Using Benefit-Cost 

Review in Mitigation 

Planning 

State and Local Mitigation Planning 

How-To Guide Number Five 

FEMA 386-5 May 2007 

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

 500 C Street, SW 

 Washington, DC 20472

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

About This Document .................................................................................. 2

Purpose .................................................................................................... 2

Benefit-Cost Review vs. Benefit-Cost Analysis ........................................... 2

How to Use This How-To Guide................................................................. 3

PART 1: REVIEW BENEFITS AND COSTS .................................................. 5

PART 2A: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - QUALITATIVE METHODS...................... 8

Method A: Simple Listing ............................................................................. 8

Step 1: List identified actions.................................................................... 8

Step 2: Identify benefits and costs............................................................. 8

Step 3: Assign priority............................................................................... 8

Method B: Relative Rating.......................................................................... 10

PART 2B: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - QUANTITATIVE METHODS ................. 11

Method C: Simple Score............................................................................. 11

Method D: Weighted Score ......................................................................... 12

PART 3: DOCUMENT THE REVIEW AND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS ........13

APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Measuring Vulnerability Before and After Mitigation........................ 5 

Exhibit 2: Benefits .......................................................................................... 6 

Exhibit 3: Costs .............................................................................................. 6 

Exhibit 4: Prioritization by Listing Benefits and Costs ................................... 10 

Exhibit 5: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Qualitative Scores .................... 11 

Exhibit 6: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Simple Scores........................... 12 

Exhibit 7: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Weighted Scores....................... 13 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

ii 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) provides an 

opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to 

significantly reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards. It also allows 

them to streamline the receipt and use of Federal disaster assistance 

through pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning. DMA 2000 places new 

emphasis on State, Tribal, and local mitigation planning by requiring 

these entities to develop and submit mitigation plans as a condition of 

receiving various types of pre- and post-disaster assistance (such as the 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation [PDM] program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program [HMGP]) under the Stafford Act. 

On February 26, 2002, the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published an Interim Final 

Rule (the Rule) to implement the mitigation planning requirements of 

DMA 2000. The Rule outlines the requirements for State, Tribal and local 

mitigation plans. 

FEMA has developed a series of guides, called the Mitigation Planning

“How-To” Guides, to provide State, Tribal, and local governments with 

easy-to-understand information needed to initiate and maintain a hazard 

mitigation planning process and meet the requirements of the Rule. The 

guides can be ordered free of cost by calling 1-800-480-2520, or they can 

be downloaded from http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/planning_ 

resources.shtm#1. 

The first four How-To Guides are known as the “core four” guides. They 

provide the basic instructions for preparing a natural hazard mitigation 

plan. They are: 

 Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 

386-1) 

 Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating 

Losses (FEMA 386-2) 

 Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and 

Implementation Strategies (FEMA 386-3) 

 Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan 

(FEMA 386-4) 

This How-To Guide, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning 

(FEMA 386-5), supplements FEMA 386-3 and focuses on guidance for 

using Benefit-Cost Review when prioritizing mitigation actions in a 

hazard mitigation plan. 
INTRODUCTION 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

2 

About This Document 

Purpose 

The purpose of a mitigation plan is to reduce the community’s 

vulnerability to hazards. After assessing its risks, a community may 

consider many mitigation options. However, due to monetary as well as 

other limitations, it is often impossible to implement all mitigation 

actions. Hence, the Planning Team needs to select the most cost-effective 

actions for implementation first, not only to use resources efficiently, but 

to make a realistic start toward mitigating risks. 

The Rule supports the principle of cost-effectiveness by requiring hazard 

mitigation plans to have an action plan that includes a prioritization 

process that demonstrates a special emphasis on maximization of 

benefits over costs. The requirement states: 

The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan 

describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be 

prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. 

Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to 

which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of 

the proposed projects and their associated costs. [§201.6(c)(3)(iii)]

The purpose of this guide is to help local jurisdictions understand how to 

apply the concepts of Benefit-Cost Review to the prioritization of 

mitigation actions, and thereby meet the requirement of the Rule. 

