1

PlanIntegrationScorecardforResilience:EvaluatingNetworksofPlansinSixCoastalCities

by

PhilipBerke1,MattMalecha2,SiyuYu2,JaekyungLee2,JaemieMasterson3

InstituteofSustainableCoastalCommunitiesTexasA&MUniversity

CollegeStation,Texas77843

Correspondingauthor:pberke@tamu.edu

1Professor,DepartmentofLandscapeArchitectureandUrbanPlanning,andDirector,InstituteofSustainableCoastalCommunities-CollegeStation2GraduateResearchAssistant,InstituteofSustainableCoastalCommunities3AssociateDirector,TexasTargetCommunities,CollegeofArchitecture

2

Abstract

Landusestrategiestomitigatehazardsarethemostpromisinglong-termsolutiontoreducinghazardsvulnerability.Citiesadoptmultipleplansaimedatguidingfuturelanduseanddevelopment.Whenplansdonotconsistentlyintegratehazardmitigationintolandusepoliciestheycanactuallyincreasethevulnerabilityofpeopleandthebuiltenvironmenttohazardsandclimatechange.Weapplyaplanintegrationscorecardforresilienceinsixcoastalcitiestoevaluatethelevelofintegrationoflocalplansandthedegreetowhichthenetworkoflocalplanstargetsareasmostvulnerabletohazards.Wefindthatplanintegrationscoresvariedwidelyacrossthesixcities,andthatnetworksofplansinthemajorityofthecitiesplacemoreattentiontolandusepoliciesthatsupportmitigationinareaswithlowvulnerabilitycomparedtoareasofhighvulnerability.Werecommendhowuseoftheplanintegrationscorecardcanimproveplanningforhazardsbyallowingplannerstoidentifyhowdifferentplanscontributetoreducingorincreasingvulnerability,andhowplanstargetareasthatvaryinlevelsofvulnerabilitytohazards.FEMAandotherfederalagencieschargedwithhazardsvulnerabilityreductionshouldconsiderdevelopingdatabasesthatfacilitatetheuseofthescorecard.

3

PlanIntegrationScorecardforResilience:

EvaluatingNetworksofPlansinSixCoastalCitiesPriortothedestructionfromHurricaneSandyof2012,aNewJerseycity’shazardmitigationplancalledforacquisitionsandbuy-outsinhigh-hazardareas,whilethecomprehensiveplansetgoalstoincreaseinvestmentsinthesamelocation.Theseplanswerenotonlyincompatible,butinthecaseofthecomprehensiveplanactivelyincreasedvulnerabilities.Unfortunately,thisiscommonplaceinplanningpracticeaslocalplans—whethercomprehensiveplans,hazardmitigationplans,smallareaplans,orfunctionalplans—lacktheintegrationrequiredtoaddressvulnerabilitytohazards.PlanningscholarsandtheFederalEmergencyManagementAgencymaintainsthatfailuretocoordinateplansisanationalpolicyconcern(FEMA2013,2014,Godschalk,Kaiser,&Berke1998).Theneedtoinfusehazardvulnerabilityintoallrelevantsectorsoflocalplanningreverberatesattheinternationallevel.TheUnitedNationsadoptionoftheSendaiFrameworkforDisasterReduction2015-2030callsformoreresilientcitiesbyreducingfragmentationandimprovingcoordinationinlocalplanning(UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly2015).

Wereviewthepotentialcontributionofdifferenttypesoflocalplansinbuildingurbanresilience,amajorconceptinthefieldofhazardsandclimatechange,whichinvolvesacity’sabilitytoanticipate,recoverfrom,andadaptivelylearnfromextremeevents(NRC2014).Wethenpresentaplanintegrationscorecardthatevaluatesthedegreetowhichthenetworkoflocalplanstargetsareasmostvulnerabletohazardsandthenevaluatesthelevelofintegrationoflocalplans.WethenapplythescorecardtosixcoastalcitiesalongtheAtlanticandGulfcoasts.Thescorecardallowsustodeterminethedegreetowhichnetworksoflocalplansarecoordinatedandinfluencethelevelofvulnerabilityofdifferentareaswithinacity.NetworksofPlansCitiesadoptmultipleplansaimedatguidingfuturelanduseanddevelopment.Thecombinedimpactsoftheinterdependentnetworkofplansmayinfluencethevulnerabilityofurbanplacesinareasexposedhazardssuchasfloodsandsealevelrise.Theexistenceofmultipleplansthatareindependentlypreparedbydistinctgovernmentagenciesandinterestgroupsshouldnotbeviewedasunusualorunexpected(FinnandHopkins2007).However,whenplansdonotconsistentlyintegratehazardmitigationtheycanactuallyincreasethevulnerabilityofpeopleandthebuiltenvironmenttohazards.Theprimarygoaloftheplanintegrationscorecardforresilienceistogeneratedatatodeterminethelevelofcoordinationwithinthenetworkofplansandforcommunitiestousetheinformationto“betterintegrateandimprovelocalplansinwaysthatreducelossesfromhazardevents”(Berkeetal.2015:289).Theplanintegrationapproachbuildsonahistoryofargumentsthatplannersshouldbeabletoworkwithmultipleinterestgroupsandplans,andtoprovidedatasetsandaccesstoolstoaccomplishcollaboration(see,forexample,Branch,1971,FinnandHopkins2007,Hopkins2001).

4

TheNationalResearchCouncilrecentlyconcludedthatlandusestrategiestomitigatehazardsarethemostpromisinglong-termsolutiontoreducinghazardsvulnerability(NRC2012,2014).Landuseapproachessignificantlyreducethepossibilityofmajorlossbysteeringnewurbangrowthawayfromhazardareas,relocatingexistingstructurestosafersitesbeforeandafteradisasterevent,andprotectingecosystemsthatservetoreducevulnerability,suchaswetlandandcoastaldunesystemsthemitigatetheimpactofcoastalstormsurge.Thetypesofplanstoincludeintheevaluationareallplansthatgovernlanduseanddevelopmentinhazardareas.Typically,communityplanningincludesacomprehensiveorgeneralplan.Ofalltheplansthatlocalgovernmentsprepare,thecomprehensiveorgeneralplandealsmostdirectlywithhowandwheredevelopmentwilltakeplace.Thehazardmitigationplanisalsoaverycommonplanningdocumentadoptedbylocalgovernments(thoughitmaybecounty-ormetro-wideinscale,whichisacceptable).SuchplansweremandatedbytheDisasterMitigationActof2000asarequirementforcommunitiestobecomeeligibleforfederalpre-andpost-disastermitigationfunds.ItisimportanttonotethatFEMAhasrecentlyplacedmoreemphasisontheintegrationoflandusetoolswithmitigationplanning(FEMA2012).

Otherstand-aloneplansmightalsoinfluencedevelopmentwithinhazardzones,suchas‘area’plansthatfocusonaparticulararea,suchadowntowndistrictandwaterfrontdevelopment.Transportationandinfrastructureplans,parkandrecreationplans,orwildlifehabitatmanagementplans,canandshouldcomplementhazardmitigationplans.Other‘functional’planscanincludeeconomicdevelopmentplansandhousingconsolidatedplans.Capitalimprovementplansalsoinfluencewheredevelopmentwilloccurandcanactivelysteerdevelopmentawayfromhazardzoneswithdisinvestment.SomeexamplesofpotentiallyapplicableplansareincludedinFigure1.

