Presentation by Andreas Schleicher Tackling the School Absenteeism Crisis 30 ...
Emergency Management Planning: Hazard Mitigation
1. Hazard Mitigation Planning
Anuradha Mukherji, PhD.
Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning
Department of Geography, Planning, and Environment
Corolla, Currituck County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. HAZARDS & URBAN GROWTH IN US
• In 2003 more that 159 million Americans (53 percent of US
population) lived in a coastal county, up from 28 percent in 1980
• Growth is most visible along nation’s hurricane coasts – Cape Cod to
Miami & Texas to Florida Keys
• Not just seasonal population but year round residents – elderly
retirees or service industry workers in tourism
• Coastal residents are more racially & ethnically diverse than in past
decades – low wage jobs have fuelled the diversity
• Rich live right along the shoreline and income gradient decreases
with distance away from the water’s edge
• American dream of single detached house is beyond reach of half
of nation’s households, so households living in manufactured housing
or mobile homes (highly vulnerable to high winds and storms)
8. HAZARD MITIGATION
• Hazard mitigation plan implementation challenges
in coastal North Carolina
• Looks at the 20 coastal counties under CAMA
• All 20 CAMA counties have certified hazard
mitigation plans but implementation of policy
recommendations or action remains uneven s
• Hazard mitigation broadly grouped into: Structural
Mitigation & Non-Structural Mitigation
• Structural Mitigation: Flood control works (i.e., levees, sea
walls), engineered defense systems that seek hazard
resistance
• Non-Structural Mitigation: Seek resilience to hazards
Land-use planning and management
Development regulations
Enforcement of building codes and standards
Land and property acquisition
Capital improvements for critical public infrastructure
Taxation and fiscal policies
Information dissemination
9. This image is attributed to Aaron Forrest @ 2007 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Structural Mitigation: Levee
10. This image is attributed to Travis Morgan @ 2006 (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Structural Mitigation: Sea Wall
11. This image is attributed to Financial Times Limited @ 2013
Kirikiri, Otsuuchi Municipality, Iwate Prefecture, Japan
Structural Mitigation Limits
12. This image is attributed to Jay Wilson, EERI @ 2011
Taro, Iwate Prefecture, Japan (Great Wall, Massive 10 meters high sea wall after 1933 tsunami, 1 mile long)
Structural Mitigation Limits
13. Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, Japan
This image is attributed to Reuters @ 2012
Structural Mitigation Limits
15. • Hazard mitigation plan implementation challenges
in coastal North Carolina
• Looks at the 20 coastal counties under CAMA
• All 20 CAMA counties have certified hazard
mitigation plans but implementation of policy
recommendations or action remains uneven s
• Promoting safe but
actually making unsafe
• Structural mitigation
encourages
development in risky
areas
• For example: Levee
expansion and
development in New
Orleans
SAFE DEVELOPMENT PARADOX
Swan Quarter, Hyde County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)
16. EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA (ENC)
The 20 North Carolina CAMA (under Coastal Area Management Act) counties with a
certified multi-jurisdictional county level hazard mitigation plan.
(Source: Base maps from the United States Census Bureau
(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/north_carolina_map.html) and from the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/103).