Benefit-Cost Review vs. Benefit-Cost Analysis 

The Benefit-Cost Review for mitigation planning differs from the benefitcost analysis (BCA) used for specific projects. BCA is a method for 

determining the potential positive effects of a mitigation action and 

comparing them to the cost of the action. To assess and demonstrate the 

cost-effectiveness of mitigation actions, FEMA has developed a suite of 

BCA software, including hazard-specific modules. The analysis 

determines whether a mitigation project is technically cost-effective. 

The principle behind the BCA is that the benefit of an action is a 

reduction in future damages. The Benefit-Cost Review method described 

in this guide is based on the same principle, but this guide does NOT 

explain how to conduct a BCA. DMA 2000 does not require hazard 

mitigation plans to include BCAs for specific projects. 

A Benefit-Cost Review can satisfy the DMA 2000 requirements even if it 

is relatively simple. Remember that a Benefit-Cost Review can be broad 

and need not be complex. It needs to be comprehensive so that it covers 
INTRODUCTION 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

3 

monetary as well as non-monetary costs and benefits associated with 

each action. Some projects can be extremely cost-effective but not as 

beneficial for the community at large. The Planning Team should think 

through a wide variety of questions, such as: How many people will 

benefit from the action? How large an area is impacted? How critical are 

the facilities that benefit from the action (e.g., is it more beneficial to 

protect the fire station than the administrative building, even though it 

costs more)? Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for 

the overall community? 

A hazard mitigation plan must demonstrate that a process was employed 

that emphasized a review of costs and benefits when prioritizing the 

mitigation actions. This requirement allows the Planning Team flexibility 

in determining which method to use. Four methods are described in this 

document, ranging from qualitative to more quantitative. These examples 

are intended to be illustrative of acceptable processes, but do not cover 

all possible methods that are approvable under DMA 2000. 

How to Use This How-To Guide 

The Rule states, “The mitigation strategy shall include a section that 

identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of mitigation actions.” 

However, no specific methodology for the analysis is specified or 

required. FEMA 386-3 discusses some ways to conduct an analysis. This 

How-To Guide, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 

386-5), provides methods and examples to review benefits and costs, 

prioritize actions and document the entire process. 

This guide is organized as follows: 

Part 1 - Review Benefits and Costs – This section explains how to 

review benefits and costs for each action. 

Part 2 A - Prioritize Actions – Qualitative Methods – This section 

provides two qualitative methods to prioritize actions (Methods A and 

B). 

Part 2 B - Prioritize Actions – Quantitative Methods – This section 

provides two quantitative methods to prioritize actions (Methods C 

and D). 

Part 3 - Document the Review and Prioritization Process – This 

section discusses documentation of the Benefit-Cost Review process 

in the plan to meet DMA 2000 requirements. 

Worksheets (Review Tools) like the ones in Part 1 can be used to 

summarize the costs and benefits. After the review of benefits and costs 

for each action, the Planning Team will be able to prioritize the actions. 
INTRODUCTION 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

4 

They can then use one of the four methods (A to D), which range from 

simple to complex. See Figure 1 for an illustration of how to use this 

guide. Blank worksheets are included in Appendix A, Exhibits. The 

worksheets can be duplicated and used to record the progress of 

prioritizing mitigation actions for the hazard mitigation plan. 

Figure 1. How to Use This How-To Guide

Therefore, a hazard mitigation plan will meet the requirements of the 

Rule by: 

 Using Review Tools 1, 2, and 3 from Part 1, 

 Using any one prioritization method from Part 2 (Method A, B, C, 

or D), and 

 Documenting the process (as described in Part 3). 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

5 

PART 1: REVIEW BENEFITS AND COSTS 

To assess the measurable and non-measurable benefits and costs 

associated with each action, use Review Tools 1, 2, and 3. Then, 

summarize the analysis of each action’s benefits and costs and use this 

review later when prioritizing the actions. 