Figure1:ExamplesofPlansinaLocalNetworkofPlansInsummary,localnetworksofplansthatgovernthelocation,type,densityanddesignofdevelopmenthaveconsiderablepotentialinreducingcurrentandfuturevulnerabilitytohazards.However,littleisknownabouthowwellnetworksofplansadoptedbydiverseorganizationscoordinatetheirpolicies,andthedegreetowhichnetworksofplanstargetreducingvulnerabilityofvariousareasandpopulations.Further,theplanningfieldlacksaconceptualframeworkandmetricsaimedathelpingcitiesidentifywhereplansmayconflictorcomplimenteachotherindifferentgeographicareasofcity,andrevealopportunitiesformakingimprovementsinintegrationamongnetworksofplans.

CapabilitiesofthePlanIntegrationScorecardforResilienceWeapplyaplanintegrationscorecardthatwepilotedonasinglecasecommunity(Berkeetal.2015).Thescorecardhastwoprimarycapabilities.Thefirstistoenabledeterminationofthedegreetowhichacity’snetworkofplansareintegratedinsupportofreducingvulnerabilityindifferentgeographicareas,orplanningdistricts.Aplanningdistrictistypicallyidentifiedinacomprehensiveplanbasedonthearea’scommondevelopment

5

issues,resources,andsharedvaluesregardingdesiredcharacteristicsofthelocation,typeanddensityoflanduses(Berkeetal.2006).Examplesofdistrictsincluderesidentialneighborhoods,waterfronts,transportationcorridors,andenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Localplannersworkwithinterestgroupsandthepublictocraftgenerallanduseanddevelopmentpoliciestailoredtoachievelocallydefinedgoalsforeachdistrict.Plannersalsoplayacrucialroleinworkingtocoordinatepoliciesamongdiversestand-aloneplans.Weapplythescorecardtoassesstheleveltowhichanetworkofplanshasapositiveoradverseinfluenceonthevulnerabilityofthedistricts.Thesecondcapabilityofthescorecardistoenablecomparisonsbetweenthedegreeoftheintegrationoflocalplansandlevelsofvulnerabilityindistrictsexposedtohazardsbyplanningdistrict.Hazardexposurereferstotheprobabilityofextremeevents(e.g.,flooding,wind,surge,etc.)andtheirintensity,andphysicalvulnerabilityreferstothebuiltenvironment’sabilitytoresistandabsorbthehazard’sphysicalforces(NationalResearchCouncil2006).Acoreaimistodeterminewhetheralocalnetworkofplansisgivingprioritytoreducingtheamountofphysicaldevelopmentindistrictswithhighlevelsofvulnerability,orwhetherplansaredirectingattentiontovulnerabilityreductionindistrictsthatarenotbuiltupandhavelowvulnerability.Aplanintegrationscorecardaddressescriticalgapsinhazardsplanningresearch.Extensiveresearchdealswiththecreationofdisasterresilienceindicatorsthatincludenumerousscorecardsandindicesthatcoverscommunitycapacitytoadapt,andeconomic,social,andenvironmentalbuiltenvironmentassets,buttheworkdoesnotconsiderthecrucialroleoflanduseplanning(Cutter2015).Planningscholarshavefocusedonthedevelopmentofprinciplesofplanqualityandindicators.Examplesofprinciplesincludegoals,policies,factbase,implementation,publicparticipation,inter-organizationalcoordination,andmonitoring(LylesandStevens2014).Scholarshaveextendedplanqualityresearchbydevelopingindicatorsofplanqualitythataddresshazardsvulnerability.Buttheseinvestigationshavefailedtoconsiderifonelocalplanisconsistentwithothercommunityplans.WeapplytheplanintegrationscorecardforresilienceinsixhighlyvulnerablecoastalcitiesontheAtlanticandGulfcoasts.Thescorecardgeneratesinformationthatidentifiescompatibilitiesamongplans,andconflictsthatmayexacerbateexistingvulnerabilitiesorcreatenewvulnerabilitiesindifferentpartsofacity.Thisinformationhelpsplannerstobetterintegrateandimprovelocalplans,whichcreatesopportunitiesformoreefficientandsociallyjustuseoflocalresourcestoreducelosses.ResearchDesignandApplicationofaResilienceScorecardforPlanIntegrationOurresearchconsistsofthreeparts:selectionofcities,applicationofthescorecardtonetworksofplansineachcity,anddetailedcasestudiesofnetworksofplansintwocities.SelectionofCitiesWeapplythescorecardtocitiesalongtheAtlanticandGulfcoasts.Mitigationplanningshouldbeofparticularimportanceforcoastalcitiesduetohighdevelopmentpressures

6

andhighvulnerabilitytohazardsexperiencedbycities.Thecitieswereselectedusingtwocriteria:populationsizeofcityandgeographiclocationalongthecoast.WedividedtheAtlanticandGulfcoastsintogeographiczonesbasedontheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency’s(FEMA)planningregions.AtleastonecitywasselectedfromfourofthesixFEMAregionsalongtheAtlanticandGulfCoasts.Theselectedcitieshavearangeofpopulationsizes,including9,788(Washington,NC),15,818(AsburyPark,NJ),98,312(LeagueCity,TX),178,590(FortLauderdale,FL),369,075(Tampa,FL),and667,137(Boston,MA).Thisrangeofcitysizeandgeographyprovidestwodistinctadvantagesfromasamplingperspective.First,researchsuggeststhatthesocial-politicalandbiophysicalcharacteristicsofcitiesvaryacrossthecountry(Lyles,BerkeandSmith2014),andbyselectingcitiesfromdifferentcoastalregionsoftheUnitedStateswearemorelikelytocapturevariationinnetworksofplansandhowwelltheytargetareasmostvulnerabletohazards.Second,byselectingcitiesofvariedsizes,wehopedtogainaninitialunderstandingofhowcitieswithdifferentlevelsofresourcesareaddressingcoastalhazardsvulnerability.However,oursampleisnarrowandnotnecessarilyrepresentative,andthislimitsthegeneralizationsthatareappropriatebeyondtheplansweexamined.ApplicationoftheScorecardWeappliedaplanintegrationforresiliencescorecardinthesixcitiesinthreephases:First,wedelineateplanningdistrictsandhazardzonesforcurrentfloodplains;second,wedeterminethephysicalvulnerabilityinhazardzonesforeachdistrict;andthird,weevaluatethedegreeofcoordinationamongalocalnetworkofplansinsupportofdecreasinghazardsvulnerabilitybydistrict.Phase1:IntersectPlanningDistrictswithHazardZonesWeidentifiedgeographicboundariesofplanningdistrictsusinglandusemapsineachcity’scomprehensiveplan.Wethenintersectedthedistrictswiththe100-yearfloodhazardzoneswiththeplanningdistricts.Asnoted,planningdistrictsarerelevantunitsofanalysistodemonstratehowwellthenetworkoflocalplansreducevulnerability(Berke,Godschalk,etal.,2006)becausemostlocalplanningeffortsfocusonthesedelineatedareasandattempttocoordinateplanpoliciestoachievethedevelopmentgoalsforeachdistrict.Next,wedelineatehazardzonesbasedontheNationalFloodInsuranceProgram(NFIP)floodmaps.WefocusonNFIPfloodzonesandsea-levelrisegiventheirsalienceinnationalpolicyandthenationwideavailabilityofdatalinkedtothesehazards,althoughthereareothercoastalhazards(includingshorelineerosion,historicalhurricaneevents,andprecipitation-drivenstormwaterfloods).WedelineateNFIPfloodhazardzonesbasedontheprobabilityofexperiencingafloodasdefinedbytheDigitalFloodInsuranceRateMap(DFIRM)100-year(1%occurrenceprobabilityperyear)floodplainboundaries.The100-yearfloodplainsarewidelyusedinformulatinglocalhazardmitigationpolicytoadministerandenforceNFIPpolicygoals.Phase2:DetermineVulnerability

