Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster Resiliency: Challenges and Strategic Choices for the 21 st Century

Transcription

1 Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster Resiliency: Challenges and Strategic Choices for the 21 st Century In Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency, Ed. Urban Fra: Amersterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press (2009) Philip Berke a, 1 and Gavin Smith b a Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Deputy Director of the Institute for the Environment b Associate Research Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Executive Director, Center for the Study of Natural Hazards and Disasters University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A. Abstract. Knowledge about the causes and consequences of hazards is increasing, but losses continue to rise dramatically. We examine the major benefits of land use planning when applied to hazard mitigation, and then discuss why vulnerable communities fail to enact effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced losses. We then present five sets of choices that communities can make to advance planning for mitigation with the ultimate goal of disaster resiliency. Keywords. planning, mitigation, hazards, resiliency, sustainability Introduction Hazard mitigation and land use planning are orientated toward the future. Both are focused on anticipating upcoming needs and impacts, rather than responding to yesterday s events. Both are proactive rather than reactive. Both inject long-range thinking into short-range actions. In concert, they provide a powerful approach for reducing vulnerability, and creating more disaster resilient communities that are able to resist or absorb an impact, organize [themselves] to overcome or recover from the consequences of the impact, and adapt or learn from the experience [1, p. 5]. To this end, resiliency implies sustainable development where property investments are avoided or at least limited in hazardous areas, where the mitigating qualities of the natural environment are maintained, and where disaster recovery is envisioned to offer opportunities to build mitigation into redevelopment [2]. This chapter examines the basic powers and benefits of urban planning in mitigating hazard vulnerability. We explore the major challenges posed to integrating mitigation with planning. We argue that the trend in increasing numbers and severity of disasters are predictable outcomes of well-intentioned, but short-sighted, public policy decisions. These decisions create what urban planning scholar Raymond Burby [3] refers to as the local government paradox wherein vulnerable communities fail to enact effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced losses. Failure to overcome 1 Corresponding author: Department of City & Regional Planning, New East Bldg., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC , U.S.A.; pberke@unc.edu.

2 these challenges leads to a cycle of increasingly hazardous urban development and larger, more significant losses. Our position is consistent with the main conclusion of the second assessment of natural hazards research set forth in Disasters by Design [4]. In spite of increasing knowledge about the causes and consequences of hazards, losses increase in part because of where and how we design communities. White, Kates and Burton [5] echoed this position by asserting that losses continue to grow because of a failure to effectively make use of knowledge on where and how our communities should develop. We believe the time is right for building the capacity of communities to reinvigorate mitigation planning given the awareness of the un-sustainability of contemporary land use and urban development practices. The staggering costs of recent disasters, notably Hurricane Katrina ($200 billion from flooding), and losses that are rising at rates that exceed increases in population and gross national product [6] has increased public awareness of the need to act beforehand. In the future megacatastrophes may no longer be viewed as low probability events and may become the rule rather than the exception. In this chapter, we review the benefits and challenges associated with hazard mitigation planning. We then offer five sets of choices that planners, elected officials, and the public make to advance planning for mitigation, including: 1) building community capacity to do mitigation, 2) creating a high quality plan, 3) selecting a mix of regulatory and spending tools for plan implementation, 4) setting up a monitoring program to gauge achievement of plan goals, and 5) designing national and state policy aimed at building local commitment and capacity to support planning for mitigation. Finally, we assess the role of land use planning in mitigating hazards with the goal of creating more disaster resilient communities. 1. Land Use Planning Applied to Hazard Mitigation: In Concept Land use planning provides an important means to achieve mitigation by influencing human settlement patterns as its analytical tools and policy recommendations are inherently geospatial in nature affecting the location, type and density of development. Equally important, is the notion that the power of planning resides in its process orientation engendering community participation and empowerment, the sharing of information and collaborative problem solving. Simply put, planning transforms knowledge into action [7]. The practice of land use planning is highly applicable to reducing natural hazard losses and fostering more resilient communities [3, 22]. Hazard mitigation planning can be defined as a coordinated series of structural and non-structural actions and processes designed to reduce the likelihood of future damages to property, while minimizing the health and safety-related impacts associated with natural hazards and disasters. Plans rely on a mix of mitigation strategies that fall into four principal categories: 1) public information (e.g. hazard disclosure, mapping of hazards, education and outreach initiatives), 2) structural property protection (e.g. building and infrastructure hardening, elevation of flood-prone property, levees, seawalls), 3) natural resource protection (e.g. beach, dune and wetlands preservation, riparian buffers) and 4) hazard avoidance (e.g. limiting future development in hazard zones, relocating existing development from hazard zones).