19. ENC: Hazard Mitigation Measures
FUNDING
STAFF
OTHER
COPINGSTRATEGIES/ADAPTAION
HOW: Resources for implementing hazard mitigation
20. NFIP LIMITS
• Hazard mitigation plan implementation challenges
in coastal North Carolina
• Looks at the 20 coastal counties under CAMA
• All 20 CAMA counties have certified hazard
mitigation plans but implementation of policy
recommendations or action remains uneven s
• Unable to update flood insurance rate maps timely
• Flood insurance available, but buildings not elevated in areas with
localized flood risk and levee failure
• Not able to cover costs from premiums, borrow from treasury
• Operating cost and loss from big events cannot be recovered
through premiums
• Standard – 100 year flood event – not very accurate, most floods
caused from other events
• No incentive to homeowners to reduce flood vulnerability
• Program does not adequately reflect risk and operates at loss
• Subsidizes occupancy of hazardous areas and facilitates more
development than economically logical
21. CONCLUDING POINTS
1. Cannot assume implementation just because there is
a hazard mitigation plan in place
2. Building Resilience: Help counties balance conflict
between safety and expense
3. Address the fragmented nature of mitigation
implementation (i.e., everyone has a piece – planning,
building inspections, public works, utilities) – who is the
lead
4. Targeted assistance for technical expertise and grant
applications – particularly in rural counties with limited
staff – creating a tiered system of grants based on
population, a pool of funds to assist with match money
Hazard mitigation implementation measures are broadly categorized into two groups in the literature. One, structural mitigation (e.g. flood control works, engineered defense systems) that seek hazard resistance, and second, non-structural mitigation (e.g. land-use planning and management, development regulations, enforcement of building codes and standards, land and property acquisition, capital improvements for critical public infrastructure, taxation and fiscal policies, and information dissemination) that seek local resilience to hazards (e.g. Berke 1998; Birkland et al. 2003; Cheong 2011; Mileti 1999; Godschalk et al. 2000, 1999; Godschalk & Norton 1998; Thampapillai & Musgrave 1985).
Despite an extensive and growing scholarship on hazard mitigation as a critical component of disaster resilience, our understanding of hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local level (e.g. county, municipality) remains limited. Indeed, research on the implementation of hazard mitigation plans at the local level is largely absent from the hazard mitigation and planning literatures. Current literature focuses mainly on mitigation policies (e.g. Birkland et al. 2003; Brody et al. 2009; Burby 2006, 1999; Deyle, Chapin & Baker 2008; Godschalk et al. 1999), the mitigation planning process (e.g. Brody et al. 2007; Kartez & Lindell 2011), and evaluation of mitigation plan quality (e.g. Berke, Smith & Lyles 2010, 2009; Lyles, Berke & Smith 2014). There is little research that focuses solely on the implementation of mitigation plans subsequent to plan adoption (Brody & Highfield 2005, 159).
While local governments are increasingly bearing the responsibility of hazard mitigation implementation in their jurisdictions (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Faber 1996; Godschalk et al. 1999, Godschalk 2003), it is uncertain whether local governments have the commitment and capacity to prepare mitigation plans and carry out mitigations projects and actions aimed at building resilient communities (Clary 1985; Godschalk et al. 1999; Petak 1984). While implementation happens mostly at the local level (e.g. county, municipality), studies that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local levels are scant (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al. 1999).
Additionally, policy implementation scholarship shows that implementation is rarely considered in the design of policy, as the general assumption is that implementation naturally follows policy adoption (O’Toole 2000; Myrtle 1983), which in turn leads to implementation gaps (Schofield 2004). Few studies consider whether the policies and plans are actually implemented subsequent to its adoption (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Talen 1996a, 1996b) creating a critical gap in the literature on this vital sub-topic in the field of hazard mitigation.
Scholars have identified a number of variables that can influence hazard mitigation plan implementation, which include political commitment (e.g. Burby & May 1998; Webler et al 2003), inter-governmental co-ordination (e.g. Burby & May 1998), public stakeholder participation (e.g. Stevens, Berke & Song 2010; Godschalk, Brody & Burby 2003; Godschalk et al 1999), commitment to evaluation (e.g. Brody and Highfield 2005), organizational capacity (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al 1999), and the role of planners (e.g. Stevens 2010). While these studies are significant, they remain discrete. Comprehensive approaches that model how the aforementioned aspects conceptually and collectively influence hazard mitigation plan implementation are absent in the current literature.
The implementation of local mitigation plans can be best understood through place-based studies as it can “offer an in-depth knowledge of local conditions specifically regarding the level of implementation of hazard mitigation…and shed light on important trade-offs and synergies”. Yet, place-based studies (e.g. Godschalk et al.1999) remain largely absent among current approaches that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation.
This research focuses on issues faced by coastal counties in North Carolina to implement multi-jurisdictional county level hazard mitigation plans.
In North Carolina, all 20 coastal counties under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) presently have certified hazard mitigation plans.
Yet, the implementation of policy recommendations listed in the plans has been highly uneven within and across the counties.
