| This study examined factors associated with disaster recovery at the county level. Major factors considered are: (1) disaster experience, (2) socio-economic status, (3) county population size, and (4) mitigation effort. Disaster experience increases local administrative emergency management capabilities and provides an opportunity to accumulate technical knowledge and know-how to cope with disasters. Repetitive experience makes communities specialize in dealing with similar disasters and provides an opportunity to undertake more mitigation activities. With these characteristics, communities can lessen damages, thereby reducing disaster recovery time. In general, larger communities and those with higher socio-economic status have more financial resources and equipment, compared to smaller, lower socio-economic status communities. Communities with more resources are more likely to undertake mitigation efforts which are expected to hasten the recovery process. In summary, counties with frequent experience of flooding, higher socio-economic status, and larger populations can minimize disaster damages by undertaking more extensive mitigation activities. Therefore, they can reduce recovery time.; Contrary to expectation, the relationships between recovery times and the flood experience, socio-economic status, and county size were not correlated. This study found no difference in recovery times between counties with frequent flood experience and infrequent experience. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in recovery times between larger and smaller communities, and county's income and education levels had no relationship with recovery times.; However, with regard to mitigation activities, this study found that as flood experience increased, counties exerted more extensive mitigation activities to prepare for future floods. Also, county's income level, population size, and population growth had statistically significant and positive relationships with total mitigation efforts. In addition, it was found that among mitigation activities, mitigation plans and public education programs were more effective in reducing damages and recovery times than were physical mitigation activities, such as elevation, demolition, relocation, and structural methods. |
