Property Loss Prevention

Introduction

Individual community members are frequently the first ones to suffer when emergencies occur. As a result of an emergency, not only is human life disrupted, but there are huge property and economic losses. What measures need to be taken before, during, and after a catastrophe? Do they need to be carefully evaluated while keeping the possible options in mind? Careful monitoring and planning, along with appropriate mitigation measures, are needed to counter property loss(McEntire & Smith,2007).

Types Of Property Damage

Calamities are public problems in communal social entities, not subjected to a few persons. In any catastrophe, emergency-focused organizations are certainly involved (Drabek,2005). These would normally include fire and police departments, hospitals, the local Red Cross chapter, the local emergency management agency, Property/Casualty Insurance Industry Organizations and the public utilities. Property loss prevention measures vary significantly from one community to another, also depending on the crisis. The emergency could be individualistic, focusing on one property as a result of water flooding or house fire, or it could be bigger than that. When floods, earthquakes or any other natural calamity strikes, there is massive property damage. Effective organizational planning and community disaster management must recognize that catastrophes are qualitative, unlike minor emergencies (Quarantelli,1993). Many of the property-damaging tools presently available are a humble match for disruptions caused by natural disasters. Insurance companies chiefly operate to cater to property damage caused on a huge scale.

Property Loss As A Result Of Natural Disasters

Property loss prevention standards in the governmental disaster-response system depend on explicit objectives varying from mitigation planning, emergency preparedness, responsive actions, and recovery. The formal structure of correspondence, management, and communication also affects emergency management. Sometimes, due to the failure of federal and local correspondence or proper allocation of resources, the whole burden falls on those who are affected to grow back. Formal guidelines and procedures like FEMA regulations, etc., also act as guiding principles. Major cataclysmic events like Hurricane Katrina caused property loss on a huge scale. To date, the affected people haven’t been able to fully recover (Waugh,2005).

Federal, State And Local Levels Of Government Feasibility To Provide Property Protection

The role of Federal and local agencies is to provide help and support to its citizens. Yet, there is a continuous dilemma concerning their role all across the country. Federal agencies often know a lot about the hazards that both natural and manmade disasters impose, but they don’t have the power to act (Mcloughlin, 1985). Local governments have the right and power to act, particularly through zoning areas, but most don’t have the ability to gather all the technical data or lack resources. As a result of this, the people who own a property should keep in touch with their insurance agencies. (Kapucu et al.,2010). The issue is that citizens expect the government to act as an aid or last option, but insurance agencies keep in touch from the very beginning before you own a property(Wise,2006). Only when natural disasters destroy communities is relief provided in terms of food or shelter, but rarely is help given to the people to recover from property loss or damage (Blanchard,2015). Providing emergency relief is one of the government’s most significant roles but rarely includes property loss aid (Kapucu,2009).

The National Response Framework openly states the roles and responsibilities of actors and stakeholders at the time of a disaster. They visibly acknowledge the role of insurance agencies to facilitate their affected clients in order to rescue the property and build it back (Mcloughlin, 1985). National Security Council, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State and all Departments and Agencies address the property loss problems at the time of a disaster. However, their roles are carefully designated in an emergency response framework that is constantly in practice and can only help to their limit (Kapucu,2009).

Property Loss Prevention Steps

Property loss prevention is a thorough process which needs to be handled carefully, especially in the USA, where citizens suffer from flooding, fires, earthquakes, and landslides. It is a thorough process and needs proper planning and homework.

The following five factors are needed to address property risk management.

Mitigation

When a house is bought, thorough research should be conducted to get maximum information about the prevalent risks associated with the property. It is extremely important to incorporate comprehensive market research and include a property insurance agent (Saunders & Cornett,2003). The following questions need to be addressed (Brownlee,2012):

• What are the prevalent threats?
• Any previous property damage incidents?
• What kind of actions need to be undertaken?
• Were the risks associated can be caused as a result of natural disasters?
• The old property setup should be kept intact, or transitions should be made to avoid flooding or similar risks.

A proper feasibility analysis should be conducted, keeping in mind the current weather, time framework, and property insurance. It should be a long, tedious process of careful planning (Kolluru et al., 1996).

Budgeting

The most important thing to consider for property loss prevention is budget. It is important to assess what the incurring costs will be as a result of property damage and how much investment should be made to prevent property damage (Shapiro,2005).