This study examines the challenges of hazard mitigation plan implementation in coastal North Carolina counties and the mechanisms, if any, employed by the counties to cope with the challenges.
Hazard mitigation implementation measures are broadly categorized into two groups in the literature. One, structural mitigation (e.g. flood control works, engineered defense systems) that seek hazard resistance, and second, non-structural mitigation (e.g. land-use planning and management, development regulations, enforcement of building codes and standards, land and property acquisition, capital improvements for critical public infrastructure, taxation and fiscal policies, and information dissemination) that seek local resilience to hazards (e.g. Berke 1998; Birkland et al. 2003; Cheong 2011; Mileti 1999; Godschalk et al. 2000, 1999; Godschalk & Norton 1998; Thampapillai & Musgrave 1985).
Despite an extensive and growing scholarship on hazard mitigation as a critical component of disaster resilience, our understanding of hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local level (e.g. county, municipality) remains limited. Indeed, research on the implementation of hazard mitigation plans at the local level is largely absent from the hazard mitigation and planning literatures. Current literature focuses mainly on mitigation policies (e.g. Birkland et al. 2003; Brody et al. 2009; Burby 2006, 1999; Deyle, Chapin & Baker 2008; Godschalk et al. 1999), the mitigation planning process (e.g. Brody et al. 2007; Kartez & Lindell 2011), and evaluation of mitigation plan quality (e.g. Berke, Smith & Lyles 2010, 2009; Lyles, Berke & Smith 2014). There is little research that focuses solely on the implementation of mitigation plans subsequent to plan adoption (Brody & Highfield 2005, 159).
While local governments are increasingly bearing the responsibility of hazard mitigation implementation in their jurisdictions (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Faber 1996; Godschalk et al. 1999, Godschalk 2003), it is uncertain whether local governments have the commitment and capacity to prepare mitigation plans and carry out mitigations projects and actions aimed at building resilient communities (Clary 1985; Godschalk et al. 1999; Petak 1984). While implementation happens mostly at the local level (e.g. county, municipality), studies that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local levels are scant (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al. 1999).
Additionally, policy implementation scholarship shows that implementation is rarely considered in the design of policy, as the general assumption is that implementation naturally follows policy adoption (O’Toole 2000; Myrtle 1983), which in turn leads to implementation gaps (Schofield 2004). Few studies consider whether the policies and plans are actually implemented subsequent to its adoption (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Talen 1996a, 1996b) creating a critical gap in the literature on this vital sub-topic in the field of hazard mitigation.
Scholars have identified a number of variables that can influence hazard mitigation plan implementation, which include political commitment (e.g. Burby & May 1998; Webler et al 2003), inter-governmental co-ordination (e.g. Burby & May 1998), public stakeholder participation (e.g. Stevens, Berke & Song 2010; Godschalk, Brody & Burby 2003; Godschalk et al 1999), commitment to evaluation (e.g. Brody and Highfield 2005), organizational capacity (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al 1999), and the role of planners (e.g. Stevens 2010). While these studies are significant, they remain discrete. Comprehensive approaches that model how the aforementioned aspects conceptually and collectively influence hazard mitigation plan implementation are absent in the current literature.
The implementation of local mitigation plans can be best understood through place-based studies as it can “offer an in-depth knowledge of local conditions specifically regarding the level of implementation of hazard mitigation…and shed light on important trade-offs and synergies”. Yet, place-based studies (e.g. Godschalk et al.1999) remain largely absent among current approaches that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation.
Hazard mitigation implementation measures are broadly categorized into two groups in the literature. One, structural mitigation (e.g. flood control works, engineered defense systems) that seek hazard resistance, and second, non-structural mitigation (e.g. land-use planning and management, development regulations, enforcement of building codes and standards, land and property acquisition, capital improvements for critical public infrastructure, taxation and fiscal policies, and information dissemination) that seek local resilience to hazards (e.g. Berke 1998; Birkland et al. 2003; Cheong 2011; Mileti 1999; Godschalk et al. 2000, 1999; Godschalk & Norton 1998; Thampapillai & Musgrave 1985).