3 Selecting a hazard mitigation strategy should involve both the process of identifying a coordinated set of actions or projects targeting buildings and infrastructure that are currently at risk as well as the application of land use techniques, policies and processes focused on pre-event hazards avoidance. Examples of land use planning tools that can be used for this purpose include zoning, subdivision regulations, building codes, and the public financing of capital improvements. The benefit of taking a land use planning approach, broadly defined, limits the level of exposure to hazards before an event occurs in addition to tackling problematic decisions made in the past. There is no one mitigation strategy taken in isolation that can guarantee disaster resilience. However, an overreliance on structural engineering-based approaches such as levees, seawalls and hardened infrastructure ultimately limits resilience. Structural methods encourage additional investments in known hazard areas, while at the same time can fail catastrophically as in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Noted geographer Gilbert White observed in 1975 that structural hazard control works will be of little value if the reduction in damages that they accomplish is more than offset by new damage potential resulting from additional development in floodplains [8, p. xviii]. Communities engaged in the development of a hazard mitigation plan benefit from the involvement of individuals trained in the art of public participation and dispute resolution [9]. Mediation, negotiation, facilitation and policy dialogue are routinely used by practicing land use planners. The use of these techniques improve the quality of plans and their ease of implementation as those that will be affected by the policies recommended and decisions made regarding varied land use options and alternatives are involved throughout the process. Developing a plan is a process and one which provides an opportunity to engage a wide collection of stakeholders who have a vested interest in the final product. In addition to serving as mediator and consensus builder, the planner is often required to advocate on behalf of an idea or principle [10]. This may include challenging past and proposed development patterns that unnecessarily place the larger community at risk or disproportionately impact the poor or other socially vulnerable populations. Tackling these issues requires the identification of complimentary interests, and moving beyond initially stated positions that may on their face appear to represent an intractable dilemma. Once identified and agreed upon by participants, complimentary policy choices can be codified in the plan. 2. Links to Resiliency and Sustainable Development Land use planning is increasingly using the concept of sustainable development to describe the aims of the profession [11]. Planning viewed through this prism addresses the interconnectedness of social, economic and environmental issues. Sustainable development and planning also share a future orientation. Framed in the larger sphere of sustainability, hazard mitigation planning provides a unique subtext that bridges social, economic and environmental issues in a complimentary way [12, 1]. While scholars have embraced the concept of hazard mitigation as an integrative theme, it has yet to gain widespread acceptance among practicing planners [9]. More recently, hazards researchers have turned to the concept of disaster resiliency to describe the linkage between sustainable development and hazard mitigation [13, 14,

4 1]. Disaster resilient communities are inherently more sustainable than others that do not take action to reduce their exposure to natural hazards. Disasters are destructive events that in extreme cases can physically obliterate a jurisdiction to a point where they may never regain their pre-event economic, social and environmental condition. A resilient community is able to bounce back following a disaster, in large part because it has incorporated hazard mitigation and preparedness measures into their community that reduce the magnitude, extent and duration of disruptions associated with a disaster. The speed at which a community is able to reinstate supporting infrastructure such as power, water and sewer services, reopen schools and businesses, and repair damaged housing is an important indicator of a resilient community. Similarly, the reconstitution of existing institutions and organizations is also critically important. These include not only local government, non-profits and community groups, but also kinship ties and other social relationships. Disaster resiliency, like sustainability, has been described across ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Ecological resiliency describes the inherent adaptability of healthy natural environments that routinely respond to fluctuations in temperature, rainfall, ground motion, erosion, wind, fire and other natural hazards. Environmental scientists use the term carrying capacity to describe the upper limit of human impacts on the system. Exceeding this limit produces unsustainable perturbations in the system, leading to an eventual collapse. Humans possess the unique ability to exceed the carrying capacity of the natural system and make purposeful choices to balance growth with associated environmental impacts. Understood in the context of disaster resiliency and sustainable development, natural hazards are part of the larger environment and serve an important function. Disasters occur when human settlement patterns interact with natural hazards. If we assume that humans are part of the natural environment, then in order to facilitate sustainable, disaster resilient communities, our actions must recognize the importance of striking a balance between economic development and the preservation of the environment which ultimately sustains us. Economic resiliency implies an ability of businesses and individuals to withstand financial shocks to the system, including those associated with disasters. Businesses may be impacted by a downturn in profits or a loss of investments and other holdings. Individuals may suffer from the loss of a job or difficulties associated with finding employment that provides a livable wage. All of these factors can be triggered or exacerbated by a disaster. Businesses, like the communities in which they reside, are differentially vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. The pre-event adoption of hazard mitigation strategies and preparedness measures by business owners and individuals can alleviate some of the associated exposure to the damaging effects of disasters. A comprehensive mitigation strategy involves the larger community as the vulnerability of infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, telecommunication systems) can limit the distribution of goods and services, while an abundance of housing stock that is vulnerable to hazards can hinder the ability of employees to return to work expeditiously following a disaster. Social resiliency is tied directly to the strength of social networks and interpersonal bonds. These relationships provide psycho-social support, a venue for the exchange of information, and the sharing of resources before and after disasters. In a larger sense, social networks and interpersonal bonds help to define a sense of place or community that can influence the nature of recovery following disaster as tight knit groups are more likely to assist one another and develop coordinated strategies to