Review Tool 1: Measuring Vulnerability Before and After Mitigation 

Action: __________________________________________________________ 

Vulnerability 

Before the 

Action is 

implemented*

After the 

Action is 

implemented*

Difference 

Number of people affected by the hazard 

Area affected (acreage) by the hazard 

Number of properties affected by the 

hazard 

 

Property damage (amount in $) 

Loss of use (number of 

properties/physical assets [e.g., bridges] 

in number of days) 

 

Loss of life (number of people) 

Injury (number of people) 

** 

*Include measurable items, where possible, based on experience, professional estimate, or 

judgment. 

**Add more categories of risk as appropriate for the specific community’s plan. 

Sample Exhibit 1: Measuring Vulnerability Before and After Mitigation 

 (Exhibit 1 shows Review Tool 1 filled out for one action) 

Action: Floodproof 10 businesses in the downtown area

Vulnerability 

Before 

the Action is 

implemented 

After 

the Action is 

implemented 

Difference 

Number of people affected by 

the hazard 

Almost entire 

community 

(because 

downtown is 

affected)

Same as before but 

they will be less 

affected if 

businesses are able 

to remain open

Less impact

Area affected (acreage) by the 

hazard 

1 acre 1 acre Area still 

affected but 

less impact

Number of properties affected by 

the hazard 

15 5 10

Property damage (amount in $) $100,000 every 

year

$10,000 every year $90,000 every 

year

Loss of use (number of 

properties/physical assets [e.g., 

bridges] in number of days) 

10 properties 

for 5 days 

every year

0 Completely 

eliminated

Loss of life (number of people) 2 every 20 

years

1 every 20 years Reduced by 

half

Injury (number of people) 0 0 0
PART 1: REVIEW BENEFITS AND COSTS 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

6 

A simple listing of other costs and benefits (that do not fit into the 

quantitative format of Review Tool 1) can supplement Review Tool 1, as 

shown in Review Tools 2 and 3. Fill out as many items as possible. 

Review Tool 2: Benefits 

Action: ____________________________ 

Benefits

Risk reduction (short- or long-term) 

If other community goals are achieved, explain 

If easy to implement, explain 

If funding is available, explain 

If politically/socially acceptable, explain 

Sample Exhibit 2: Benefits 

Action: Floodproof 10 businesses in the downtown area

Benefits

City’s cost to repair flooded properties reduced by 80%; approximate saving of 

$5,000 per year 

Flooding problem in downtown area solved for the long-term; community’s 

problem of business interruption solved 

Federal grants like Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and PDM can be applied 

for to implement the proposed floodproofing 

Will help improve CRS rating in the long term (so entire community’s flood 

insurance premium will be reduced) 

More than half the members of the City Council are opposed to buy-outs; it 

might be easier to get their support for an alternative to buy-outs 

Review Tool 3: Costs 

Action: ____________________________ 

Costs*

Construction cost (amount in $) 

Programming cost (amount in $, # of people needed to administer) 

Time needed to implement 

If unfair to a certain social group, explain 

If there is public/political opposition, explain 

If there are any adverse effects on the environment, explain 

*If precise costs are not available, use costs based on experience, professional estimate, or 

judgment. 

Sample Exhibit 3: Costs 

Action: Floodproof 10 businesses in the downtown area

Costs

Floodproofing cost = $10,000 X 10 = $100,000 

Need at least 3 people to administer (after technical assistance from the 

State) 

Need a year to implement 
PART 1: REVIEW BENEFITS AND COSTS 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

7 

After reviewing benefits and costs for all the actions using the Review 

Tools, go on to prioritize the actions. Note that there are many ways of 

prioritizing actions; however, DMA 2000 mandates an emphasis on 

Benefit-Cost Review as part of the prioritization process. Directly linking 

the prioritization process to the Benefit-Cost Review clearly shows that 

costs and benefits were emphasized. Therefore, when the review of 

benefits and costs of actions in Part 1 is used to prioritize the actions 

using one of the methods from Part 2, the process meets DMA 2000 

requirements. 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

8 

 PART 2A: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - 

QUALITATIVE METHODS 

Based on the review completed in Part 1, use Part 2 to prioritize or rank 

the actions. 