The budget also depends on the following factors (Payne, Heath & Gale., 1999):

• How much money can you invest to prevent property damage?
• The cost of materials to be used.
• Any additional changes to the renovation plan.

It is always important to conduct a risk assessment before finalizing a property. Properties that are more prone to disasters have higher insurance costs than other properties. Also, negotiate the incurring value given to you by the contractor. For this, it is extremely important to be aware of yourself (Payne, Heath & Gale., 1999).

Time-Frame

It is always advised to consider a time frame of possible risks associated with property damage. Skipping the planning process to save time will affect the proprietor in future. Therefore, it is stressed that it first takes two to three months to plan out everything before buying a property and fixing the property accordingly. Checks and balances need to be considered when working on property risk assessment (Saunders & Cornett,2003).

Insurance coverage

It is always important to consider your insurance coverage. It is best to get an actuary to help you conduct a risk assessment. The amount of deductibles is another important factor to keep in mind. Properties more prone to disasters have high insurance costs. Getting in touch with the insurance agency will help to prioritize immediate concerns and how much work needs to be done for future preventive measures (Slovic et al.,1982).

Right contractor

At the last, it is very important to find a suitable contractor for your work. Making adjustments to your house, investing in regulators, automatic sump pumps, etc., all need to be considered. Some contractors are highly efficient in preventing property loss (Zavadskas et al.,2010). For example, roofing is a guaranteed renovation that is needed over time. Therefore, it is easier to find the opinions of neighbours who have been hired. Some contractors drag your work and hence affect the overall renovation process, whether it is an incomplete job, high expenditures, not following contract terms, overcharging, delaying or not conforming to ideas (Jannadi & Almishari.,2003).

Conclusion

The risk assessment will help to determine the extent and nature of risk and is vital for laying the risk management policies. The process of undertaking risk assessment allows for the monitoring and mitigation of risks and helps to prevent possible property loss (Kapucu,2009)

References

Blanchard, B. W. (2015). Guide to emergency management and related terms, definitions, concepts, acronyms, organizations, programs, guidance, executive orders & legislation.[Online] Available https://training. fema. gov/hiedu/docs/terms% 20and%20definitions/terms% 20and% 20definitions. pdf. Terms% 20and% 20Definitions. pdf.

Brownlee, L. M. (2012). Intellectual Property Due Diligence in Corporate Transactions: Investment, Risk Assessment, Management. West Group.

Drabek, T. E. (2005). Sociology, disasters and emergency management: History, contributions, and future agenda. Disciplines, disasters and emergency management: the convergence and divergence of concepts, issues, and trends in the research, 61-74.

Jannadi, O. A., & Almishari, S. (2003). Risk assessment in construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 129(5), 492-500.

Kapucu, N. (2009). Interorganizational coordination in complex environments of disasters: The evolution of intergovernmental disaster response systems. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6(1).

Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 452-468.

Kettl, D. F. (2015). The job of government: Interweaving public functions and private hands. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 219-229.

Kolluru, R. V., Bartell, S., Pitblado, R., & Stricoff, S. (1996). Risk assessment and management

McEntire, D. A., & Smith, S. (2007). Making sense of consilience: Reviewing the findings and the relationship among disciplines, disasters and emergency management. Disciplines,

Disasters and Emergency Management. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 320, 336.

McLoughlin, D. (1985). A framework for integrated emergency management. Public Administration Review, 45, 165-172.

Payne, J. D., Heath, W. C., & Gale, L. R. (1999). Comparative financial practice in the US and Canada: Capital budgeting and risk assessment techniques. Financial Practice and Education, 9, 16-24.

Quarantelli, E. L. (1993). Human and group behavior in the emergency period of disasters: Now and in the future.

Saunders, A., & Cornett, M. M. (2003). Financial institutions management: A risk management approach. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Shapiro, A. C. (2005). Capital budgeting and investment analysis. Prentice Hall.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment.

Sylves, R. (2008). Disaster policy and politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press, a Division of Congressional Quarterly, 46-75.

Waugh Jr, W. L. (2005). Public administration, emergency management, and disaster policy. Disciplines, Disasters and Emergency Management.

Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: is adaptive management what’s missing?. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318.

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2010). Risk assessment of construction projects. Journal of civil engineering and management, 16(1), 33-46.