7

Ournexttaskistoidentifyindicatorsofphysicalvulnerability.Weuse2010buildingtaxvalues(U.S.dollarspersquarefoot)asaproxyforphysicalvulnerability;thisisconsistentwithmethodsofdeterminingphysicalvulnerabilityinpriorstudiesoftheeffectoflandusepoliciesondevelopmentinriverinefloodplainsinNorthCarolina(Patterson&Doyle,2009)andcoastalhazardzonesinsoutheastregionofFlorida(NOAA,2015;SoutheastFloridaRegionalCompact,2012).Weusebuildingfootprintdataforphysicalvulnerabilitytoaddressthespatialdistributionproblemindeterminingthevulnerabilityofstructures.Weacquireadatasetthatincludesbuildingfootprintsandimprovedtaxvaluesfromeachcity.Thisdatasetspecifiesthespatialboundaryofstructuresoneachparcelwithineachcity.Wethenoverlayhazardareasforeachplanningdistrictoneachparcel.Weincludethetotalvalueofthebuildinginthehazardzoneifanypartofthebuildingfootprintintersectstheboundaryofthehazardzone.Wedeterminethebuildingtaxdensity(U.S.dollarspersquarefoot)insideeachplanningdistrictbysummingthevalueofallvulnerablestructuresinsidethe100-yearfloodplain,andthendividingthesummedvaluebythetotalsquarefootageofthehazardareaforeachdistrict.Phase3:EvaluatePlansNext,wedevelopamethodforevaluatingtheextenttowhichpoliciesineachlocalplanintegratetheelementsthatreducehazardvulnerability.Weidentifyeachpolicyineachplanandspatiallyassignthepolicytoahazardzoneinalandpolicydistrict.Weonlyincludepoliciesthatinfluencelanduseanddevelopmentinhazardzones.Wethenidentifythetypeoflandusepolicyinstrumentstipulatedbyeachpolicy.Figure2illustratesfivecategoriesoflandusepolicyinstruments(e.g.,developmentregulationsandpublicfacilitiesimprovementprograms)thatinfluencethetype,location,andamountofdevelopment,anddescribehowthesepolicyinstrumentscanreducehazardvulnerability.

Figure2.LandUsePolicyToolsandApplicationtoReducingVulnerabilityWethenusetheassignedpoliciestocreateindicesforeachplanbyplanningdistrict.Whilethepoliciesonwhichwefocuscanbe—andoftenare—designedtoreducevulnerability,itispossiblethatthelackofcoordinationbetweenandamonglocalplanscanactuallyincreasevulnerabilityincertainhazardareas:Weaccountforthoseimpactsaswell.Wecomputeeachindexbasedonwell-establishedproceduresofplancontentanalysis(Lyles&Stevens,2014).Theprocedureconsistsoftwosteps.First,weclassifyeachpolicybasedontheintendedphysicaloutcomelinkedtothepolicy.Wedeterminewhetherapolicyincreasedphysicalvulnerability(score=–1)ordecreasedvulnerability(score=+1).Figure3presentsthreeexamplesofhowweapplytheclassificationandscoringmethod.Second,foreachhazardzoneineachplanningdistrictwesumscoresfromallplans.Highertotalscoresindicatetheuseofmorepoliciesaimedatdecreasingvulnerability,whilelowerscoresindicatethatuseofmorepoliciesthatactuallyincreasedvulnerability.

Figure3:ExamplesofPlanPolicyScoringMethod

8

Ourprocedurefollowsguidelinesestablishedincontentanalysisandplanqualityliteratures(comparewithBerke&Godschalk,2009;Krippendorff,2004;Stevens,Lyles,&Berke,2014).BetweenOctober2014andMarch2015,weindependentlydoubledcodedplansfollowingestablishedguidelines(Berke&Godschalk,2009;Stevensetal.,2014).InlinewiththerecommendationsofStevensetal.(2014),wecalculatereliabilityscoresforallitemsindividually.Reliabilityamongplancodersusingbothpercentageagreement(itemrange,76.3%to100.0%withmean93.4%)andKrippendorffalpha(itemrange,-0.03to1.00withmean0.74).Themeanpercentageagreementisconsistentwiththereliabilityofplanqualityitemsinpreviousstudies(Berke&Godschalk2009,Stevens,LylesandBerke2014).Analyticaltechniquesusedfordataanalysisincludecomputationofmeanscoresofplanintegrationamongalldistrictsforeachcity,andcorrelationanalysisforexaminingtherelationshipbetweenlevelofvulnerabilityofdistrictsandplanintegrationscoresofdistrictsforeachcity.Meansandcorrelationsarethencomparedacrossthecities.TableA1includesthestandarddeviationsandrangeofplanintegrationscoresforeachcity.CaseStudiesofTwoCitiesWeselectedtwocitiestofurtherexplorehowthediverselandusepolicytoolsusedinnetworksofplansapplytospecificplanningdistricts.Thecitiesproducedplansthatsignificantlyvariedinstrengthofsupportforvulnerabilityreductionandindegreetowhichtheplansrespondtothelevelofvulnerabilityofdifferentdistricts.Ouraimistoidentifyspecificpoliciesthatarecoordinatedinreducingvulnerability,policiesthatconflictandactuallyincreasevulnerability,andopportunitiesforimprovingcoordinationamongplans.Thecasesfurtherourunderstandingabouthowsocialandeconomiccontextsinfluencesupportforintegrationofvulnerabilityreductionintolocalplanpolicies.FindingsfromSixCitiesPlanintegrationscoresdistinguishbetweenmulti-jurisdictionplansandsinglejurisdictionplans.Someplanscoverthegeographicareaofanentirecitysuchasacomprehensiveplanandahazardmitigationplan.Otherplanscoverasubsetofdistrictsorasingledistrictthatfocusonaspecificgeographicareassuchasaneighborhood,downtownandtransportationcorridor.Table1showsthemeanofthepolicyscoresofalldistrictsforeachmulti-districtplan,thepolicyscoreforeachsingledistrictplan,andoverallmeanofallpolicyscoresfromallplans(multiandsingledistrictplans)foralldistrictsineachcity.

