To understand the crucial distinction between structural and non-structural mitigation, it seems reasonable to provide the following statement. The determination of the mentioned concepts is founded on the fact that the measures of structural mitigation are mostly technological. For instance, these may be the building of a flood levee, as well as the design or enhancing the actual constructions in order to make them more imperviable to hazards. Meanwhile, non-structural mitigation involves – generally – policy undertakings. For example, these might be the passing of a land use ordinance that restricts the building of residencies in a flood-prone area or the requirement to provide hazard insurances for constructions vulnerable to a hurricane. It might be assumed that the primary difference between the described concepts is that structural mitigation seems to require more costs than the non-structural one. However, the former implies an advanced level of protection, while the latter involves fewer expenses and is aimed at removing or reducing human activities in hazard-prone areas.
At this point, it is essential to give an in-depth depiction of the concepts so that the above arguments would be more comprehensive and convincing. The critical aspect regarding structural mitigation is that it works against forces of nature by constructing facilities – such as a dam, levee, or other buildings that reduce the impact of nature. It should be emphasized that structural mitigation provides a city with the opportunity to be created near or along waterways, as well as a coastal area. For instance, the storm-water mitigation system in LA implies considerable costs both for its development and maintenance, but it saved a plethora of lives and prevented substantial property damage (LAWPD, n.d.). Such mitigation might be characterized as environmentally unfriendly, but appropriate management could and should operate without inevitable outcomes for nature and offer balanced mitigation plans. This kind of mitigation protects premises, makes it possible to develop a hazard area, and makes people feel secure. Nevertheless, it should be admitted that structural mitigation has a negative influence on the environment; it implies considerable expenses and – at times – cannot protect structures from full-scale nature hazards.
In turn, the key feature of non-structural mitigation is that it works in conjunction with the forces of nature and harms the latter to a fewer extent. This approach implies the acquisition and relocation of citizens from recognized hazard areas. These actions are accompanied by related governmental rulings and provisions, such as appropriate zoning or subdividing ordinances that align with relevant legislation. Thus, it seems apparent that the core intention of non-structural mitigation is to remove citizens and constructions from hazards. This nullifies threats before they become issues to society – the character of such mitigation is mostly preventive. The cases of non-structural mitigation have become quite spread in the insurance market. For example, this industry tends to set rates founded on the hazard risk evaluation that reduces the activities of people within hazard areas. Another notable case is the supplement of sand to the natural process of beach erosions. Such an action – nourishments of additional sand that reduces the quantity of the eroded one – contributes to the maintenance of the natural equilibrium of the eco-systems of a coast. Hence, it provides long-standing unobtrusive measures that protect both communities and coastal nature.
FEMA’s five categories of mitigation are prevention, property protection, public education and awareness, natural resource protection, structural projects (FEMA, n.d.). It might be suggested that such a division results in a comprehensive and coherent mitigation process as there are structured and systemized plans of action and preparation for them. The category of prevention implies non-structural measures – generally of a legislative and political character – that aim to deal with hazards before they become a serious problem to a community. Then, public education and awareness mean that the related educational and governmental structures provide programs that improve the citizens’ knowledge about what to do during a disaster and how to behave properly.
Property protection exists mostly in the form of FEMA’s recommendations on how to protect one’s home from earthquakes, hurricanes, windstorms, dams, as well as on building safe spaces within the scope of building science and safe rooms (FEMA, 2020). In the framework of FEMA’s activity, natural resource protection actions “integrate Federal assets and capabilities to help State and Tribal governments and communities address long-term environmental and cultural resource recovery needs after large-scale and catastrophic incidents” (FEMA, 2011, p. 1). National parks, historic properties, and other cultural resources fall under the mentioned category.
Finally, structural projects involve the most expensive and resource-taking measures to protect people from various natural hazards. This type of mitigation is sponsored at the governmental level and supported by local communities. The construction of levees and many disaster-preventive programs harm the environment to an exact extent but protect people and result in plenty of saved properties and facilities. It should be claimed that the described categories also may be related to the ones that are established in Canada, as they have a number of common features.
The related categories in Canada are as follows – but it should be mentioned that these categories are named the elements of this country’s national disaster mitigation strategy. These are leadership and coordination; public awareness, education, and outreach; knowledge and research; FTP cost-shared mitigation investments (Public Safety Canada, 2018). The visible common point is that in both countries, the importance of public education and awareness is emphasized and recognized. However, in Canada, more attention is paid to governmental regulation, support, and guidance in terms of mitigation, while in the US, the categories reflect mostly directions for the practical implementation of this mitigation. This may be caused due to a considerable number of states that have some distinctive traits of mitigation policy. It would be inappropriate to create stringent regulations that cannon allow these states to adopt policies to an exact extent if it is necessary.
Thus, it may be concluded that FEMA provides an exhaustive list of mitigation measures that protect communities from many natural disasters. Structural mitigation and the non-structural one were discussed, and it was found that despite the former being more effective, it implies more costs and environmental harm. Then, FEMA’s five main mitigation categories were explored, as well as related to Canada’s ones. It was figured out that the common feature here is that the significance of public education and awareness is emphasized. It seems rational to state that the governmental state of the art is reflected in the extent to which a program against natural hazards is developed. It is clear that both the US and Canada give prominent and significant examples in this regard.
References
FEMA. (2011). National Disaster Recovery Framework. Web.
FEMA. (2020). Risk management. Web.
FEMA. (n.d.). Lesson 1: Mitigation & mitigation planning. Web.
LADWP. (n.d.). Who we are. Web.
Public Safety Canada. (2018). Canada’s National Disaster Mitigation Strategy. Web.