Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster Resiliency: Challenges and Strategic Choices for the 21 st Century In Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency, Ed. Urban Fra: Amersterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press (2009) Philip Berke a, 1 and Gavin Smith b a Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Deputy Director of the Institute for the Environment b Associate Research Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning Executive Director, Center for the Study of Natural Hazards and Disasters University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A. Abstract. Knowledge about the causes and consequences of hazards is increasing, but losses continue to rise dramatically. We examine the major benefits of land use planning when applied to hazard mitigation, and then discuss why vulnerable communities fail to enact effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced losses. We then present five sets of choices that communities can make to advance planning for mitigation with the ultimate goal of disaster resiliency. Keywords. planning, mitigation, hazards, resiliency, sustainability Introduction Hazard mitigation and land use planning are orientated toward the future. Both are focused on anticipating upcoming needs and impacts, rather than responding to yesterday’s events. Both are proactive rather than reactive. Both inject long-range thinking into short-range actions. In concert, they provide a powerful approach for reducing vulnerability, and creating more disaster resilient communities that are able to “resist or absorb an impact, organize [themselves] to overcome or recover from the consequences of the impact, and adapt or learn from the experience” [1, p. 5]. To this end, resiliency implies sustainable development where property investments are avoided or at least limited in hazardous areas, where the mitigating qualities of the natural environment are maintained, and where disaster recovery is envisioned to offer opportunities to build mitigation into redevelopment [2]. This chapter examines the basic powers and benefits of urban planning in mitigating hazard vulnerability. We explore the major challenges posed to integrating mitigation with planning. We argue that the trend in increasing numbers and severity of disasters are predictable outcomes of well-intentioned, but short-sighted, public policy decisions. These decisions create what urban planning scholar Raymond Burby [3] refers to as the local government paradox wherein vulnerable communities fail to enact effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced losses. Failure to overcome 1 Corresponding author: Department of City & Regional Planning, New East Bldg., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3140, U.S.A.; Email: [email protected].
21
Embed
Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster Resiliency · the interconnectedness of social, economic and environmental issues. Sustainable development and planning also share a future
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Hazard Mitigation, Planning, and Disaster
Resiliency: Challenges and Strategic Choices
for the 21st Century
In Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency,
Ed. Urban Fra: Amersterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press (2009)
Philip Berkea, 1
and Gavin Smithb
aProfessor, Department of City & Regional Planning
Deputy Director of the Institute for the Environment bAssociate Research Professor, Department of City & Regional Planning
Executive Director, Center for the Study of Natural Hazards and Disasters
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.
Abstract. Knowledge about the causes and consequences of hazards is increasing,
but losses continue to rise dramatically. We examine the major benefits of land use
planning when applied to hazard mitigation, and then discuss why vulnerable communities fail to enact effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced
losses. We then present five sets of choices that communities can make to advance
planning for mitigation with the ultimate goal of disaster resiliency. Keywords. planning, mitigation, hazards, resiliency, sustainability
Introduction
Hazard mitigation and land use planning are orientated toward the future. Both are
focused on anticipating upcoming needs and impacts, rather than responding to
yesterday’s events. Both are proactive rather than reactive. Both inject long-range
thinking into short-range actions. In concert, they provide a powerful approach for
reducing vulnerability, and creating more disaster resilient communities that are able to
“resist or absorb an impact, organize [themselves] to overcome or recover from the
consequences of the impact, and adapt or learn from the experience” [1, p. 5]. To this
end, resiliency implies sustainable development where property investments are
avoided or at least limited in hazardous areas, where the mitigating qualities of the
natural environment are maintained, and where disaster recovery is envisioned to offer
opportunities to build mitigation into redevelopment [2].