Table1:PolicyScoresforPlansinSixCitiesThereishighvariabilityinoverallmeanscoresofnetworksofplans.LeagueCityreceivesbyfarthehighestpositiveoverallmeanscore(29.10),followedbypositivescoresforTampa(17.74),FortLauderdale(16.75),andWashington(6.00)andBoston(0.83).AsburyParkreceivedtheonlynegativescore(-4.00).ThereishighvariabilityinthedifferenttypesofplansascomprehensiveplansofLeagueCity(19.67)andTampa(13.55)arethetwohighestscoresamongallplans,butsmallareaplansinsingledistrictsconsistentlypromoteincreasedvulnerabilityassixofthesevensingledistrictplansinthesixcitieshavenegativesscores.

9

LeagueCityandTampillustratethedifferencesinhowthehighestscoringnetworksofplanssupportvulnerabilityreduction.LeagueCity’snetworkoffourplans(comprehensive,hazardmitigation,parks,andcapitalimprovements)ishighlyintegratedandsupportsacommonpolicyframeworkaimedathazardvulnerabilityreduction.ThecomprehensiveplanhadthehighestpositivescoresamongallplansbothinLeagueCityandamongalltypesofplansinourstudy.Theintroductionofthecomprehensiveplanreflectsthecity’sstrongcommitmenttoplanintegrationbyindicatingthat,“theComprehensivePlanembracestheintentionsandrecommendationsofotherplansandservesasabridgetyingthesolutionsofotherplans[toachieve]…thedesiredcharacteranddevelopmentpatternsinthecommunity”(LeagueCity2013,p.4).Allplansincludesimilarhazardgoalsinvolvingprotectionofpeopleandstructuresthroughsounddevelopmentand/orenvironmentalpracticesthatsupportfloodmitigation.Thecomprehensiveplan,mitigationplanandparksplancontainthecity’sfuturelandusemaptoguidefuturenewdevelopmentandredevelopment.Incontrast,Tampahasthesecondhighestscoringnetworkofplans,butthenetworkisnotorganizedunderanoverarchingpolicyframework.Instead,Tampa’splanscoverawiderangeofindividualvulnerabilityprotectionpoliciesadvancedbyfivedistinctplansthatcovermultipledistrictsinthecity(comprehensive,hazardmitigation,affordablehousing,riverfront,andtransportation).Asnoted,thecomprehensiveplanachievedthehighestscoreinTampaandthesecondhighestscoreamongallplansacrossthesixcities.Thetwosmallareaplans(citycenterandtransportation)thatcoverthesingledowntowndistricthavenegativescores(-1.00,-3.00),indicatinganemphasisonincreasingdevelopment.Table2showsPearson’srcorrelationsbetweenthepolicyscoresforindividualplansandlevelsofvulnerability,andoverallcorrelationsofthesummedpolicyscoresfromallplans(multiandsingledistrictplans)andlevelofvulnerability.Ourintentistoassessifplansplaceemphasisonreducingvulnerabilitytodistrictswithhighlevelsofvulnerability,orifplansgiveprioritytovulnerabilityreductionindistrictsthatarenotbuiltupandhavelowvulnerability.Correlationsarenotreportedforplansthatcoverasingledistrictandplansthathaveasmallnumberofdistricts.

Table2:CorrelationBetweenPolicyScoresandPhysicalVulnerabilityTheoverallcorrelationamongallplansindicatesaninverserelationshipbetweenplanscoresandlevelofvulnerabilityinfourofthesixcities,indicatingprioritytovulnerabilityreductionindistrictswithcomparativelylowvulnerability.LeagueCity(-0.63)andWashington(-0.39)hadthehighestinverserelationship,followedbyBoston(-0.25)andTampa(-0.12).Ft.Lauderdale(-0.02)andAsburyPark(0.01)hadnegligiblerelationships.Notably,thecomprehensiveplansandparkplansofLeagueCityandWashingtonhadthefourhighestinversecorrelations(-0.59orless)amongalltypesofplans.Insum,overallmeanplanintegrationscoresarehighlyvariableacrossthenetworkofplansinthesixcities,withcomprehensiveplansscoringhighandsmallarea(orsingledistrict)plansscoringlow.Incontrast,overallcorrelationsbetweenplanintegration

10

scoresandlevelofvulnerabilityaremoreconsistent.Fourofthesixcitieshaveinversecorrelationsindicatingthatthehighertheplanscorethatlowerthelevelofvulnerabilityacrossdistricts(andvisaversa),withcomprehensiveplansandparksplanshavingthehighestinversecorrelationamongindividualplans.Ourcasestudiesrevealhowsocialandeconomiccontextspotentiallyexplainwhyvariouslandusepolicytoolsworktogetherinsupportofvulnerabilityreductionorareinconflict,andwhetherornotplanstargetdistrictsthataremostvulnerable.CaseStudies:LeagueCity,TexasandAsburyPark,NewJerseyLeagueCity(highscoreforplans,highinversecorrelation)andAsburyPark(lowscoreforplans,nocorrelation)areselectedforamoredetailedanalysis.Asingledistrictwasselectedineachcitytorepresenttheoverallpatternofplanscoresandcorrelationswithvulnerabilityineachcity.TheselecteddistrictinLeagueCityhadahighplanscoreinalowvulnerabilityarea,andthedistrictinAsburyParkhadalowplanscorethatrepresentsalldistrictsasthereislimitedvariationinscoresinthedifferentdistricts(seetableA1).Theselectionallowsustoseekadeeperunderstandingofhowplansworkfororagainsteachotherandrespondtothelevelofvulnerabilityindifferentcontexts.TableA2includespolicyscoresbytypeofplanforeachofthetwoselecteddistrictsandbycategoryofpolicytoolsforeachdistrict.LeagueCity,TXLeagueCityisabedroomsuburbofHoustonlocatedinlow-lyingcoastalregionfacingsignificantfloodingandhurricanehazards.Thecityhasexperiencedfourmajorfloodeventssince2000thatweredesignatedasPresidentialDisasterDeclarationsandthuseligibleforfederalrecoveryfunds.Thecityisrapidlygrowingwithaprojectedpopulationincreasefrom83,500in2010to228,000in2040(LeagueCity2013).District7exemplifieshowthecity’snetworkofplansprioritizesvulnerabilityreductionindistrictsthatarelessdeveloped.Theplanintegrationscorehasthefifthhighestscoreinreducingphysicalvulnerability(+37),butthethirdlowestinphysicalvulnerabilityamongthecity’s21districts.About22%(197acres)ofthedistrictislocatedinthe100-yearfloodplain.Ofthecurrentfloodplainlanduses,55%(110acres)isdesignatedaspark,31%(60acres)asprivatedevelopableopenspace,and14%(27acres)aslow-densitysingle-familyhousing(seeFigure4).i