5 address common problems. However, the same characteristics can lead to insularity and a reluctance to seek out or embrace new information or assistance from those located outside their community. Closely related to social resiliency is the concept of institutional resiliency which can be gauged by the level of coordination within and across organizations. High levels of organizational preparedness and interorganizational coordination facilitates resiliency. The concept of horizontal and vertical integration provides a useful framework to understand this process. Vertical integration can be described as the degree to which differing organizations such as federal, state and local governments coordinate their actions. Horizontal integration involves the coordination across similar organizations such as the non-profit community. Berke, Kartez and Wenger [15] found that high levels of vertical and horizontal integration increase the likelihood of integrated hazard mitigation and sustainable development strategies. 3. A Model Linking Resiliency, Mitigation, and Planning for Sustainability Figure 1 visualizes the links among resiliency, mitigation, and planning for sustainability that is adapted from Godschalk, Kaiser and Berke s [2] three legged stool concept. The seat of the stool illustrates mitigation planning for disaster resiliency. The three legs represent the environmental, economic and social values of resiliency that must be in balance for the community to support the ultimate goal of sustainability. A community mitigation planning program must not be out of balance wherein one value is emphasized at the expense of other values. As a result, a community s viability and survival could become endangered. The three legged stool metaphor reveals the dependence of the planning program upon a clearly stated and balanced set of goals that reflect values supported by a mitigation strategy premised on the best available science-based information. Figure 1. Resiliency Values, Mitigation, and Planning for Sustainability. Source: Adapted from Godschalk, Kaiser and Berke [2].

6 4. Challenges to Mitigation Planning 4.1. Weak Plans and Ordinances Several studies have documented successful examples of how individual communities integrate vulnerability data and hazard mitigation policies into local planning [16, 17]. However, the general pattern of findings from the few studies that have evaluated cross sectional samples of local planning programs report that communities have not integrated specific, well-developed mitigation provisions into their local land use plans and development ordinances. Berke and Godschalk [18] conducted a meta-analysis of 16 published plan quality evaluations to identify strengths and weaknesses of plans based on eight key principles of plan quality: breadth of goals, scientific basis, policies, internal consistency, implementation, monitoring, horizontal integration, and vertical integration (these principles are discussed in more detail in section 5.2.2). Unlike traditional research methods, meta-analysis uses summary statistics from individual primary studies as the data points in a new analysis. The meta-analysis by Berke and Godschalk transformed the score for each principle from each study into a standardized score -- this permitted analysis of findings across studies. Standardized scores were computed by first identifying the maximum possible score of each principle in each study, and then dividing the reported score of a given principle by the total maximum score to determine a proportionate score [18, pp. 5-6]. Proportionate scores ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 1. A mean for each principle was then computed based on the proportionate scores from all studies. The meta-analysis revealed that while plan quality varies with the plan topic (e.g., smart growth, sustainable development, watershed protection, housing affordability, landscape ecosystems, coastal resources, and human rights of indigenous people) and setting (Holland, New Zealand, U.S.), a clear pattern emerged among the seven studies that examined hazard mitigation provisions of plans. Notably, breadth of goals, degree of use of vulnerability-science based information, and strength of mitigation policies, were found to be weakest (see figure 2). The principles of implementation (actions to be taken to carry out plans, timelines, assignment of organizational responsibility), monitoring/evaluation, vertical integration (compliance with state and national mitigation policies), and horizontal integration (policy coordination across adjacent local governments) were moderately strong. Internal consistency across goals, policies, implementation actions, and monitoring plan performance to achieve goals was the highest scoring principle.

