Flooding poses one of the greatest natural hazard dangers to Canadians. As human populations increase and concentrate in areas vulnerable to floods, and uncertainty about future flood risk increases with the possibility of a changing climate, major urban communities, coastal settlements and communities located within floodplains are faced with an even greater risk of floods in the coming years. Canada's policies and practices towards flood control are best described as ad hoc, and have developed over the years in response to experiences with floods. No national scale flood damage reduction program exists, and there is currently no opportunity for Canadian homeowners to purchase flood insurance. This study specifically examines how a national mitigation strategy, focused mainly on non structural techniques could help decrease damages from floods in Canadian communities. The strategy proposed here is theoretically based in EPC and IBC suggestions for a greater national mitigation strategy, as well as IDNDR research, and federal, provincial and municipal goals for sustainable development and sound land use planning objectives. Ideally, a successful non structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada would address issues at the national scale, yet be implementable at the local level in accordance with community needs, risk characteristics, and local expertise. The strategy proposed here would maximize the efficiency of federal resources and private industry as well as allow local expertise and existing mitigation schemes to be formalized, bolstered and improved. There are three major components of the non structural flood mitigation strategy. Risk avoidance measures such as early warning systems, land use and resource planning and ecological conservation all work towards reducing the chances of a dangerous flood occurring. Risk spreading measures help communities deal with flood risks by improving equity and accountability, they include tax incentives, disaster financial assistance, and flood insurance. Lastly, vulnerability reduction measures help reduce damages if a flood were to strike, and these include enforcement of building codes and the maintenance of existing protective infrastructure. An integrated, non structural flood mitigation strategy would require basin-wide cooperation between all levels of government, citizens and the private sector. This strategy is also an opportunity for communities and individuals to meet goals of environmental conservation and sustainable development. The focus in this study lies on the mitigation tools, although it is the overall process of inserting the premise of mitigation into all land use and planning decision making processes that will be the key to successful flood mitigation strategies in Canadian communities.

Flooding poses one of the greatest natural hazard dangers to Canadians. As human populations increase and concentrate in areas vulnerable to floods, and uncertainty about future flood risk increases with the possibility of a changing climate, major urban communities, coastal settlements and communities located within floodplains are faced with an even greater risk of floods in the coming years. Canada's policies and practices towards flood control are best described as ad hoc, and have developed over the years in response to experiences with floods. No national scale flood damage reduction program exists, and there is currently no opportunity for Canadian homeowners to purchase flood insurance. This study specifically examines how a national mitigation strategy, focused mainly on non structural techniques could help decrease damages from floods in Canadian communities. The strategy proposed here is theoretically based in EPC and IBC suggestions for a greater national mitigation strategy, as well as IDNDR research, and federal, provincial and municipal goals for sustainable development and sound land use planning objectives. Ideally, a successful non structural flood mitigation strategy for Canada would address issues at the national scale, yet be implementable at the local level in accordance with community needs, risk characteristics, and local expertise. The strategy proposed here would maximize the efficiency of federal resources and private industry as well as allow local expertise and existing mitigation schemes to be formalized, bolstered and improved. There are three major components of the non structural flood mitigation strategy. Risk avoidance measures such as early warning systems, land use and resource planning and ecological conservation all work towards reducing the chances of a dangerous flood occurring. Risk spreading measures help communities deal with flood risks by improving equity and accountability, they include tax incentives, disaster financial assistance, and flood insurance. Lastly, vulnerability reduction measures help reduce damages if a flood were to strike, and these include enforcement of building codes and the maintenance of existing protective infrastructure. An integrated, non structural flood mitigation strategy would require basin-wide cooperation between all levels of government, citizens and the private sector. This strategy is also an opportunity for communities and individuals to meet goals of environmental conservation and sustainable development. The focus in this study lies on the mitigation tools, although it is the overall process of inserting the premise of mitigation into all land use and planning decision making processes that will be the key to successful flood mitigation strategies in Canadian communities. / Science, Faculty of / Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for / Graduate

Risk and needs assessments are actuarial based instruments that aim to evaluate an (1) offender’s risks including the risk of reoffending, (2) criminogenic needs so they can be targeted in treatment and (3) offender responsivity inclusive of the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011, 735). Since 2006, looking to Western nations as exemplars, the HK Security Bureau’s policy initiatives have introduced a Risk and Needs Assessment Protocol for all local young offenders, and local adult offenders with sentences of two years and above. But one has to question how the policy transfer applies here in Hong Kong. What can Hong Kong’s criminal justice policy makers and practitioners adapt from research conducted in Canada and the United States? Is there anything HK officials can learn from other jurisdictions, both in terms of experiences implementing risk needs tools and the wider socio-cultural context under which such implementation takes place? This study has provided some preliminary answers to these questions through critical analysis and expert interviews. Subsequent analysis on the definition of risk and need under the HK CSD’s protocol outlined a further need for a definition of the responsivity principle. Concerns over the content of responsivity enhancement programs along with its effects on the voluntary participation of young offenders were also discussed in this analysis. Since the initial consultancy was commissioned by the CSD in 2002 to empirically develop and refine the protocol, a follow up study was much needed to suggest improvements. This study has served to fulfill this goal by suggesting improvements in addressing class, gender and racial disparity along with suggestions on operational excellence. Specifically, interviews with leading Canadian risk assessment experts including criminologists and practitioners highlighted four main challenges and three main lessons for HK CSD to examine (p. 57-58). Interviews with Hong Kong risk/needs assessment experts including criminologist and HK CSD practitioners help provide clarification on the risk/need assessment process and how rehabilitative programs operate. Additional analysis on the risk/need assessment instrument used in Hong Kong along with an examination of the questions used by assessors was subsequently conducted. The result challenges the CSD’s Risks and Needs Assessment and Management Protocol for Offenders as a “scientific and evidence based approach to prison management and offender rehabilitation” (CSD Booklet, 201, 3). This conclusion is based on the many social assumptions made on offenders found in the assessment tool and ambiguous design of questions used to evaluate criminogenic need. / published_or_final_version / Criminology / Master / Master of Social Sciences