Figure4:District7,LeagueCity

AmongthefourplansadoptedplansonlythecomprehensiveplanincludespoliciessupportmoredevelopmentinthefloodplaininDistrict7.Theseincludezoningpoliciesthatallow“grannyflats”inexistingsingle-familyhomesanddesignateprivatelyownedopenspacesforlow-densitydevelopment.However,asindicatedbythehighplanintegrationscoreforalltheplans,moreattentionisplacedonavoidanceoffuturedevelopmentinthefloodplain,especiallyintheClearCreekriparianareathatrunsalongthesouthernboundaryofthedistrict(seeFigure4).Severalprominentthemesofpoliciesofplansworktogethertopreventhighervulnerabilityfromnewfloodplaindevelopment:

11

• Landuseregulationsaimedatreducingvulnerabilityofnewdevelopmentinundevelopedfloodplains:

o thecomprehensiveplanproposesthatnewfloodplaindevelopmentbesubjecttobufferregulationstoenhancepreservationoffloodplainriparianlands,andsubdivisionregulationsthatrequireclusteringandopenspacededicationstandardsforsettingasidenaturalareasthatincludefloodplains;and

o theimplementationelementsofthehazardmitigationplanandparksplanexplicitlyindicatethatthecityreviseordinancestobeconsistentwiththeproposedchangesinthecomprehensiveplan.

• Publicspendingforlandacquisitioninproposedconservationareasinundevelopedfloodplains:

o thecomprehensiveplan,parksplan,andhazardmitigationplanallspecifythatlandacquisitionfundsbeusedtotargetriparianareasandwetlandsthatservetomitigatefloodimpacts,providerecreationandwaterconservationbenefits,aswellascreatetrailsthatlinkopenspaces.

• Publicfacilityinvestmentsaimedatreducingimpactsofflooding:o thecomprehensiveplanandparksplansupportinvestmentinstormwater

managementfacilities(e.g.,raingardensandswales)inparkstoprovidefloodmitigationnandotherenvironmentalbenefitstosurroundingneighborhoods;

o theparksplanandhazardmitigationplanproposeastringofflooddetentionlakesconnectedbytrailsforaregionaldrainagecorridor;and

o themitigationplanprohibitsconstructionofgovernmentbuildingsandspecialneedsfacilities(medicalfacilities,nursinghomes)infloodplains.

• Developmentlimitsaretiedtoevacuationtimesfornewdevelopmentsinundevelopedfloodplains:

o thehazardmitigationplanandcomprehensiveplansupportsettingdensitylimitstandardsduetotheimpactsofnewdevelopmentonevacuationtimesalongemergencyroutes.

AsburyPark,NJAsburyParkislocatedineast-centralNewJersey,borderingtheAtlanticOcean.Onceafamousvacationdestination,thecityhasbeenindeclinesinceatleastthemid-1970s.Its2010populationof16,116isprojectedtoremainstableoverthenext20years(CityofAsburyPark2011).AsburyPark’slocationontheJerseyShoreisitsgreatestamenity,butalsobringswithithighexposuretocoastalfloodinghazards,asevidencedbythedevastatingimpactsofHurricaneSandyin2012.District12exemplifiesAsburyPark’sconflictbetweenrecognitionoffloodinghazardsandafocusonredevelopmenttoimprovethecity’seconomyandqualityoflife.StraddlingdowntownandthebeachalongWesleyLake(seeFigure5),thispartofthecitywasformerlyanentertainmenthub,butallthatremainsaretheabandonedAsburyParkCasinoandCarouselHousebuildings.Theplanintegrationscore(-12)isthemostnegativeamongthecity’s11districts.Physicalvulnerabilityiscomparativelylowduetothepresencemanyvacantandabandonedproperties.About42%(13acres)ofthedistrictislocatedinthe100-yearfloodplain,includingportionsoftheAsburyParkBoardwalkandthebeach.

12

WestoftheBoardwalk,currentlanduseinthefloodplainincludesnewmulti-familyresidentialandcommercialdevelopments,parkinglotsandvacantproperties.

Figure5:District12,AsburyParkThreeplansfocusondistrict12.Thecomprehensiveplan(CityofAsburyPark2006)andthewaterfrontredevelopmentplan(CityofAsburyPark2005)includepoliciesdesignedtoreducefloodvulnerability,includingzoningregulationsthatrestrictthetypesoflanduseandstructurespermittedincertainplaces—e.g.“NopermanentstructuresshallbecreatedbetweentheBoardwalkandOceanAvenue”(CityofAsburyPark2006,p.147).Sensitiveareassuchasbeachesandparklandsarealsopreservedthroughzoningandcapitalimprovementfundingearmarkedforenhancingshorelinevegetation.Notably,thehazardmitigationplan,anelementinthecountymulti-jurisdictionalmitigationplan(MonmouthCounty2014),doesnotincludepoliciesthataffectfloodplainlanduse.Emphasisisplacedonbuildingcoderegulationsanddredgingdrainagechannelstofacilitatemovementofstormwaterrunoffawayfromurbanareas.District12isacentralfocusofthecity’s“WaterfrontRedevelopmentArea.”Severalprominentthemesofpoliciesinthecomprehensiveplanandwaterfrontredevelopmentplanworktogethertopromoteredevelopmentandinfillofvacantpropertiesinthefloodplain:• SmartgrowthconceptsareusedtopromotetheWesleyLakeVillagedevelopmentinthe

westernportionofthedistrictthroughlanduseregulations,designstandardsandcapitalimprovements.

o Increasedensityandmixed-useinfillwithallowedbuildingheightsbetweentwoandeightstories.

o Designstandardstoenhancesenseofplace.o Capitalimprovementssuchasupgradinglandscaping,creatingnewpathways,

andpedestrianizingstreets.• Zoningoverlaysthatsupporteconomicdevelopment.

o A“PrimeRenewalArea”overlaythatinvolvesbothlandacquisitionandassemblageforredevelopment.

o A“BoardwalkArea”overlaythatpromotesadaptivereuseofhistoricstructuresandinfill.

o An“EntertainmentDistrict”overlaythatincludespermittedlandusesanddesignstandardstoaccommodatenewdevelopmentanchoredbyrevitalizedAsburyParkCasino.

• Developmentagreementsthatsupportaffordablehousing.

o Developersmustprovideaffordablehousingunitsforlowandmoderateincomehouseholdsfor5%ofthenewhousingunits.

WhatDidWeLearnfromApplicationofthePlanIntegrationScorecard?

13

Weusetheplanintegrationscorecardforresiliencetoassesshowwelllocalnetworksofplanssupportvulnerabilityreductionofthephysicalenvironmentinsixcities.Thescorecardrespondstocallsbyplanningscholarsandpractitionersatthenationalandinternationallevelstobetterintegratehazardsvulnerabilityinplanningacrossallsectorsofhumansettlement,andtoprovidedataintegrationanalysistoolstosupportcollaboration.Ourevaluationofsixcoastalcitiesrevealsseveralprominentconclusions.First,planintegrationscoresvariedwidely.Overallscoresfornetworksofplansrangefromplansthatstronglysupportvulnerabilityreductiontoplansthataimtoincreasedevelopmentinthefloodplain.CasestudiesrevealedthatLeagueCityhasamoresupportivesetofgoalsandciviccultureforhazardmitigationinmultipleplans,whichcreatedconditionsforcoordinationinplanningandstrongsupportforreducingvulnerability.Incontrast,AsburyParkchoosesnottoforegoneartermrevenue-generatinginvestmentsbylimitingdevelopmentinhighlyvulnerableareas,buttoincreasepotentialforrisktolossoflifeandproperty.

Next,scoresfordifferenttypesofplanswidelyvaried.ComprehensiveplansshowedthegreatestpotentialbyachievingvulnerabilityreductionwiththehighestscoresamongalltypesofplansinLeagueCityandTampa.Incorporatinghazardvulnerabilityintoacomprehensiveplanisapowerfulmeansforplannerstopromotevulnerabilityreductionsincethecomprehensiveplantypicallyhaslegalstandingandiswellestablishedasalocallandpolicyguide.Thecomprehensivenessalsoencouragesintegrationofvulnerabilityreductionpolicieswithotherongoingpoliciesdealingwithlanduseanddevelopment.Incontrast,thesmallarea(orsingledistrict)plansareconcernedwithanarrowersetofissues,notablyfosteringeconomicdevelopment,andconsistentlyscorelowestamongalltypesofplans.Theconcernwithastand-alonesmallareaplanisthenarrowfocusmayexcludeotherissueslikevulnerabilityfromconsideration.

Wealsofindthathazardmitigationplansdonottakealeadingroleinadvancinglandusepolicies.OurfindingscorroboratewithfindingsbyLylesetal.(2014)indicatingthatlocalmitigationplansfailtoprovideaplatformforguidingnewurbangrowthtolocationsoutsideofcurrentandforecastedhazardareas,assistingpropertyownerstorelocatehomesandcommercialbuildingstosafersites,andmanagingpost-disasterredevelopmentinwaysthatreducefuturerisk.Ratheremphasisisplacedoneasier-to-achieveactivities(e.g.,emergencyservices,publicinformationcampaigns,andstructuralprotectionofinsitudevelopment)thatavoidpropertyrightsissues,donotthreateneconomicinterests,anddonotgeneratepoliticalopposition.Finally,networksofplansinthemajorityofoursixcitiesshowapatterninwhichthelowerthevulnerabilityofplanningdistricts,thegreaterattentionplansgivetoreducingvulnerabilitybyworkingtopreventorlimitdevelopmentinopenspaces.Thispatternispersistentevenwhensignificantcatastrophesoccur.Forexample,afterHurricaneSandyin2012,redirectingpost-disasterdevelopmentfrombuiltupareasthatwereseverelydamageddidnotoccurgiventhehigherpoliticalandfinancialcostsofavoidanceandretreat(NYCPlanningDepartment2013).Instead,communitieschosetopursue

14

conventionalcoastalprotectionstrategies(buildingcodes,seawalls,beachre-nourishment)afterHurricaneSandy.Theconsequencesoflackofattentionbynetworksofplanstolandusesolutionsinhighlyvulnerablelocationsareprofound.Risingvulnerabilityandincreasingprospectsforcatastrophiceventswillincreasinglybecomethenewnormalthatcitieswillfaceinthetwenty-firstcentury.Thecombinedforcesofsealevelriseandincreasedseverityofhurricaneeventsduetoclimatechangeaswellasweakplanningthatdonotaddressavoidanceofhazardareasbeforeorafterextremeeventsarepredictedtocausemorefrequentandmajordisruptionsandgreaterlossoflifeandproperty.ImplicationsforImprovingPlanningPracticeWeofferseveralrecommendations.First,municipalitiesshouldusetheplanintegrationscorecardforresiliencetoensurebettercoordinationandintegrationtoachievebetterresults.Theinformationgeneratedallowsplannerstoaskcrucialpolicyquestionsaboutprioritiesandgoalssupportedbydifferentplans.Suchquestionsmightinclude:ShouldAsburyPark’snextrevisionofitsmitigationplantakeadvantageofFEMApre-andpost-disastermitigationfundsthatsupportlandusepolicieslikelandacquisitionandpropertyrelocation?ShouldanychangesinAsburyPark’smitigationplanbeintegratedintotheoverarchinglandusepolicyapproachofthecity’scomprehensiveplan?ShouldLeagueCity’seffectiveapproachtoleveragingenvironmentalprotectionpoliciestopromotemitigationinopenspaceareasbeadaptedtoapplytourbandevelopedareasexposedtohazards?Second,plannersshouldregularlyevaluatethelinkagebetweenmultipleplansandvulnerabilityoutcomesovertime.Dataontheeffectsofplansareneededtoensurethattimeandinvestmentinplanningeffectivelyimpactshazardsvulnerabilityreduction.Thisinformationwillimprovetheeffectivenessandlegitimacyofplannersinpromotingamoreholisticapproachtointegrationofplans.Third,thecomprehensiveplanshouldplayacentralroletosupportcoordinationamongnetworksofplans.Theholisticapproachofferedbycomprehensiveplanningcanfacilitateplanintegrationofhazardvulnerabilityreductioneffortsinlocalplanningnetworks.Withinlocalgovernments,thecomprehensiveplanningprocessallowsplannerstoinjectnewthinkingaboutvulnerabilityreductionacrossmultiplesectorsofplanningthatgovernslanduseinhazardareas.Inparticular,ourfindingsrevealthathazardmitigationplansandsmallareaplansfocusedoneconomicdevelopmentshouldbecloselycoordinatedandintegratedwithcomprehensiveplans.Finally,FEMAandotherfederalagencieschargedwithhazardsvulnerabilityreductionshouldconsiderdevelopingdatabasesthatfacilitatetheuseoftheresiliencescorecard.Ourapplicationofthescorecardislimitedsinceweonlyfocusonimprovedpropertyvalueasaproxyforphysicalvulnerability.Butthedatabaseshouldbesupplemented.Thehazardstowhichacommunityisexposedandvulnerablemustbebettercharacterizedfromdifferentpointsofview(e.g.,social,publichealth,engineering,andclimatology).ButlerandDeyle(2016)showthatmunicipalitiesaremorelikelytopursueprogressiveretreatand

15

avoidancepolicieswhentheyareprovidedwithinformationregardinglocalrisksthatispresentedinsuchawaythattheycanunderstandandacceptitasvalid.ResearchSupportThismaterialisbaseduponworksupportedbytheU.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurityCoastalResilienceCenterunderAwardNo.00313690.Theviewsandconclusionscontainedinthisdocumentarethoseoftheauthorsandshouldnotbeinterpretedasnecessarilyrepresentingtheofficialpolicies,eitherexpressedorimplied,oftheU.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity;andtheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF),AwardPIRE-1545837.ThefindingsandconclusionsinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionoftheNSF.

16

Figure 1. Examples of Types of Plans in a Local Network of Plans Plan Type Purpose Contribution (+/-) to Vulnerability

Comprehensive/General Plan Main community planning document

Policies can guide future development into or away from hazard zones.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Reduce long-term risk to human life and infrastructure

Advocates vulnerability reduction and resiliency building, often via general policies or specific “action items”

Disaster Recovery Plan Address disaster recovery-related needs to be activated during recovery

Advocates vulnerability reduction and resiliency building post-disaster. Coordinates agencies to assist people post-disaster.