Despite an extensive and growing scholarship on hazard mitigation as a critical component of disaster resilience, our understanding of hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local level (e.g. county, municipality) remains limited. Indeed, research on the implementation of hazard mitigation plans at the local level is largely absent from the hazard mitigation and planning literatures. Current literature focuses mainly on mitigation policies (e.g. Birkland et al. 2003; Brody et al. 2009; Burby 2006, 1999; Deyle, Chapin & Baker 2008; Godschalk et al. 1999), the mitigation planning process (e.g. Brody et al. 2007; Kartez & Lindell 2011), and evaluation of mitigation plan quality (e.g. Berke, Smith & Lyles 2010, 2009; Lyles, Berke & Smith 2014). There is little research that focuses solely on the implementation of mitigation plans subsequent to plan adoption (Brody & Highfield 2005, 159).
While local governments are increasingly bearing the responsibility of hazard mitigation implementation in their jurisdictions (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Faber 1996; Godschalk et al. 1999, Godschalk 2003), it is uncertain whether local governments have the commitment and capacity to prepare mitigation plans and carry out mitigations projects and actions aimed at building resilient communities (Clary 1985; Godschalk et al. 1999; Petak 1984). While implementation happens mostly at the local level (e.g. county, municipality), studies that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local levels are scant (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al. 1999).
Additionally, policy implementation scholarship shows that implementation is rarely considered in the design of policy, as the general assumption is that implementation naturally follows policy adoption (O’Toole 2000; Myrtle 1983), which in turn leads to implementation gaps (Schofield 2004). Few studies consider whether the policies and plans are actually implemented subsequent to its adoption (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Talen 1996a, 1996b) creating a critical gap in the literature on this vital sub-topic in the field of hazard mitigation.
Scholars have identified a number of variables that can influence hazard mitigation plan implementation, which include political commitment (e.g. Burby & May 1998; Webler et al 2003), inter-governmental co-ordination (e.g. Burby & May 1998), public stakeholder participation (e.g. Stevens, Berke & Song 2010; Godschalk, Brody & Burby 2003; Godschalk et al 1999), commitment to evaluation (e.g. Brody and Highfield 2005), organizational capacity (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al 1999), and the role of planners (e.g. Stevens 2010). While these studies are significant, they remain discrete. Comprehensive approaches that model how the aforementioned aspects conceptually and collectively influence hazard mitigation plan implementation are absent in the current literature.
The implementation of local mitigation plans can be best understood through place-based studies as it can “offer an in-depth knowledge of local conditions specifically regarding the level of implementation of hazard mitigation…and shed light on important trade-offs and synergies”. Yet, place-based studies (e.g. Godschalk et al.1999) remain largely absent among current approaches that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation.
This research focuses on issues faced by coastal counties in North Carolina to implement multi-jurisdictional county level hazard mitigation plans.
In North Carolina, all 20 coastal counties under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) presently have certified hazard mitigation plans.
Yet, the implementation of policy recommendations listed in the plans has been highly uneven within and across the counties.
This study examines the challenges of hazard mitigation plan implementation in coastal North Carolina counties and the mechanisms, if any, employed by the counties to cope with the challenges.
Hazard mitigation implementation measures are broadly categorized into two groups in the literature. One, structural mitigation (e.g. flood control works, engineered defense systems) that seek hazard resistance, and second, non-structural mitigation (e.g. land-use planning and management, development regulations, enforcement of building codes and standards, land and property acquisition, capital improvements for critical public infrastructure, taxation and fiscal policies, and information dissemination) that seek local resilience to hazards (e.g. Berke 1998; Birkland et al. 2003; Cheong 2011; Mileti 1999; Godschalk et al. 2000, 1999; Godschalk & Norton 1998; Thampapillai & Musgrave 1985).
Despite an extensive and growing scholarship on hazard mitigation as a critical component of disaster resilience, our understanding of hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local level (e.g. county, municipality) remains limited. Indeed, research on the implementation of hazard mitigation plans at the local level is largely absent from the hazard mitigation and planning literatures. Current literature focuses mainly on mitigation policies (e.g. Birkland et al. 2003; Brody et al. 2009; Burby 2006, 1999; Deyle, Chapin & Baker 2008; Godschalk et al. 1999), the mitigation planning process (e.g. Brody et al. 2007; Kartez & Lindell 2011), and evaluation of mitigation plan quality (e.g. Berke, Smith & Lyles 2010, 2009; Lyles, Berke & Smith 2014). There is little research that focuses solely on the implementation of mitigation plans subsequent to plan adoption (Brody & Highfield 2005, 159).