7 Figure 2. Findings of Meta-analysis by Plan Quality Principle (maximum = 1.0). Source: Adapted from Berke and Godschalk [18]. While it is heartening to learn that plan authors are preparing internally consistent documents, given the complexity of linking goals, policies, implementation actions, and monitoring indicators within the plans, these findings are troublesome since goals, vulnerability data, and policies serve the critical direction-setting framework of plans. Goals identify desired community disaster resiliency ideals. Polices guide day-to-day actions, and vulnerability-science provides the information used to set goals and policies. A weak direction-setting framework means that a community is less likely to exert control over its planning agenda and ensure that long-range public interests supersede short-range interests and private concerns. Mitigation is often reduced to a series of disconnected projects intended to address past mistakes, and is therefore not part of a comprehensive and integrated planning approach. A weak direction setting framework also means that plans will not provide a clear, relevant basis for implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Moreover, while plans may meet minimum national and state legal requirements (i.e., strong vertical integration), plans lack strong locally-driven mitigation actions necessary to implement state and federally mandated mitigation strategies. The emphasis on projects is not surprising as the plans are often viewed as simply a means to an end gaining access to pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation funding rather than a means to comprehensively reduce vulnerability [9].

8 As noted, these studies also reveal the limited application of vulnerability sciencebased information in the fact base of local plans and implementation practices. Consequently, knowledge is limited about the location of hazards, exposure of people and property to hazards, and effectiveness of alternative mitigation policies. This finding is consequential, as goals and policies in plans were found to be weak. A thorough understanding of the location of hazards, an inventory and assessment of the level of exposure of different population groups and the built environments is an essential ingredient to crafting plans that effectively reduce community vulnerability Land Use Management Paradox Planning scholar Ray Burby contends that the land use management paradox is a major obstacle to creating high quality plans that advance more resilient and sustainable communities [3]. The paradox arises when local governments fail to adopt mitigation practices even though disaster losses are primarily local. Mileti [4, p. 66] found that only a small proportion of total disaster losses in the U.S. are covered by federal disaster relief, and that most losses are not insured as they are borne by victims. As a result, we would expect that mitigation would be a high priority for local officials. The paradox is that few local governments are willing to reduce natural hazards by managing development. While significant loss could be avoided through sound planning and development requirements, the existence of this pattern of community behavior is well documented [18, 3]. Political reasons that explain the paradox include: the low priority local governments place on hazards relative to other issues (e.g., unemployment, crime, housing, and education); mitigation measures are often not visible like roads and schools; and the costs associated with implementing mitigation policies are short-term but benefits are not likely to occur during the terms of elected officials [24]. Further, because land and its use is inherently contentious, particularly when framed around where and how individuals, businesses and communities can build relative to hazards [19], local governments are reluctant to incorporate land use measures into a proactive hazard mitigation strategy. Local land use planners fail to recognize that hazard mitigation planning falls within their professional purview [9]. Instead, plan-making is framed in the context of emergency management and considered the responsibility of local emergency management officials even though they possess limited experience in land use planning and working with local planning officials [20]. Economic reasons center on federal disaster policies that create disincentives for local governments (and individuals) to act. Federal incentives have encouraged localities to take risks that they will not have to pay for in the future [21]. Incentives include but are not limited to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) postdisaster assistance that covers 75% of cost for rebuilding public infrastructure, subsidized beach nourishment programs, subsidized flood insurance for residences under the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program), and homeowner tax credits that cover residences in hazardous locations. If local governments believe that the federal government will meet their needs to minimize risk and recover from disaster, they have less incentive to spend limited resources on mitigation. In sum, local communities are increasingly bearing the impacts of disasters, and the potential benefits of local mitigation planning have not been realized [4]. Unless the challenges discussed above are overcome, disasters will be repeated continuously. While policy analysts are increasingly recognizing the adverse effects of national

9 policies that subsidize unsustainable behavior [3], change in the disaster relief politics that motivate such policies are unlikely. The modern vehicles for preventing loss of property and life are thus not disaster relief, but building local mitigation planning programs that foster disaster resiliency. This entails exploring the policy alternatives and making thoughtful choices aimed at building local capacity to plan through an engaged and supportive public, the development of strong inter-organizational partnerships, and the use of relevant vulnerability science-based information. 5. Strategic Choices in Designing a Mitigation Planning Approach The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 3 guides the organization and presentation of different sets of choices that planners, elected officials, and the public make in building local capacity to create and implement plans, and monitor the resiliency outcomes. It consists of five sets of choices and the relationships among them. We also posit that the most effective choices are those tailored to local contexts (e.g., level of vulnerability to hazards, existing capacity to plan, socioeconomic characteristics of different population groups, prior disaster experience). Starting with outcomes, the goal is to seek community resiliency that strikes an appropriate balance among economic, environmental, and equity values. The first choice involves building community capacity to undertake mitigation planning across technical, administrative, fiscal and political dimensions. The second choice includes the design options for creating a mitigation plan, and ways to pursue principles of plan quality such as goals, facts, and policies. The third choice entails plan implementation that relies on a range of local regulatory, taxing, and spending powers. The fourth choice includes decisions about monitoring and evaluation of plan performance. Finally, national and state government policy involves choices aimed at building local commitment and capacity, and designing, implementing, and monitoring of mitigation plans based on various actions.

