolved by the
Prestandard Project Team. For completeness, this report also
includes a brief discussion of new concepts introduced to the
engineering profession in the publication of the original FEMA 273
Guidelines and FEMA 274 Commentary documents. As the Guidelines
were used by the industry, questions arose regarding application of
certain procedures, interpretation of some provisions, and results
stemming from portions of the methodology. These questions have
been formulated into statements, termed global issues, and recorded
in this report for reference during the prestandard project and
future revisions of the document. At the time the Guidelines were
published, it was known that additional research was needed to
refine the accuracy and applicability of certain procedures, and
analytical studies were required to test and substantiate certain
new concepts and philosophical themes. Unresolved issues, reported
by BSSC to be present at the time of publication, are incorporated
into this report and identified with the designation 'previously
unresolved' in the classification of the issue. The purpose of
Global Topics Report 1, Identification of Global Issues, dated
April 12, 1999, was to formulate a statement and classify global
issues that had been identified as of the date of the report. The
issues identified in that report were presented and discussed at
the ASCE Standards Committee Meeting on March 3, 1999, in San
Francisco. The discussions resulted in clarifications to some of
the issues, as well as a consensus on the recommended
classification of each issue. Comments from Standards Committee
members were incorporated into the report, and were used by the
Project Team in moving issues toward resolution. Global Topics
Report 2 was published on March 22, 2000. The purpose of the second
report was to formulate statements for new global issues identified
since Global Topics Report 1, and to document resolution of issues
that were incorporated into the Second Draft of the Prestandard.
This third and final Global Topics Report contains new global
issues identified since the publication of the previous two
reports, and final resolutions of previously identified issues. The
appendices to this report contain the results of special focused
studies, which serve as back-up data to the resolution of selected
issues. These studies are referenced in the body of this report,
where applicable, and included in the appendices for future
reference. Upon completion of the Case Studies Project, the final
report FEMA 343 Case Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings was made available to
the Prestandard Project Team.
Recent earthquakes around the world show a pattern of steadily
increasing damages and losses that are due primarily to two
factors: (1) significant growth in earthquake-prone urban areas and
(2) vulnerability of the older building stock, including buildings
constructed within the past 20 years. In the United States,
earthquake risk has grown substantially with development while the
earthquake hazard has remained relatively constant. Understanding
the hazard requires studying earthquake characteristics and locales
in which they occur while understanding the risk requires an
assessment of the potential damage to the built environment and to
the welfare of people - especially in high risk areas. Estimating
the varying degree of earthquake risk throughout the United States
is useful for informed decision-making on mitigation policies,
priorities, strategies, and funding levels in the public and
private sectors. For example, potential losses to new buildings may
be reduced by applying seismic design codes and using specialized
construction techniques. However, decisions to spend money on
either of those solutions require evidence of risk. In the absence
of a nationally accepted criterion and methodology for comparing
seismic risk across regions, a consensus on optimal mitigation
approaches has been difficult to reach. While there is a good
understanding of high risk areas such as Los Angeles, there is also
growing recognition that other regions such as New York City and
Boston have a low earthquake hazard but are still at high risk of
significant damage and loss. This high risk level reflects the
dense concentrations of buildings and infrastructure in these areas
constructed without the benefit of modern seismic design
provisions. In addition, mitigation policies and practices may not
have been adopted because the earthquake risk was not clearly
demonstrated and the value of using mitigation measures in reducing
that risk may not have been understood. This study highlights the
impacts of both high risk and high exposure on losses caused by
earthquakes. It is based on loss estimates generated by
HAZUS(r)-MH, a geographic information system (GIS)-based earthquake
loss estimation tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in cooperation with the National Institute of
Building Sciences (NIBS). The HAZUS tool provides a method for
quantifying future earthquake losses. It is national in scope,
uniform in application, and comprehensive in its coverage of the
built environmen
|
You may like...
Tenet
John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, …
DVD
R53
Discovery Miles 530
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|