The two qualitative methods described in this section rely on a holistic 

response or common sense ranking. The two quantitative approaches in 

Part 2B rely more on comparative analysis that can be translated into 

mathematical scores. When the number of actions is relatively small, a 

subjective or qualitative process may be used. The greater the number of 

actions, the more likely it is that a more quantitative approach will be 

useful in assigning priority. 

Method A: Simple Listing 

The qualitative method described below helps the Planning Team judge 

the priorities of actions based on perceived pros and cons (i.e., benefits 

and costs). 

The method is best used when it is not possible, or appropriate, to 

identify a quantitative measure of benefits and costs. Each action can 

have a unique advantage or disadvantage that can subsequently be used 

for prioritization. 

Using this method ensures that special emphasis is given to Benefit-Cost 

Review by categorizing prioritization criteria (e.g., ease of implementation, 

technical effectiveness) as either benefits or costs. 

Step 1: List identified actions 

For each hazard, list the actions identified earlier in the plan. 

Step 2: Identify benefits and costs 

Identify all expected benefits (i.e., positive effects) and costs (i.e., 

perceived obstacles) of the actions and write these down in the benefits 

and costs columns, respectively. Use Review Tools 1, 2, and 3 (see 

Exhibits 1, 2, and 3) from Part 1. 

Step 3: Assign priority 

As a result of the Benefit-Cost Review, the Planning Team assigns a 

priority to each action. Priority can be expressed in many ways, such as: 

 High, medium, low, accompanied by an explanation of what each 

term means. 

 Priority 1, Priority 2, etc. 

 Immediate, short-term, and long-term, accompanied by an 

explanation of what each category means (e.g., immediate = within 

a month, short-term = within 6 months, long-term = within 2 

years). 
PART 2A: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - QUALITAT

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning 

9 

Sample Exhibit 4: Prioritization by Listing Benefits and Costs 

Actions Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) 

Floodproof 10 businesses in the downtown area 

- Avoidance of 1 loss of life every 20 

years (casualties reduced by half) 

- Saving of $90,000 in private damages 

and $5,000 in public cost 

- Loss of use of 10 downtown businesses 

completely eliminated - Community’s problem of business interruption solved 

- Federal grants like FMA and PDM can be 

applied for to implement the proposed floodproofing 

- Will help improve CRS rating in the 

long term (so entire community’s flood insurance premium will be reduced) 

- More than half the members of the City 

Council are opposed to buy-outs; it might be easier to get their support for an alternative to buy-outs 

- Floodproofing cost = $10,000 X 10 = 

$100,000 

- Need at least 3 people to administe

(after obtaining technical assistance from the State) 

- Need a year to implement 

Build safe rooms for a neighborhood of 50 homes without basements 

- Avoidance of 5 lives lost every 20 

years (casualties reduced by half) 

- Public and political support for 

mitigating this hazard exists (due to regular recurrence of tornadoes) 

- City will share 50% of the cost per 

existing home = $2,000 X 50 = $100,000 

- Administrative cost per home = 

$1,000 X 50 = $50,000 

- Need 3 years to complete - Tornadoes are unpredictable; they 

may never strike this exact area again 

Broadcast educational video on local channel on hazard mitigation 

- Local channel might be willing to 

broadcast free of cost - Publicity would spread awareness about mitigation methods as well as what to do in an emergency 

- Cost of preparing video = $5,000 - Only 5% of population might notice 

the broadcast 

- Only 5% of that 5% might actually 

consider acting on individual mitigation methods 
 PART 2A: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - 

QUALITATIVE METHODS 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

10 

Method B: Relative Rating 

A second approach is to assign relative scores to the actions based on 

qualitative factors. By rating costs and benefits as High, Medium, and 

Low, this method clearly emphasizes the Benefit-Cost Review. Exhibit 5 

uses a set of factors commonly called STAPLEE, which stands for Social, 

Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental 

factors. They are typically used for evaluating planning alternatives. For 

details on using STAPLEE, refer to FEMA 386-3. 

