NRMCA e-news
Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
 

MIT Experts Tout Cost Effectiveness of Disaster Mitigation

Print this Article | Send to Colleague

 In our case studies we have demonstrated that investing in more hazard-resistant residential construction in certain locations is very cost-effective. You can read more about the effort here.
 
MIT has also developed a metric called the Break Even Mitigation Percent (BEMP) to address the cost-effectiveness of mitigation features for a particular new building in a particular location. The BEMP factors in the expected damage a building designed to code would endure over its lifetime, compared to a more resilient building design. But architects and designers often have a different incentive: keeping construction costs low. This is why most new construction projects just meet code requirements instead of making extra investments to weather disasters as well. Builders do not often consider reconstruction costs – the money that owners, insurance agencies and taxpayers will spend in the future to recover after the first structure fails in a storm.
 
To address this disconnect, the International Code Council spearheads Building Safety Month each May to spotlight the need for modern building codes, more aggressive code enforcement and better training for building inspectors. However, the United States does not have a national building code with federal enforcement. Instead states, and sometimes municipalities, devise their own approaches.
 
This past May, the White House hosted a conference on resilient building codes to highlight the importance of developing codes that incorporate resilience and future climate change impacts. One state that has embraced this approach is Florida, which adopted progressive statewide building codes after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. These requirements have substantially reduced insured losses in subsequent hurricanes.  At the federal level though, most spending on mitigation occurs after disasters strike. Up to 15 percent of federal assistance can be allocated to long-term hazard mitigation measures after the President declares a major disaster. For instance, after a hurricane, states often use these funds to retrofit and elevate buildings, protect infrastructure and utilities, and manage stormwater.
 
These efforts are encouraging, but many coastal and inland communities remain vulnerable to natural disasters. To prevent the devastation from another storm, twister or quake, we need to make deep investments nationwide in mitigation now, before the next disaster strikes. NRMCA has resources to help members and state affiliates advocate for resilient and safer construction, including model legislation, talking points, public relations and other key strategies.
 
To learn more about how NRMCA can assist in state advocacy, please contact John Loyer, senior director of state and local government affairs, at 703-675-7603 or jloyer@nrmca.org.
 

Back to NRMCA e-news

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn