Background The practice of elimination and reduction of loss of property and life due to catastrophes have become common in areas prone to natural disasters. Many organizations have embarked on emergency management programs by boosting and creating awareness on mitigation. Risk analysis on physical constructions should be carried out to reduce physical threats. Besides, participatory mechanism, public commitment, knowledge development, policy formulation and awareness among other non-structural mitigation methods are necessary to reduce the impact of disasters. Structural mitigation Physical constructions have been used as elements of mitigation and have been helpful in reducting and protection against potential impacts of hazards. Perry, Prater and Lindell (2006) indicate that structural mitigation through construction of protective infrastructure and hazard resistant structures has been relied upon by many nations and communities for defensive and shielding purposes. These nations have set up legislations which are geared towards ensuring the effectiveness of both structural and non-structural mitigation activities. The legislations have basically been observed in seismic areas where building codes and land use regulations have been set in place. In addition, Perry, Prater and Lindell (2006) argue that the collapsing of buildings and subsequent damage on infrastructure and structures commonly occur in the event of landslides, floods, earthquakes and other disasters. These are some of the factors that call for the effecting of structural mitigation practices purposely to save lives and property by reducing damages. Countries in seismic areas have embarked on construction, maintenance and designing of their structures to ensure safety of their citizens. Through their civil engineers, they have retrofitted and strengthened old structures. In addition, they have designed canals, roads and new buildings. Additionally, the model of mitigation and adaptation highlights that there are diverse ways through which disasters can be alleviated. This is largely due to the presence of technology, detectors and experts on climate change and environmental management. Predictions on possible threats due to climate changes and other related catastrophes based on scientific investigation are critical for setting up strong and protective infrastructures. The enormous arrays of resources within governments set up to warn and protect are critical in developing structural mitigation capabilities. Figure 1: A diagram illustrating a mitigation and adaptation model Non-structural mitigation Perry, Prater and Lindell (2006) indicate that non- structural mitigation practices aimed at minimizing the consequence of disaster are cost effective. They include provision of information on reduction of risk, participatory mechanisms, public commitment on ensuring safety, creation of awareness and better policies. Many nations have set up regulations that control the activities which individuals, groups and industries undertake. Besides, the use of temporary restriction methods such as avalanche warning signs and flood barriers to limit risks to admissible levels has been common. Planning, land use regulation, determining locations of human activities and settlement as ell as trainings on hazard have been set up as non-structural mitigation methods t