Area Plans: Address planning issues pertaining to a portion of the community

Targeted policies may increase or decrease vulnerability, depending on purpose and location. Area plans may also contribute to policy district delineation.

- Downtown (Redevelopment) - Small Area/Neighborhood/District - Waterfront - Corridor Plan

Functional or Sector-specific Plans: Focus on individual or related functions or sectors in need of specialized planning

Individual plan policies (or objectives, action items, etc.) may increase or decrease vulnerability, and are often distinct from those found in comp or hazard mitigation plans. Applicability to individual policy district may be aided by additional function/sector maps.

- Transportation (or Transit) - Parks / Open Space - Economic Development - Environmental Management - Climate Adaptation/Mitigation - Housing (Consolidated/Strategic) - Historic Preservation - Wildlife Management - Wildfire Protection

17

Figure 2. Land Use Policy Tools and Application to Reducing Vulnerability LAND USE APPROACH APPLICATION TO HAZARD VULNERABILITY

Development Regulations

Permitted Land Use Provision regulating the types of land use (e.g. residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc.) permitted in areas of community; may be tied to zoning code

Density of Land Use Provision regulating density (e.g. units per acre); may be tied to zoning code

Subdivision Regulations Provision controlling the subdivision of parcels into developable units and governing the design of new development (e.g. site storm water management)

Zoning Overlays Provision to use zoning overlays that restrict permitted land use/density in hazardous areas; may be special hazard zones or sensitive open space protection zones

Setbacks or Buffer Zones Provision requiring setbacks or buffers around hazardous areas (e.g. riparian buffers and ocean setbacks)

Cluster Development Provision requiring clustering of development away from hazardous areas, such as through conservation subdivisions

Land Acquisition Acquire Land & Property Purchase land/property in hazard area

Open Space or Easement Requirement/Purchase

Provision encouraging open space purchase by the community or open space easements as an element of development approval

Density Transfer Provisions Transfer/Purchase of Development Rights

Provision for transferring development rights to control density; may be transfer of development rights or purchase of development rights

Financial Incentives and Penalties Density Bonuses Density bonuses such as ability to develop with greater

density in return for dedication or donation of land in areas subject to hazards

Tax Abatement Tax breaks offered to property owners and developers who use mitigation methods for new development

Impact / Special Study /Protection Fees

Provision requiring impact fees, special study fees, or protection fees for development in hazardous areas; fees could cover costs of structural protection

Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process Land Suitability Hazards are one of the criteria used in analyzing and

determining the suitability of land for development

Site Review Provision requiring addressing hazard mitigation in process of reviewing site proposals for development

Design/Construction Guidelines/Requirements

Guidelines or requirements that apply to the design or construction of developments in hazard areas

Public Facilities (including Public Housing)

18

Siting Provision to site public facilities, including municipal buildings and public housing, out of hazard areas

Sizing/Capacity Provision limiting capacity of public facilities, including public housing, in hazard areas to cap amount of development

Post-Disaster Reconstruction Decisions Development Moratorium Provision imposing a moratorium on development for a set

period of time after a hazard event to allow for consideration of land use change

Post-Disaster Land Use Change Provision related to changing land use regulations following a hazard event; may include redefining allowable land uses after a hazard event

Post-Disaster Capital Improvements Provision related to adjusting capital improvements to public facilities following a hazard event

Capital Improvements Infrastructure "Hardening" or Weatherproofing

Provision encouraging or requiring development in hazard zones to increase structural resilience to hazards

Elevating Provision pertaining to the physical elevation of structures in hazard zones

Drainage Improvements/Flood Control

Provision that pertains to drainage or flooding issues within the community

Ecosystem Enhancement Provision that seeks to improve or preserve the functioning of the natural environment within the community

Slope/Dune Stabilization Provision that pertains specifically to stabilization of slopes or dunes or seeks to control erosion

19

Figure 3. Examples of Plan Policy Scoring Method Example 1. A policy in the hazard mitigation section of the League City, TX Comprehensive Plan states that the city should "Completely prohibit construction of government buildings and special needs facilities like medical facilities, nursing homes, schools, and day cares within the 100-year floodplain" (2035 Comprehensive Plan, 2013, p. 8-6). The rationale of this strong policy statement is to reduce vulnerability in parts of city located in the official 100-year floodplain. Thus, this public facilities siting policy received a score of +1 for physical vulnerability for the 100-year floodplain hazard zones. Example 2. A policy in the Consolidated Hillsborough River Master Plan (the Hillsborough is the main river flowing through the City of Tampa, FL) states, "The City shall, through the land development review process, prevent the further destruction of desirable natural system buffers on the Hillsborough River and its major tributaries ..." (Consolidated Hillsborough River Master Plan, 2016, p. 11). By maintaining a natural buffer along the river, this policy aims to preserve the natural functioning of the river. It also has the effect of reducing development in areas adjacent to the river, which are within the 100-year floodplain. Thus, for riparian districts in Tampa, this policy linked to development regulations received a score of +1 for ecological vulnerability for the 100-year floodplain zones. Example 3. The Fort Lauderdale, FL Consolidated Housing Plan discusses the Dorsey Riverbend Neighborhood, which "is targeted for scattered site infill housing development on vacant lots throughout the neighborhood, as well as rental and owner-occupied rehabilitation." While this appears to be a laudable goal to reduce social vulnerability, Dorsey Riverbend happens to be located almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain. The Northwest RAC district (which contains Dorsey Riverbend) therefore received a score of -1 for vulnerability.

20

Figure4:District7,LeagueCity

21

Figure5:District10,AsburyPark

22

Table 1. Policy Scores for Plans in Six Cities

Mean Multi-District Plan scores (# districts) a

Plans Washington League City Fort Lauderdale Boston Tampa Asbury Park Comprehensive -0.88 (8) 19.67 (21) 5.53 (111) 13.55 (137) -0.36 (11)

Hazard Mitigation 5.00 (8) 4.43 (21) 6.23 (111) 0.62 (21) 0.17 (137) 0.00 (11)

Park/Recreation/Open Space 0.75 (8) 4.48 (21) 0.81 (21)

Affordable Housing 0.52 (21) -0.08 (111) -1.86 (21) 0.12 (137)

CAMA Environmental 1.13 (8)

County Comprehensive 5.19 (111)

Davie Blvd. Corridor Master -1.00 (7)

Climate Action 0.52 (21)

Consolidated Hillsborough River Master 13.00 (31)

Hillsborough Co. Transportation 0.60 (137)

Main Street Redevelopment -0.67 (3)

Waterfront Redevelopment -5.83 (6)

Single-District Plan scores b

Fort Lauderdale Boston Tampa Asbury Park Downtown Master -1.00

Downtown New River Master -2.00

South Andrews Avenue Master -3.00

Columbia Point Master 11.00

Center City -3.00

Downtown Transportation Vision -1.00

Central Business District Redevelopment -3.00

Overall mean for all plans c

(#districts) 6.00 (8) 29.10 (21) 16.75 (111) 0.81 (21) 17.35 (137) -4.00 (11)

a. The mean is the sum of policy scores for each district covered by the plan divided by the total number of districts covered by the plan. b. The single district score is the sum of policy scores for the district. c. Overall mean is the sum of all policy scores from all plans for each district in the city divided by the total number of districts covered by all plans in the city.