This chapter examines the basic powers and benefits of urban planning in
mitigating hazard vulnerability. We explore the major challenges posed to integrating
mitigation with planning. We argue that the trend in increasing numbers and severity of
disasters are predictable outcomes of well-intentioned, but short-sighted, public policy
decisions. These decisions create what urban planning scholar Raymond Burby [3]
refers to as the local government paradox wherein vulnerable communities fail to enact
effective planning programs to prevent hazard-induced losses. Failure to overcome
1 Corresponding author: Department of City & Regional Planning, New East Bldg., University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3140, U.S.A.; Email: [email protected].
these challenges leads to a cycle of increasingly hazardous urban development and
larger, more significant losses.
Our position is consistent with the main conclusion of the second assessment of
natural hazards research set forth in Disasters by Design [4]. In spite of increasing
knowledge about the causes and consequences of hazards, losses increase in part
because of where and how we “design” communities. White, Kates and Burton [5]
echoed this position by asserting that losses continue to grow because of a failure to
effectively make use of knowledge on where and how our communities should
develop.
We believe the time is right for building the capacity of communities to
reinvigorate mitigation planning given the awareness of the un-sustainability of
contemporary land use and urban development practices. The staggering costs of recent
disasters, notably Hurricane Katrina ($200 billion from flooding), and losses that are
rising at rates that exceed increases in population and gross national product [6] has
increased public awareness of the need to act beforehand. In the future mega-
catastrophes may no longer be viewed as low probability events and may become the
rule rather than the exception.
In this chapter, we review the benefits and challenges associated with hazard
mitigation planning. We then offer five sets of choices that planners, elected officials,
and the public make to advance planning for mitigation, including: 1) building
community capacity to do mitigation, 2) creating a high quality plan, 3) selecting a mix
of regulatory and spending tools for plan implementation, 4) setting up a monitoring
program to gauge achievement of plan goals, and 5) designing national and state
policy aimed at building local commitment and capacity to support planning for
mitigation. Finally, we assess the role of land use planning in mitigating hazards with
the goal of creating more disaster resilient communities.
1. Land Use Planning Applied to Hazard Mitigation: In Concept
Land use planning provides an important means to achieve mitigation by influencing
human settlement patterns as its analytical tools and policy recommendations are
inherently geospatial in nature affecting the location, type and density of development.
Equally important, is the notion that the power of planning resides in its process
orientation – engendering community participation and empowerment, the sharing of
information and collaborative problem solving. Simply put, planning transforms
“knowledge into action” [7]. The practice of land use planning is highly applicable to
reducing natural hazard losses and fostering more resilient communities [3, 22].
Hazard mitigation planning can be defined as a coordinated series of structural and
non-structural actions and processes designed to reduce the likelihood of future
damages to property, while minimizing the health and safety-related impacts associated
with natural hazards and disasters. Plans rely on a mix of mitigation strategies that fall
into four principal categories: 1) public information (e.g. hazard disclosure, mapping of
hazards, education and outreach initiatives), 2) structural property protection (e.g.
building and infrastructure hardening, elevation of flood-prone property, levees,
seawalls), 3) natural resource protection (e.g. beach, dune and wetlands preservation,
riparian buffers) and 4) hazard avoidance (e.g. limiting future development in hazard
zones, relocating existing development from hazard zones).
Selecting a hazard mitigation strategy should involve both the process of
identifying a coordinated set of actions or “projects” targeting buildings and
infrastructure that are currently at risk as well as the application of land use techniques,
policies and processes focused on pre-event hazards avoidance. Examples of land use
planning tools that can be used for this purpose include zoning, subdivision
regulations, building codes, and the public financing of capital improvements. The
benefit of taking a land use planning approach, broadly defined, limits the level of
exposure to hazards before an event occurs in addition to tackling problematic
decisions made in the past.
There is no one mitigation strategy taken in isolation that can guarantee disaster
resilience. However, an overreliance on structural engineering-based approaches such
as levees, seawalls and “hardened” infrastructure ultimately limits resilience. Structural
methods encourage additional investments in known hazard areas, while at the same
time can fail catastrophically as in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Noted
geographer Gilbert White observed in 1975 that structural hazard control works
“…will be of little value if the reduction in damages that they accomplish is more than
offset by new damage potential resulting from additional development in floodplains”
[8, p. xviii].