10 Figure 3. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Planning for Resiliency Choice 1: Building Local Capacity to Plan The long term viability of a plan requires choices in building and maintaining local capacity across technical, administrative, fiscal and political dimensions. Technical capacity refers to the access to analytical tools (e.g. GIS, loss estimation software) and the applicable skills of staff involved in the plan-making process. Examples include improving the ability to collect and analyze data or apply dispute resolution techniques. Closely associated with technical capacity is the larger issue of effective administration. This requires maintaining staff capable of administering programs, policies and plans over time. Fiscal capacity is measured by financial demands placed on a jurisdiction and access to both internal and external resources to address them. Internal resources are usually tied to an annual budget, while external resources include alternative sources of funds obtained through grants, loans or other sources of revenue that are not part of the normal local government budgetary process. Developing the political will to confront issues surrounding development and hazards is not easy nor often discussed in the context of capacity-building. However, it is crucial to question choices made by entrenched political interest groups who advocate maintaining the status quo, particularly when alternative choices may affect their ability to profit from existing pro-growth conditions. The adoption of land use and other regulatory measures benefit from the establishment of supporting coalitions, including those who may initial oppose such measures. Developing a sound program that has wide support garnered through public participation can minimize fluctuations in political support for principles that can be politicized or perceived as inherently liberal, even though, correctly framed, they should resonate with a wide range of beliefs, including fiscal conservatives [19].

11 Planning provides the means to build capacity. One option is to involve the public when conducting a risk assessment. The process of assessing risk allows a community to prioritize mitigation actions based on the nature of differing hazard scenarios. The risk assessment process also allows for public involvement in developing an approach that is grounded in local knowledge. The anecdotal stories of old timers who experienced previous events can provide valuable insights. It also allows members of the community to become engaged in the analysis and therefore, more likely to agree with the final results and the policies that are created to mitigate the findings. Conducting a capability assessment involves identifying existing policies, programs and plans that compliment or contradict the aims of the mitigation plan. Once identified, those involved in the planning process can target areas in need of improvement based on this assessment and adopt new or improved policies and programs. For example, if the capability assessment identified that the local Capital Improvement Plan includes a proposed investment in new infrastructure (e.g. roads, water and sewer) in an area prone to hazards, the plan should note this and provide a set of policy alternatives that would mitigate or alleviate the risk. Choices may include limiting or excluding public investment in these areas or hardening exposed infrastructure Choice 2: Creating a Mitigation Plan Communities should consider two sets of choices in creating a mitigation plan. One involves three levels of choices in deciding on the type of mitigation plan design. The second involves ways to achieve plan quality principles when preparing new plans or updating existing plans Choice 2a: Three Options of Plan Design Options. While plans reflect different local goals associated with vulnerability and sustainability, type of hazards, and feasibility in mitigation policy solutions, planners and their communities can employ differing planning options. The intent is to create a plan that best supports the concerns and capabilities of all population groups, takes advantage of opportunities presented by federal and state policies, and is integrated with a community s other planning efforts. The three levels are described in the sections below and summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Options for Creating a Disaster Plan. First-Level Option Comprehensive Plan versus Stand-alone Plan Second-Level Option Specific Stage of Disaster Planning versus All Stages of Disaster Planning Third-Level Options Specific Location versus Communitywide Specific Hazard versus All Hazards