Sample Exhibit 5: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Qualitative Scores 

Floodproof 10 

properties in the 

downtown area 

Build safe rooms in 

a neighborhood of 50 

homes without 

basements 

Broadcast educational 

video about hazard 

mitigation on local 

channel 

 Actions 

Criteria 

Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social - - L - - - 

Technical M H M M L L 

Administrative M - M - L - 

Political - L - H - - 

Legal - - - - - - 

Economic M H H - - - 

Environmental - - - - - - 

Priority High (priority 1) Medium (priority 2) Low (priority 3) 

Definition of rating scale: H=High, M=Medium, L=Low, - None/Not applicable 

Use the Review Tools completed in Part 1 to help rate the costs and 

benefits. For help on how to rank High, Medium, Low, None, or NA, see 

the explanation about STAPLEE in FEMA 386-3. 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

11 

PART 2B: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - 

QUANTITATIVE METHODS 

Quantitative methods typically assign numerical values to concepts like 

high, medium, and low. The Planning Team needs to review the scores 

and make sure they make sense. 

Method C: Simple Score 

A simple way of using scores based on the STAPLEE criteria is shown in 

Exhibit 6. After the table is completed, the scores can be added to 

determine priority. 

Sample Exhibit 6: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Simple Scores 

Floodproof 10 

properties in the 

downtown area 

Build safe rooms 

in a neighborhood 

of 50 homes 

without basements 

Broadcast educational 

video about hazard 

mitigation on local 

channel 

 Actions 

Criteria 

Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social 0 1 -1 1 0 0 

Technical -1 2 -1 2 -1 1 

Administrative -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 

Political 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Legal 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Economic -1 2 -1 0 0 0 

Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sub-total of 

cost/benefit 

-3 6 -4 4 -2 1 

Total Score -3+6 = 3 -4+4 = 0 -2+1 = -1 

Priority No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 

Definition of rating scale: 2=Very beneficial, 1=Favorable, 

 0=None/Not applicable, -1=Not Favorable 

The Planning Team should be careful when assigning criteria, scores, 

and weights to avoid the problem inherent in comparing different types of 

actions. In the example above, the scores allowed the participants to 

objectively compare the various actions. The weakness of such a simple 

method is that very different kinds of actions may score similarly, and if 

not given qualitative consideration (a common-sense check), may yield a 

questionable ranking. In this example, the safe-room action’s total score 

is very low compared to the floodproofing action, but the Relative Rating 

method (Method B in Part 2A) showed that for floodproofing and safe 

rooms, the actions were similar in how their benefits measured up 

against the costs, and for both actions the benefits exceeded the costs. 

The Simple Score method shown above, however, results in a greater 

difference in the final priority scores (3 vs. 0), indicating a large difference 
PART 2B: PRIORITIZE ACTIONS - 

QUANTITATIVE METHODS 

How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

12 

in these actions’ cost-effectiveness. A formal Benefit-Cost Analysis for 

each project would verify whether this large difference is accurate, 

although it is not required for the plan. 

Method D: Weighted Score 

As noted in the Simple Score method (Method C), a common-sense 

adjustment may be necessary to adapt the prioritization to the plan. The 

weighted score method attempts to compensate for the limitations of the 

Simple Score method by adding emphasis to those factors judged to be 

more important. 

An example of weighted scores using STAPLEE follows. 

Sample Exhibit 7: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Weighted Scores 

Floodproof 10 

properties in the 

downtown 

Build safe rooms 

in a 

neighborhood of 

50 homes without 

basements 

Broadcast 

educational video 

about hazard 

mitigation on local 

channel 

 Actions 

Criteria 

Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social 

(weight = 1)

0 1 -1 1 0 0 

Technical 

(weight = 2)

-1x2=-2 2x2=4 -1x2=-2 2x2=4 -1x2=-2 1x2=2 

Administrative 

(weight = 1)

-1 0 -1 0 -1 0 

Political 

(weight = 1)

0 1 0 1 0 0 

Legal 

(weight = 1)

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Economic 

(weight = 2)