Communities engaged in the development of a hazard mitigation plan benefit from
the involvement of individuals trained in the art of public participation and dispute
resolution [9]. Mediation, negotiation, facilitation and policy dialogue are routinely
used by practicing land use planners. The use of these techniques improve the quality
of plans and their ease of implementation as those that will be affected by the policies
recommended and decisions made regarding varied land use options and alternatives
are involved throughout the process. Developing a plan is a process and one which
provides an opportunity to engage a wide collection of stakeholders who have a vested
interest in the final product.
In addition to serving as mediator and consensus builder, the planner is often
required to advocate on behalf of an idea or principle [10]. This may include
challenging past and proposed development patterns that unnecessarily place the larger
community at risk or disproportionately impact the poor or other socially vulnerable
populations. Tackling these issues requires the identification of complimentary
interests, and moving beyond initially stated positions that may on their face appear to
represent an intractable dilemma. Once identified and agreed upon by participants,
complimentary policy choices can be codified in the plan.
2. Links to Resiliency and Sustainable Development
Land use planning is increasingly using the concept of sustainable development to
describe the aims of the profession [11]. Planning viewed through this prism addresses
the interconnectedness of social, economic and environmental issues. Sustainable
development and planning also share a future orientation. Framed in the larger sphere
of sustainability, hazard mitigation planning provides a unique subtext that bridges
social, economic and environmental issues in a complimentary way [12, 1]. While
scholars have embraced the concept of hazard mitigation as an integrative theme, it has
yet to gain widespread acceptance among practicing planners [9].
More recently, hazards researchers have turned to the concept of disaster resiliency
to describe the linkage between sustainable development and hazard mitigation [13, 14,
1]. Disaster resilient communities are inherently more sustainable than others that do
not take action to reduce their exposure to natural hazards. Disasters are destructive
events that in extreme cases can physically obliterate a jurisdiction to a point where
they may never regain their pre-event economic, social and environmental condition. A
resilient community is able to bounce back following a disaster, in large part because it
has incorporated hazard mitigation and preparedness measures into their community
that reduce the magnitude, extent and duration of disruptions associated with a disaster.
The speed at which a community is able to reinstate supporting infrastructure such as
power, water and sewer services, reopen schools and businesses, and repair damaged
housing is an important indicator of a resilient community. Similarly, the reconstitution
of existing institutions and organizations is also critically important. These include not
only local government, non-profits and community groups, but also kinship ties and
other social relationships.
Disaster resiliency, like sustainability, has been described across ecological,
economic, and social dimensions. Ecological resiliency describes the inherent
adaptability of healthy natural environments that routinely respond to fluctuations in
temperature, rainfall, ground motion, erosion, wind, fire and other natural hazards.
Environmental scientists use the term “carrying capacity” to describe the upper limit of
human impacts on the system. Exceeding this limit produces unsustainable
perturbations in the system, leading to an eventual collapse. Humans possess the
unique ability to exceed the carrying capacity of the natural system and make
purposeful choices to balance growth with associated environmental impacts.
Understood in the context of disaster resiliency and sustainable development, natural
hazards are part of the larger environment and serve an important function. Disasters
occur when human settlement patterns interact with natural hazards. If we assume that
humans are part of the natural environment, then in order to facilitate sustainable,
disaster resilient communities, our actions must recognize the importance of striking a
balance between economic development and the preservation of the environment
which ultimately sustains us.
Economic resiliency implies an ability of businesses and individuals to withstand
financial shocks to the system, including those associated with disasters. Businesses
may be impacted by a downturn in profits or a loss of investments and other holdings.