12 The first-level option describes a mitigation plan as a separate, stand alone plan focusing only on hazards or as part of a comprehensive plan. In some cases, it may make sense to write a separate plan when the threat posed by a hazard is extremely high; when hazards are high on the local agenda (e.g. after a disaster event) and there is a special opportunity to forge a commitment to mitigation strategies; and when the community has no comprehensive (or general) plan or the plan is weak or out-of-date. The difficulty in making a stand-alone plan is that the concerns about vulnerability reduction could become isolated from other local plans and programs that already have standing in the community. These plans focus on hazards, as well as other ongoing community goals and programs (e.g., land use and urban development, social service delivery, health, and economic development). It is possible to integrate a stand-alone plan into other plans at a later date. The second-level option includes two choices: whether mitigation will be integrated into a comprehensive hazard plan focused on all four stages of the disaster planning cycle (mitigation > preparedness > response > recovery) or a series of stagespecific plans. Communities may choose to formulate a comprehensive hazards plan because the activities that take place in each stage are often interdependent and require coordination. Mitigation activities can occur before or after a disaster strikes as mitigation is a critical component of a recovery plan, ensuring that future vulnerability is reduced during reconstruction. Mitigation can also be incorporated into an emergency preparedness and response plan. For example, highways and bridges used for evacuation and shelters needed for safe havens should be designed to withstand disaster forces and located in places that limits exposure to these forces. In some cases, a mitigation plan focused on a particular stage is most appropriate. For example, if a community does not have a comprehensive land use plan or the plan is weak and out-of-date, then a stand-alone mitigation plan would be most effective in linking pre-disaster mitigation to urban development activities. When a land use plan is prepared or updated, critical mitigation provisions could be fully integrated as an element in the comprehensive land use plan. The third-level option includes four choices: whether to focus on explicitly defined hazard-prone areas (e.g., floodplains) or take a more communitywide approach; and whether to address a single hazard or take an all-hazards approach. In most situations, communities should plan for all types of hazards found in their jurisdiction. This ensures that no hazard is overlooked and the threat to highly vulnerable populations is understood. In some cases, a specific hazard in a specific location may be the best choice. This is particularly important for disadvantaged populations that may be concentrated in a specific location and subject to a particular hazard. Box 1 illustrates distinctions in the choices made by two communities in creating their mitigation plans. The Lee County (Florida) plan illustrates an integrated approach to the design of a mitigation planning program [17], and the City of Roseville (California) [22] represents a stand-alone approach. Box 1. Design Options of Lee County, Florida and City of Roseville, California Plans. Lee County [17] in Florida takes a comprehensive approach to integrating mitigation into other local planning activities (Level 1) and across the stages of the disaster policy

13 cycle (Level 2). The mitigation approach is communitywide and covers multiple hazards (Level 3), including, for example, inland flooding, hurricane surge and winds. Specific hazard mitigation strategies are integrated into the local land use plan, disaster recovery plan, and evacuation and sheltering plan. Several of the key policies include: In hurricane vulnerability zones, defined as areas requiring evacuation in the event of a 100-year or Category 3 hurricane: o limit growth in areas that have inadequate highway capacity to evacuate residents-at-risk, or o increase evacuation and shelter capacity to accommodate new growth; In coastal high hazard zones, defined as areas subject to inundation from a Category 1 hurricane: o Direct new development out of hazard zones by reducing hazard exposure for infrastructure, and limiting public expenditures that subsidize development; o Redirect existing development during disaster recovery; and Restore protective features of natural systems (e.g., wetlands, mangroves, and beachfront sand dunes). The City of Roseville [22] mitigation plan in California is a stand-alone mitigation plan (Level 1) that is not integrated into other local plans. It focuses on the single mitigation stage of the disaster policy cycle (Level 2). It takes a communitywide approach to hazards rather than focusing on specific locations, and focuses on multihazards, including, for example, floods, earthquakes, droughts, and landslides (Level 3). As indicated below, the high priority mitigation policies are aimed at the mitigation stage, including, for example: Implement seismic construction standards under the International Building Code (IBC); Promote active water conservation to private property owners through public education; Preserve floodplain areas and adjacent habitats as open space corridors through zoning and land acquisition; Design public infrastructure and utilities to remain functional during flood conditions; Update land use/zoning regulations to avoid or limit new development in hazard areas; Remove debris in stream channels to limit blockage and downstream flooding; Sponsor programs to buy out, relocate, and flood-proof existing flood-prone structures; Perform scenario-based dam failure analyses to assess probable impact of flooding. As noted, we believe that in most instances the Level 1 and 2 choices of the Lee County approach will enhance prospects for coordination of actions into more established local planning, and actions across stages. This offers more opportunity for mitigation issues and policy solutions to be acted upon.