23

Table 2. Correlation between Physical Vulnerability and Policy Scores for Plans in Six Cities (Pearson’s r)

Plans a, b Washington (# of districts)

League City (# of districts)

Fort Lauderdale (# of districts)

Boston (# of districts)

Tampa (# of districts)

Asbury Park (# of districts)

Comprehensive -0.59 (8) -0.66 (21) -0.04 (111) -0.11 (137) 0.24 (11)

Hazard Mitigation 0.33 (8) -0.35 (21) 0.24 (111) -0.22 (21) -0.02 (137)

Park/Recreation/Open Space -0.80 (8) -0.66 (21)

Housing -0.13 (21) 0.02 (111) -0.32 (21) 0.04 (137)

CAMA -0.55 (8)

County Comprehensive -0.02 (111)

Climate Action 0.01 (21)

Hillsborough Co. Long Range Transp. -0.11 (137)

Overall correlation for all plans c -0.39 (8) -0.63 (21) -0.02 (111) -0.25 (21) -0.12 (137) 0.01 (11)

a. Correlations are not reported for plans that cover a single district. b. The three plans with 7 districts or less are not included in the correlation analysis since they had too few districts to run a correlation. The number of districts for these plans was further reduced due to the absence of physical vulnerability data (improved property values) for some of the districts since the districts were vacant. As a result there are too few districts for correlation analysis. c. Overall correlations represent that relationship between the sum of policy scores from all plans by district and the level of physical vulnerability by district.

2

Table A2: Policy Score Summary for Plan Type by Policy Tool Category in District 7, League City and District 12, Asbury Park

District 7, League City Total policy

score

Land use policy tool categories Total policy score for

each category

Comprehen

sive

Hazard Mitigation

Park/Recreation/Ope

n Space

Housing

+37 Development Regulations 17 11 3 3 0 (District #7) Land Acquisition 10 7 1 2 0

Density Transfer Provisions 1 1 0 0 0 Financial Incentives and Penalties 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process 2 2 0 0 0 Post-Disaster Reconstruction Decisions) 0 0 0 0 0 Public Facilities (including Public Housing 1 1 0 0 0 Capital Improvements 6 3 3 0 0 Overall score +37 +25 +7 +5 0

District 12, Asbury Park

Total policy score

Land use policy tool categories Total policy score for

each category

Comprehen

sive

Hazard Mitigation

Waterfront

Redevelopment

Housing

-12 Development Regulations -8 1 0 -9 0 (District #12) Land Acquisition -2 0 0 -2 0

Density Transfer Provisions 0 0 0 0 0 Financial Incentives and Penalties 0 0 0 0 0 Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process -1 0 0 -1 0 Post-Disaster Reconstruction Decisions) 0 0 0 0 0 Public Facilities (including Public Housing -1 0 0 -1 0 Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 Overall score -12 +1 0 -13 0

3

ReferencesBerke,P.,Godschalk,D.,&Kaiser,E.,withD.Rodriguez.(2006).Urbanlanduseplanning(5thed.).Urbana-Champaign,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Berke,P.,&Godschalk,D.(2009).Searchingforthegoodplan:Ameta-analysisofplanqualitystudies.JournalofPlanningLiterature,23(3),227–240.

Berke,P.Newman,G.,Lee,J.Combs,T.,Kolosna.C.&Salvesen,D.(2015).EvaluationofNetworksofPlansandVulnerabilitytoHazardsandClimateChange:AResilienceScorecard,JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,81:4,287-302.Butler,W.,Deyle,R.andMutnansky,C.(2016).Low-RegretsIncrementalism:LandUsePlanningAdaptationtoAcceleratingSeaLevelRiseinFlorida’sCoastalCommunities,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,36(3).Branch,M.,1971.Cityplanningandaerialinformation.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA.

CityofAsburyPark.(2006).CityofAsburyParkMasterPlan.AsburyPark,NewJersey:Author.CityofAsburyPark.(2005).AsburyParkWaterfrontRedevelopmentPlan.AsburyPark,NewJersey:Author.Cutter,S.(2015).ThelandscapeofdisasterresilienceindicatorsintheUSA.NaturalHazards80,741-758.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency.(2013).Integratinghazardmitigationintolocalplanning:Casestudiesandtoolsforcommunityofficials.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1908-25045-0016/integrating_hazmit.pdf

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency.(2014).Planintegrationguide.Washington,DC:Author.

DonovanFinn,D.,Hopkins,L.,&Wempe,M.2007.Theinformationsystemofplansapproach:Usingandmakingplansforlandscapeprotection.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning81,132–145.

Godschalk,D.,Kaiser,E.,&Berke,P.(1998).Integratinghazardmitigationandlanduseplanning.InR.Burby(Ed.),Cooperatingwithnature:Confrontingnaturalhazardswithlanduseplanningforsustainablecommunities(pp.85–118).Washington,DC:JosephHenryPress.

4

Hopkins,Lewis.2001.UrbanDevelopment:TheLogicofMakingPlans.Washington,D.C.:IslandPress.LeagueCity.2013.LeagueCitycomprehensiveplan2035.LeagueCity,TX:Author.Lyles,W.,Berke,P.andSmith,G.(2014).Acomparisonoflocalhazardmitigationplansinsixstates,USA.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning122,89–99.

Lyles,W.,&Stevens,M.(2014).Planqualityevaluation1994–2012:Growthandcontributions,limitations,andnewdirections.JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,34(4),433–450.

MonmouthCounty.(2014).MonmouthCountyMulti-jurisdictionalNaturalHazardMitigationPlan.Freehold,NewJersey.NationalResearchCouncil.(2006).Facinghazardsanddisasters:Understandinghumandimensions.Washington,DC:TheNationalAcademiesPress.NationalResearchCouncil.(2012).Disasterresilience:Anationalimperative.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

NationalResearchCouncil.(2014).ReducingcoastalriskontheeastandGulfcoasts.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

NewYorkCityPlanningDepartment(2013).Coastalresilience:Urbanadaptivewaterfrontstrategies.https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-studies/sustainable-communities/climate-resilience/urban_waterfront.pdf

Patterson,L.,&Doyle,M.(2009).Assessingeffectivenessofnationalfloodpolicythroughspatiotemporalmonitoringofsocioeconomicexposure.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation,45(1),237–252.

SoutheastFloridaRegionalCompact.(2012).AnalysisofsoutheastFloridasealevelrise.Retrievedfromwww.southeastfloridaclimatecom-pact.org//wp-content/uploads/2014/09/vulnerability-assessment.pdf

UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly.(2015).UnitedNationsworldconferenceondisasterreduction—Sendaiframeworkfordisasterreduction2015–2030.Sendai,Japan:Author.

iGISDatasetsbyHouston-GalvestonAreaCouncil:http://www.h-gac.com/rds/gis-data/gis-datasets.aspx

5