While local governments are increasingly bearing the responsibility of hazard mitigation implementation in their jurisdictions (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Faber 1996; Godschalk et al. 1999, Godschalk 2003), it is uncertain whether local governments have the commitment and capacity to prepare mitigation plans and carry out mitigations projects and actions aimed at building resilient communities (Clary 1985; Godschalk et al. 1999; Petak 1984). While implementation happens mostly at the local level (e.g. county, municipality), studies that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation at the local levels are scant (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al. 1999).
Additionally, policy implementation scholarship shows that implementation is rarely considered in the design of policy, as the general assumption is that implementation naturally follows policy adoption (O’Toole 2000; Myrtle 1983), which in turn leads to implementation gaps (Schofield 2004). Few studies consider whether the policies and plans are actually implemented subsequent to its adoption (Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Talen 1996a, 1996b) creating a critical gap in the literature on this vital sub-topic in the field of hazard mitigation.
Scholars have identified a number of variables that can influence hazard mitigation plan implementation, which include political commitment (e.g. Burby & May 1998; Webler et al 2003), inter-governmental co-ordination (e.g. Burby & May 1998), public stakeholder participation (e.g. Stevens, Berke & Song 2010; Godschalk, Brody & Burby 2003; Godschalk et al 1999), commitment to evaluation (e.g. Brody and Highfield 2005), organizational capacity (e.g. Brody, Kang & Bernhardt 2010; Godschalk et al 1999), and the role of planners (e.g. Stevens 2010). While these studies are significant, they remain discrete. Comprehensive approaches that model how the aforementioned aspects conceptually and collectively influence hazard mitigation plan implementation are absent in the current literature.
The implementation of local mitigation plans can be best understood through place-based studies as it can “offer an in-depth knowledge of local conditions specifically regarding the level of implementation of hazard mitigation…and shed light on important trade-offs and synergies”. Yet, place-based studies (e.g. Godschalk et al.1999) remain largely absent among current approaches that examine hazard mitigation plan implementation.
Resource Crunch – Lack of technical staff, funding, too many duties
Fragmented Response to Mitigation Implementation
Under EM or Planning – Leading to further fragmentation as not clear who is lead
Mitigation implementation confused with EM preparedness and response – lack of understanding of mitigation
Less focus on land use planning and more on equipment and other issues
Conflicts of interest in some cases, where coordination is undermined
Money to do regional planning but not for implementation
Looking for grants as a way to implement parts of the plan – but need a tiered system
Mandates without resources – there is no implementation that just because there is a plan there is implementation as well – fragmentation of or no implementation – county are saying they need money for implementation
Overall – underlying issues of lack of priorities and coordination or even politics – but also structural issues.
EM are being asked to do Hazard Mitigation and they do not consider this as part of their expertise and don’t particularly appreciate being asked to do something that is outside their realm of expertise.
Current system set up for EM not for Mitigation Planning
Resource Crunch – Lack of technical staff, funding, too many duties
Fragmented Response to Mitigation Implementation
Under EM or Planning – Leading to further fragmentation as not clear who is lead
Mitigation implementation confused with EM preparedness and response – lack of understanding of mitigation
Less focus on land use planning and more on equipment and other issues
Conflicts of interest in some cases, where coordination is undermined
Money to do regional planning but not for implementation
Looking for grants as a way to implement parts of the plan – but need a tiered system
Mandates without resources – there is no implementation that just because there is a plan there is implementation as well – fragmentation of or no implementation – county are saying they need money for implementation
Overall – underlying issues of lack of priorities and coordination or even politics – but also structural issues.
EM are being asked to do Hazard Mitigation and they do not consider this as part of their expertise and don’t particularly appreciate being asked to do something that is outside their realm of expertise.
Current system set up for EM not for Mitigation Planning
