It isn't just "plain old Mitigation"
The four-page "DRAFT Mitigation Framework Guiding Principles" doesn't really mention hazards until well into its third page. For our documents to *really* invite comments and commitment from the general public (or indeed, anyone outside of ourselves), it needs to use language that is self-explanatory, as much as possible. Mitigation is not a word that was meant to simply be tossed around on its own, in isolation. SOMETHING ...more »
The four-page "DRAFT Mitigation Framework Guiding Principles" doesn't really mention hazards until well into its third page. For our documents to *really* invite comments and commitment from the general public (or indeed, anyone outside of ourselves), it needs to use language that is self-explanatory, as much as possible. Mitigation is not a word that was meant to simply be tossed around on its own, in isolation. SOMETHING needs to be mitigation - the word stems from a transitive verb. Most people won't have any idea what is being referred to, and they will quickly stop reading. In all of our guidance and products, we need to specify that we are talking about "hazard mitigation" or "risk mitigation."
« less full details »