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: pberke@unc.edu.

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.