PNBRC, January 15, 2019 – Many home owners and property developers remain uncertain about the value of designing buildings to better withstand the risks associated with potential hazards such as wildfires, floods or extreme weather events until it is too late.
A new report from the National Institute of Building Sciences removes any doubts about the value of mitigation measures against natural disasters.
The Institute’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report makes clear the significant savings that can result from implementing such mitigation strategies in terms of safety, the prevention of property loss, and disruption of day-to-day life.
The report examined the benefits of designing buildings to meet the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2018 International Building Code (IBC), both of which are model building codes developed by the International Code Council (ICC), in comparison to earlier 1990-era design and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements.
The project team found a national benefit of $11 for every $1 invested.
The code-related mitigation strategies the project team studied demonstrated that:
- For flood resistance, incorporating at least one foot of freeboard into the elevation requirements to comply with the 2018 I-Codes saved $6 for every $1 invested.
- For resistance to hurricane winds, complying with roofing and a variety of openings and connection detailing requirements in the 2018 I-Codes saved $10 for every $1 invested.
- For resistance to earthquakes, building new buildings stronger and stiffer relative to comply with the 2018 I-Codes saved $12 for every $1 invested
Furthermore, the report determined that these benefits carry over to all building stakeholders, from developers, title holders and lenders, to tenants and communities.
For example, based on the project team’s estimates, communities that consistently meet the latest editions of commonly adopted code requirements, culminating in the 2018 IRC and IBC, have added 30,000 new jobs to the construction-materials industry and an approximate .3% increase in utilization of domestically produced construction materials for each year of new construction (over what would have been if buildings were designed as they were in 1990).
The report is a daunting undertaking, close to 500 pages in length with detailed calculations of all major natural disaster risks broken down by region with Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs) calculated according to four parameters:
- Beyond code requirements: The costs and benefits of designing all new construction to exceed select provisions in the 2015 IBC and the 2015 IRC and the implementation of the 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC). This results in a national benefit of $4 for every $1 invested.
- Adopting I-Code Requirements: Design based on meeting the 2018 IRC and IBC versus codes represented by 1990-era design and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements—results in a national benefit of $11 for every $1 invested.
- Infrastructure: Case studies for utility and transportation infrastructure based on Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants and California projects result in a national benefit of $4 for every $1 invested.
- Federal grants: The impacts of 23 years of federal mitigation grants provided by FEMA, EDA, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), result in a national benefit of $6 for every $1 invested.
The results are summarized for each of these parameters broken down by Mitigation Risk area in the chart below.
The report is a compilation of the project team’s results to this point and includes the finding from the 2017 Interim Report, released in January 2018, and a second report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure, released in October 2018.
As with the preceding reports, the 2018 Interim Report is an independent work, funded with the support of public- and private-organizations interested in expanding the understanding of the benefits of hazard mitigation.
Sponsors for the study include FEMA, HUD, EDA, ICC, IBHS, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Funding is still needed to study the benefits of additional mitigation strategies.
To vet the methodology used and ensure the study’s accuracy, the Institute received input from renowned experts in resilience across all hazard types, including academia, non-profits, government agencies and the private sector.
Experts were engaged to conduct the analyses and additional experts were invited to peer-review the results. Over 100 subject matter experts participated in the development and review of the study methodologies and findings.
Download the Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report.
Check out other reports and resources on the value of pre-planning and mitigation against climate related disasters on the website of the Pacific Northwest Building Resilience Coalition.