14 Choice 2b: Plan Quality Principles. Every local mitigation plan brings together a series of choices designed to fit the unique circumstances of a particular community. Plans vary in types of hazards that are addressed, emphasis on values and goals (equity, economic vitality, environmental protection), and importance placed on regulatory- and incentive-based mitigation policy solutions. Yet, it is possible to assess differences in plan format, specificity, and substantive emphasis based on principles of accepted practice. In our view, a highquality plan provides a clear and convincing picture of the future, which strengthens the plan s influence in the land [and hazard] planning arena [11, p. 69]. We present a set of principles designed to offer guidance on how to integrate vulnerability-science based information into plans, ensuring the public goals from diverse interest groups are represented, and policy solutions fit local values and capabilities to ensure plan implementation. They are intended to assist local urban planners, emergency managers, elected officials, and the public in preparing plans aimed at making communities more disaster resilient. The principles are based on two conceptual dimensions of plan quality originally derived by Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser [11, pp ]: 1) internal plan quality that includes the content and format of key components of the plan (e.g., issues and vision statement, fact base, goal and policy framework, implementation, monitoring) needed to guide land use in the future; and 2) external plan quality that accounts for the relevance of the scope and coverage to reflect stakeholder values and the local context, which shapes the use and influence of the plan. Table 2 shows the plan quality principles and examples of specific criteria grouped under each principle. We identified seven internal principles with principles 1 through 6 reflecting the sequence of tasks that comprise a comprehensive mitigation plan. The sequence starts with issue identification and visioning (1), followed by direction setting elements that include goals (2), fact base for policy selection (3), and policies for guiding future settlement patterns (4). Characteristics 1 through 4 provide the foundation for plan implementation actions (5), and monitoring and evaluation (6) that tracks and assesses the effectiveness of the plan in resolving issues and achieving goals. Finally, internal consistency (7) addresses how well the first six plan elements are integrated. Three external characteristics include organizational and presentation (8) to foster comprehension and understandability of the plan, inter-organizational coordination (9) to facilitate coordination among other plans (e.g., transportation, open space, housing), and compliance to ensure consistency with federal and state mandates (10). The principles of plan quality are suggestive, and not comprehensive. They are intended to provide guidance with user discretion. They offer a starting point to help local planners systematically think about how the needs, concerns and capabilities of diverse population groups should be included in a disaster plan. Given differences in local purposes and circumstances, there may be variations in the applicability of criteria under each principle. Local planners and their communities should modify the principles and criteria to fit their own needs.

15 Table 2. Principles of Plan Quality for Hazard Mitigation. Internal Principles 1. Issue identification and vision: description of community needs, assets, trends and future vision of resiliency Assessment of major issues, trends, and disaster impacts associated with forecasted change Description of major opportunities for and threats to resilient land use and development patterns A vision that identifies what the community wants to be vis-a-vis disaster resiliency. 2. Goals: reflections of public values that express desired future land use and development patterns Statements of desired conditions that reflect the breadth of community values (equity, economy, environment). 3. Fact base: analysis of current and future conditions, and explanation of reasoning. Vulnerability assessment: 3.1. Delineates type, magnitude, duration, speed of onset, and frequency of hazard occurrence Includes current and projected future population and employment exposed to hazards Includes current and projected capacity and demands for facilities and services that support vulnerable populations (shelters, transportation, medical). Techniques that clarify, explain, and illustrate facts: 3.4. Includes maps that visually portray location of different population groups, housing, and facilities Includes tables that aggregate data by vulnerable population groups, land use activities, and infrastructure Uses facts to support reasoning and explanation of issues and mitigation policies Identifies data sources. 4. Policies: specification of principles to guide public and private land use decisions to achieve goals Sufficiently specific to be tied to definite mitigation actions Spatial designs that specify future urban land uses and infrastructure that avoid or at least limit development in hazard areas. 5. Implementation: commitments to carry out policy driven actions Timelines for actions Organizations identified that are responsible for actions Sources of funding are identified to support actions. 6. Monitoring and evaluation: provisions for tracking change in community conditions Goals are based on measurable objectives, e.g., desired % or # of housing units exposed to hazards Indicators of objectives to assess progress, e.g., annual change % or # of housing units exposed to hazards Organizations identified responsible for monitoring Timetable for updating plan based on monitoring of changing conditions. 7. Internal consistency: issues, vision, goals, policies, and implementation are mutually reinforcing Goals must be comprehensive to accommodate issues and vision Policies must be clearly linked back to goals and forward to implementation actions Monitoring should include indicators to gauge goal achievement and effectiveness of policies. External Principles 8. Organization and presentation: provisions to enhance understandability for a wide range of readers.

