Laserfiche WebLink
Eugene -Springfield Area Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan <br />4. Risk and Vulnerability <br />• The lowest self -evaluation score, and <br />• The greatest discrepancy between the scores (i.e. the difference between the <br />scores provided by system managers and the scores assigned by the project team <br />based on the narrative.) <br />Table 4-5 contains the lowest overall averaged adaptive capacity scores. <br />Table 4-6 Three Lowest Averaged Adaptive Capacity Scores <br />ousin 31 <br />blic Safety P.51 <br />[Public Health P.75 <br />Table 4-6 highlights the three lowest adaptive capacity scores based on self- evaluation. <br />4-6 Three Lowest Self -Evaluation Scores <br />Table 4-7 shows the systems with the greatest discrepancies between the average score <br />and the self -evaluation score provided by system managers. Here a bigger percent <br />difference indicates the system managers felt their sector was in better condition than <br />the average scores would suggest. <br />Table 4-7 Three Systems with the Greatest Discrepancies Between <br />Averaged and Self -Evaluated Adaptive Capacity Scores <br />Sector <br />Percent Differences in Estimat <br />Average Adaptive Ca acit <br />Natural Systems <br />-48% <br />Public Health <br />-15% <br />Transportation <br />-12% <br />Sensitivity and Impacts <br />The second half of the assessment measured the sectors' sensitivity to three hazards and <br />their impacts. Earthquakes and floods were assessed for all sectors, then either wildfires <br />or winter storms was assessed depending on which hazard was expected to be most <br />detrimental to the system. Table 4-8 list the sectors hazard sensitivity scores. Table 4-9 <br />list the sectors sensitivity to the impact from each hazard. <br />4-14 January 2020 <br />