-1x2=-2 2x2=4 -1x2=-2 0 0 0 

Environmental 

(weight = 1)

0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sub-total of 

cost/benefit 

-5 10 -6 6 -3 2 

Total Score -5+10 = 5 -6+6 = 0 -3+2 = -1 

Priority No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 

Definition of rating scale: 2=Very beneficial, 1=Favorable, 

0=None/Not applicable, -1=Not Favorable 

Assigning weights to some factors over others can become challenging for 

the Planning Team. Local knowledge and values should guide the process 

to achieve the priorities most appropriate for the local situation. 
How-To Guide (FEMA 386-5): Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning May 2007 

13 

PART 3: DOCUMENT THE REVIEW AND 

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS 

Remember to document in the plan the Benefit-Cost Review process and 

prioritization method used. Include the Review Tools and prioritization 

worksheets from this How-To Guide in the plan. Clearly explain how the 

scores and priorities were assigned. 

Be sure to explicitly state that Benefit-Cost Review was emphasized in 

the prioritization process. Using the Review Tools and one of the methods 

for prioritization from this guide ensures the emphasis on the 

maximization of benefits over costs. This approach demonstrates that the 

actions are being evaluated in terms of their pros and cons, which are 

represented as costs and benefits. 

The intention of DMA 2000 is for the hazard mitigation plan to be useful 

and unique for each community; therefore, an impartial review and 

ranking of the mitigation actions is key. It is not so important which 

method is used, but rather that the method chosen is logical and clearly 

documented. 

Remember that the Benefit-Cost Review is an important element of the 

community’s hazard mitigation plan. Keep it simple, and focus on your 

community’s needs and values. 

Appendix A 

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Measuring Vulnerability Before and After Mitigation 

Action: __________________________________________________________ 

Vulnerability 

Before the 

Action is 

implemented*

After the 

Action is 

implemented*

Difference 

Number of people affected by the hazard 

Area affected (acreage) by the hazard 

Number of properties affected by the 

hazard 

 

Property damage (amount in $) 

Loss of use (number of 

properties/physical assets [e.g., bridges] 

in number of days) 

 

Loss of life (number of people) 

Injury (number of people) 

** 

 

*Include measurable items, where possible, based on experience, professional estimate, or 

judgment. 

**Add more categories of risk as appropriate for the specific community’s plan. 
Exhibit 2: Benefits 

Action: ____________________________ 

Benefits

Risk reduction (short- or long-term)

If other community goals are achieved, explain 

If easy to implement, explain 

If funding is available, explain 

If politically/socially acceptable, explain 

Exhibit 3: Costs 

Action: ____________________________ 

Costs*

Construction cost (amount in $)

Programming cost (amount in $, # of people needed to administer) 

Time needed to implement 

If unfair to a certain social group, explain 

If there is public/political opposition, explain 

If there are any adverse effects on the environment, explain 

*If precise costs are not available, use costs based on experience, professional estimate, or 

judgment. 
Exhibit 4: Prioritization by Listing Benefits and Costs 

Actions Benefits (Pros) Costs (Cons) 
Exhibit 5: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Qualitative Scores 

 Actions 

Criteria Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social 

Technical 

Administrative 

Political 

Legal 

Economic 

Environmental 

Priority 

Definition of rating scale: 

Exhibit 6: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Simple Scores 

 Actions 

Criteria Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social 

Technical 

Administrative 

Political 

Legal 

Economic 

Environmental 

Sub-total of 

cost/benefit 

 

Total Score 

Priority 

Definition of rating scale: 
Exhibit 7: Prioritization Using STAPLEE and Weighted Scores 

 

 Actions 

Criteria Cost Benefit Cost Benefit Cost Benefit 

Social 

(weight = __ )

 

Technical 

(weight = __ )

 

Administrative 

(weight = __ )

 

Political 

(weight = __ )

 

Legal 

(weight = __ )

 

Economic 

(weight = __ )

 

Environmental 

(weight = __ )

 

Sub-total of 

cost/benefit 

 

Total Score 

Priority 

Definition of rating scale: