Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster
Resiliency: Challenges and Strategic Choices
for the 21st Century
In Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency,
Ed. Urban Fra: Amersterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press (2009)
Philip Berkea, 1
and Gavin Smithb
aProfessor, Department of City & Regional Planning
Deputy Director of the Institute for the Environment bAssociate 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 27514-3140, U.S.A.; Email: [email protected].
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 mega-
catastrophes 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).
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,
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
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 inter-
organizational 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].
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.
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].
As noted, these studies also reveal the limited application of vulnerability science-
based 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.
4.2. 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) post-
disaster 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
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.
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Planning for Resiliency.
5.1. 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].
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.
5.2. 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.
5.2.1. 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
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 stage-
specific 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
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 multi-
hazards, 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.
5.2.2. 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 “high-
quality 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. 69-82]: 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.
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.
1.1. Assessment of major issues, trends, and disaster impacts associated with forecasted change.
1.2. Description of major opportunities for and threats to resilient land use and development patterns.
1.3. 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.
2.1. 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.
3.2. Includes current and projected future population and employment exposed to hazards.
3.3. 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.
3.5. Includes tables that aggregate data by vulnerable population groups, land use activities, and infrastructure.
3.6. Uses facts to support reasoning and explanation of issues and mitigation policies.
3.7. Identifies data sources.
4. Policies: specification of principles to guide public and private land use decisions to achieve goals.
4.1. Sufficiently specific to be tied to definite mitigation actions.
4.2. 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.
5.1. Timelines for actions.
5.2. Organizations identified that are responsible for actions.
5.3. Sources of funding are identified to support actions.
6. Monitoring and evaluation: provisions for tracking change in community conditions.
6.1. Goals are based on measurable objectives, e.g., desired % or # of housing units exposed to hazards.
6.2. Indicators of objectives to assess progress, e.g., annual change % or # of housing units exposed to hazards.
6.3. Organizations identified responsible for monitoring.
6.4. Timetable for updating plan based on monitoring of changing conditions.
7. Internal consistency: issues, vision, goals, policies, and implementation are mutually reinforcing.
7.1. Goals must be comprehensive to accommodate issues and vision.
7.2. Policies must be clearly linked back to goals and forward to implementation actions.
7.3. 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.
8.1. Table of contents, glossary of terms, executive summary.
8.2. Cross referencing of issues, vision, goals, and policies.
8.3. Clear visuals, e.g., maps, charts, pictures, and diagrams.
8.4. Supporting documents, e.g., video, CD, Web-Page.
9. Inter-organizational coordination: integration with other plans/policies/programs of public and private parties.
9.1. Vertical coordination with plans/policies/programs of federal, state, and regional parties.
9.2. Horizontal coordination with plans/policies/programs of other local parties within/outside local jurisdiction.
10. Compliance: consistent with the plan mandates.
10.1. Required elements are included in plan.
10.2. Required elements fit together.
5.2.3. 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.)
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].
5.3. 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].
May [26] characterizes local planning mandates by drawing attention to two
conceptual dimensions: structural and facilitating. The structural dimension specifies
the choices involving: 1) level of explicitness in goals, policies and performance
standards for local plan content and format, 2) strength of coercive measures that are
applied to local governments to achieve compliance, 3) degree of flexibility in
procedural requirements – plan preparation timelines, plan-amendment procedures, and
periodic update requirements. The facilitating dimension specifies the degree to which
mandates entail: 1) local technical capacity building – technical assistance, staff
training, and development of databases, 2) local commitment building –
encouragement of local participation and meaningful negotiation, 3) funding for plan
preparation, and 4) use of coercion authorized by a mandate.
Table 4 illustrates an application of May’s conceptualization in a comparison of
the choices made in the design of the hazard mitigation features of two local planning
mandates [24]: the State of Florida’s (in the U.S.) Comprehensive Planning Act of
1976, and New Zealand’s Resource Management Act of 1991. Notably, the structural
features of the New Zealand mandate are considerably more flexible and broad in
guiding hazard mitigation plan-making. The Florida mandate contains specific and
detailed provisions that stipulate the content of local plans. In contrast, the New
Zealand mandate emphasizes regulatory goals and outcomes, rather than prescribed
contents, assumpting that local governments can devise the best means within their
jurisdictions for reaching established goals. The intent of New Zealand’s mandate is
that central government should not intervene in local planning decisions. Local
governments must make their own choices and live with them as national subsidies and
post-disaster recovery assistance were to be substantially reduced. The situation in
Florida is quite different as the goal is to reduce local government reliance on national
resources, even though the subsidies and recovery bailouts will still be available.
The key results of this comparison are that choices should include a mix of
coercive and cooperative features [24]. Florida’s approach yields local plans that have
a stronger scientific basis that is likely due to the stronger technical capacity building
feature in the mandate and higher levels of funding. Local plans in Florida also
incorporate a greater range of mitigation policies due to more stringent and coercive
regulatory requirements that stipulate policies that local governments must include in
their plans. New Zealand had a stronger local political commitment to mitigation as
indicated by more aggressive mitigation goals in local plans and less need to rely on
coercion to achieve local compliance. Thus effective mandates represent a mix of the
two approaches.
Table 3. Design of National (State) Disaster Policy. Source: Adapted from Berke, Ericksen and Dixon [24].
Feature Florida New Zealand
Structural
Plan or policy content and
format requirements
Specific and detailed:
explicit provision of
required plan elements and
thresholds of minimum
performance standards
Broad and flexible:
only general provision of
national goals
Procedural requirements Specific and detailed: Specific and detailed:
deadlines for plan
preparation specified; plan-
amendment procedures
specified; periodic updating
procedures specified
deadlines for plan
preparation specified; plan-
amendment procedures
specified; periodic policy-
updating procedures
specified
Facilitating
Technical capacity building High:
provision of detailed hazard
data; regular advice;
distribution of well-
developed guidelines
Low to moderate:
provision of limited data;
periodic advice through
workshops but lack staff;
distribution of very general
guidelines
Commitment building Authoritative:
willingness to negotiate but
on state-agency terms;
participation formal and
legalistic
Cooperative:
willingness to negotiate;
meaningful participation
Funding for plan
preparation
Some funds Very limited funds
Use of coercion Limited, but stringent Very limited, but recent use
6. Conclusions and Implications
This chapter reviewed the role of land use planning in mitigating the vulnerability
posed by natural hazards. The role of local government in planning for mitigation that
supports resilient human settlements was emphasized. We argue that the trend in
increasing numbers and severity of disasters are predictable outcomes of short-sighted
public policy decisions that incentivize development in hazard locations and pose a
serious obstacle to effective local hazard mitigation planning. We also presented a set
of choices that demonstrate how local governments are able to create high-quality
plans that fit local conditions and capabilities. We then discussed the choices that
national (and state) governments can make that build local capacity, and improve the
quality and outcomes of local plans.
Achieving resilient human settlements within the broader context of sustainability
should be a central goal of local planning efforts. Indeed, sustainable communities
minimize exposure to hazards and enhance resiliency when confronted by natural
hazard forces. To be more sustainable, efforts aimed at community resiliency must
integrate mitigation with other social, economic, and environmental goals. Indeed,
every development policy and project (public and private) should be evaluated based
on several criteria: mitigation functions of natural systems should not be disrupted;
land use decisions for mitigation should support economic vitality; environmental and
economic benefits of mitigation should be distributed equitably across all population
groups; and all stakeholders should be engaged throughout the mitigation planning
process.
Acknowledgement
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Center for Natural Disasters, Coastal Infrastructure and Emergency
Management under Award Number: 00313690. The views and conclusions contained
in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily
representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
References
[1] Peacock, W.G., H. Kunreuther, W.H. Hooke, S.L.Cutter, S.E. Chang, P.R. Berke. 2008.
Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observatory network: RAVON. Report # 08-02R. College
Station, TX: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. [2] Godschalk, David, Edward Kaiser, and Philip Berke 1998. Integrating hazard mitigation and land
use planning. Pp. 85-118. Burby, Raymond, Ed. In Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry
Press.
[3] Burby, Raymond. 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise government decisions for hazardous areas. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 64 (May): 171-191.
[4] Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
[5] White, G. F., R. W. Kates, and I. Burton. 2001. Knowing better and losing even more: The Use of
Knowledge in Hazards Management. Environmental Hazards 3: 81-92. [6] Cutter, Susan. (ed.). 2001. American hazardscapes: The regionalization of hazards and disasters.
Washington D. C.: Joseph Henry Press.
[7] Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[8] White, Gilbert F. 1975. Flood hazard in the United States: A research assessment. Boulder, CO:
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. [9] Smith, Gavin. 2008. Planning for sustainable and disaster resilient communities. Pp. 221-247. In
Natural hazards analysis: reducing the impact of disasters. Edited by John Pine. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC Press. [10] Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 31 (4): 48-63.
[11] Berke, Philip, David Godschalk and Edward Kaiser with Daniel Rodriguez. 2006. Urban land use planning – 5th Edition. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
[12] Berke, Philip R. 1995. Natural hazard reduction and sustainable development: A global reassessment. Journal of
Planning Literature, 9 (4): 370-382. [13] Chang, S.E. and M. Shinozuka. 2004. “Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of
Communities,” Earthquake Spectra, 20 (3): 739-755.
[14] Godschalk, D. R. 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3): 146-143.
[15] Berke, Philip R., Jack Kartez and Dennis Wenger. 1993. Recovery after disasters: Achieving sustainable
development, Mtigation and equity. Disasters 17 (2): 93-109. [16] Ericksen, Neil, Philip Berke, and Jan Crawford. 2004. Plan-making for sustainability: The New
Zealand experience. Ashgate Publishers, London: 350 pp.
[17] Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s communities: Land use planning strategies and best development practices for minimizing vulnerability to ulooding and
coastal storms. Tallahassee, Florida: Division of Community Planning.
[18] Berke, Philip and David Godschalk. 2009. Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies, Journal of Planning Literature, 23 (3): 227-240.
[19] Smith, Gavin and Dennis Wenger. 2006. Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an
existing framework. Pp. 234-257. In Handbook of disaster research. Editors Havidan Rodriguez, Enrico Quarantelli, and Russell Dynes. New York: Springer.
[20] Kartez, Jack and Charles Faupel. 1994. Comprehensive Hazard Management and the Role of Cooperation Between Local Planning Departments and Emergency Management Offices. College
Station, TX: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center. Unpublished paper.
[21] Burby, Raymond and Peter May with Philip Berke, Linda Dalton, Steven French, and Edward Kaiser. 1997. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
[22] City of Roseville Planning Department. 2005. City of Roseville hazard mitigation plan. Roseville, CA: same as author.
[23] Birkland, Thomas A. 2006. Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [24] Berke, Philip, Neil Ericksen and Jennifer Dixon. 1997. Coercive and cooperative
Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand
Environmental Plans. Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24: 451-468.
[25] Nelson, Arthur and Steven French. 2002. Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural
disasters: A case study of the Northridge Earthquake with planning considerations, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68 (2): 194-207.
[26] May, Peter. 1993. Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and
shaping regulatory styles, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12: 634-663.