Individuals may suffer from the loss of a job or difficulties associated with finding
employment that provides a livable wage. All of these factors can be triggered or
exacerbated by a disaster. Businesses, like the communities in which they reside, are
differentially vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. The pre-event adoption of hazard
mitigation strategies and preparedness measures by business owners and individuals
can alleviate some of the associated exposure to the damaging effects of disasters. A
comprehensive mitigation strategy involves the larger community as the vulnerability
of infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, telecommunication systems) can limit the
distribution of goods and services, while an abundance of housing stock that is
vulnerable to hazards can hinder the ability of employees to return to work
expeditiously following a disaster.
Social resiliency is tied directly to the strength of social networks and
interpersonal bonds. These relationships provide psycho-social support, a venue for the
exchange of information, and the sharing of resources before and after disasters. In a
larger sense, social networks and interpersonal bonds help to define a sense of place or
community that can influence the nature of recovery following disaster as tight knit
groups are more likely to assist one another and develop coordinated strategies to
address common problems. However, the same characteristics can lead to insularity
and a reluctance to seek out or embrace new information or assistance from those
located outside their community. Closely related to social resiliency is the concept of
institutional resiliency which can be gauged by the level of coordination within and
across organizations. High levels of organizational preparedness and inter-
organizational coordination facilitates resiliency. The concept of horizontal and vertical
integration provides a useful framework to understand this process. Vertical integration
can be described as the degree to which differing organizations such as federal, state
and local governments coordinate their actions. Horizontal integration involves the
coordination across similar organizations such as the non-profit community. Berke,
Kartez and Wenger [15] found that high levels of vertical and horizontal integration
increase the likelihood of integrated hazard mitigation and sustainable development
strategies.
3. A Model Linking Resiliency, Mitigation, and Planning for Sustainability
Figure 1 visualizes the links among resiliency, mitigation, and planning for
sustainability that is adapted from Godschalk, Kaiser and Berke’s [2] three legged stool
concept. The seat of the stool illustrates mitigation planning for disaster resiliency. The
three legs represent the environmental, economic and social values of resiliency that
must be in balance for the community to support the ultimate goal of sustainability. A
community mitigation planning program must not be out of balance wherein one value
is emphasized at the expense of other values. As a result, a community’s viability and
survival could become endangered. The three legged stool metaphor reveals the
dependence of the planning program upon a clearly stated and balanced set of goals
that reflect values supported by a mitigation strategy premised on the best available
science-based information.
Figure 1. Resiliency Values, Mitigation, and Planning for Sustainability.
Source: Adapted from Godschalk, Kaiser and Berke [2].
4. Challenges to Mitigation Planning
4.1. Weak Plans and Ordinances
Several studies have documented successful examples of how individual communities
integrate vulnerability data and hazard mitigation policies into local planning [16, 17].
However, the general pattern of findings from the few studies that have evaluated cross
sectional samples of local planning programs report that communities have not
integrated specific, well-developed mitigation provisions into their local land use plans
and development ordinances.
Berke and Godschalk [18] conducted a meta-analysis of 16 published plan quality
evaluations to identify strengths and weaknesses of plans based on eight key principles
of plan quality: breadth of goals, scientific basis, policies, internal consistency,
implementation, monitoring, horizontal integration, and vertical integration (these
principles are discussed in more detail in section 5.2.2). Unlike traditional research
methods, meta-analysis uses summary statistics from individual primary studies as the
data points in a new analysis. The meta-analysis by Berke and Godschalk transformed
the score for each principle from each study into a standardized score -- this permitted
analysis of findings across studies. Standardized scores were computed by first
identifying the maximum possible score of each principle in each study, and then
dividing the reported score of a given principle by the total maximum score to
determine a proportionate score [18, pp. 5-6]. Proportionate scores ranged from a low
of 0 to a high of 1. A mean for each principle was then computed based on the
proportionate scores from all studies.
The meta-analysis revealed that while plan quality varies with the plan topic (e.g.,
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
[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.