16 8.1. Table of contents, glossary of terms, executive summary Cross referencing of issues, vision, goals, and policies Clear visuals, e.g., maps, charts, pictures, and diagrams Supporting documents, e.g., video, CD, Web-Page. 9. Inter-organizational coordination: integration with other plans/policies/programs of public and private parties Vertical coordination with plans/policies/programs of federal, state, and regional parties Horizontal coordination with plans/policies/programs of other local parties within/outside local jurisdiction. 10. Compliance: consistent with the plan mandates Required elements are included in plan Required elements fit together Choice 3: Developing a Plan Implementation Strategy A third major area of choice in the mitigation planning process is the implementation of the plan sometimes called the development management program [11]. In contrast to choices about building local capacity to plan and selecting plan design options, plan implementation is about the choice of the types of local government powers used to implement the plan. In the U.S. context a particular implementation strategy involves choices among four types of local government powers: Regulatory power: To direct and manage urban development in ways to achieve desirable land use patterns and to mitigate hazards, local governments can use the tools of zoning and subdivision regulation, building codes, urban growth boundaries, floodplain regulations, and so forth. Spending power: To control public expenditures to achieve community goals, such as concurrency of infrastructure provision with urban growth or restricting provision of infrastructure in hazardous areas, local governments can use capital improvement programs and budgets. Taxing power: To support community programs such as infrastructure building and hazard mitigation, local governments can use tools like special taxing districts and preferential assessment for agriculture and open spaces. Acquisition power: To gain control over lands that are hazardous, local governments can make use of the right of eminent domain, purchase of development rights, and acceptance dedication of conservation easements. The mix of powers selected varies according to community capacity, plan goals and plan policies. Use of the powers varies according to whether the plan focuses on future development, existing development, or both. The former alternative implies limiting new private and public development in hazardous areas by investing in new roads and utilities outside of hazard areas, requiring building standards to strengthen new structures, or requiring a change in the densities of uses allowed in hazard areas. The second option of existing development involves the use building regulations or tax incentives to retrofit and strengthen structures, or acquisition of property at risk and relocation of residents and businesses. (See Box 1 for examples of how local government powers are applied to mitigation of new and existing developments.)

17 Use of powers also varies according to whether the plan focuses on taking action before or after a disaster or both. Pre-disaster mitigation tends to be more preventative and addresses future development. Post-disaster mitigation makes use of windows of opportunity that often open after events to rebuild without replicating past unwise development decisions [23] Choice 4: Creating a Monitoring and Evaluation Program The central activities of a monitoring and evaluation program are to track how well community resiliency and broader sustainability goals are achieved, and to evaluate the performance of plan policies and implementation efforts. Objectives that are measurable (e.g., number of structures and linear feet of water and sewer lines exposed to hazards) should be assigned to each plan goal, sources of data for monitoring should be specified, and organizations responsible for collecting the data should be identified. Provision for systematic monitoring and evaluation can be incorporated into the plan, or set up as a separate activity. Regardless, the establishment of regular monitoring and evaluation schedule is essential if the plan is to be an effective guide to action given that hazards and vulnerability are continually dynamic. While there are considerable substantive benefits of mitigation, many of the benefits achieved through planning are generated by the process of plan making. Communities might decide to assess how planning builds support for mitigation, engenders participation in decision making activities, and stimulates education and outreach initiatives. In addition to process-oriented benefits, a larger question begins to emerge. Communities must make choices about whether and how to measure the interconnected benefits achieved between hazard mitigation and other sustainable development goals of economic vitality, healthy natural systems, and equity in access to the benefits of achieving economic and environmental goals. One option is to consider the concept of disaster resiliency as a bridge between the two. Monitoring and evaluation also provide options to support accountability and transparency of plans. Accountability offers assurances for the public that planned actions can be monitored, allowing for both plan continuity and the support of the larger coalition who bought into the process in the beginning. Transparency compliments accountability. As mitigation actions are implemented, knowledge about performance should be opened to the public through regular plan performance reports. If for some reason planning actions are not being accomplished, this should be noted and corrective actions taken through the plan update process. It is important to determine why the action was not completed. Was there a loss in capability required to achieve the desired objective? Did social, economic or environmental factors hinder implementation? 5.4. Choice 5: Design federal and state mitigation planning programs As discussed, the land use management paradox is a major obstacle to creating high quality hazard mitigation plans. Local governments have little incentive to develop strong hazard mitigation planning programs on their own. Prior research indicates that state and national mandates for local mitigation planning can build constituencies for risk reduction initiatives, including those that emphasize the use of land use tools [21, 24]. They also motivate higher quality local plans and reduced disaster losses by mandating that local governments prepare and implement plans [c.f. 3, 25].