Upload
gaia
View
61
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Corolla, Currituck County, 2012 (Source: Image by author). BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCE Hazard Mitigation Plan Implementation in Coastal North Carolina. NCEM/ECU HURRICANE WORKSHOP, May 28, 2014 Anuradha MUKHERJI, PhD. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
NCEM/ECU HURRICANE WORKSHOP, May 28, 2014Anuradha MUKHERJI, PhD.Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional PlanningDepartment of Geography, Planning, and EnvironmentEast Carolina University
BUILDING LOCAL RESILIENCEHazard Mitigation Plan Implementation in Coastal North Carolina
Corolla, Currituck County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)
• The Research• Research Background• Research Methods• Research Findings• Initial Recommendations
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Swan Quarter, Hyde County, 2012 (Source: Image by author)
THE RESEARCH
Research Focus: 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).
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
• 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
• Limited understanding of local hazard mitigation plan implementation
• Increasing responsibility on local governments but uncertainty about local commitment & capacity
• Implementation following policy adoption • Place-based studies
RESEARCH METHOD
Emergency Managemen
t
Planning Other (e.g., County Manager,
Zoning)
TOTAL
MALE 5 4 2 11FEMAL
E1 6 1 8
TOTAL 6 10 3
• Place-based qualitative research • Content analysis of hazard mitigation plans• In-depth semi-structured interviews• First (i.e. descriptive) & second (i.e., pattern) cycle
coding
RESEARCH FINDINGS
THE WHAT, HOW, AND WHY OF HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
WHAT: Hazard mitigation measures pursued and associated challenges
WHY: Issues impacting decision to pursue hazard mitigation measures
HOW: Resource challenges for implementing hazard mitigation measures
WHAT: Hazard mitigation measures pursued & challenges
ELEV
ATIN
G HO
MES • Elevating homes
• FEMA freeboard standards
• Convincing community
• Price tag, expensive
• Existing housing stock cannot afford to elevate
• House structurally not sound for elevation
• Properties difficult to qualify for grant
BUYO
UT • Buyout and create open spaces
• Cost high along coast
• Tough to meet cost-benefit of buyout
DEVE
LOPM
ENT
STAN
DARD
S • Push back from citizen and developers when enforcing development standards in flood zone
• Difficult to convince public on zoning
• Lack of staff & time to plan, develop & enforce ordinance
• Politically difficult to change ordinance effecting land use
OTHE
R • Explain & convince people to carry flood insurance
• Public education to explain regulations
• Storm water management
• Shifting critical infrastructure out of the floodplain
• Funding shortage for capital investment
RESEARCH FINDINGS: WHAT
RESEARCH FINDINGS: WHYPO
PULA
TION
& G
EOGR
APHY
• County, city located in the floodplain
• Importance of estuary and waterway to livelihood - tourism and fishing
• Flooding in low lying areas
• Large population on a barrier island
• Large areas with limited population
• Distribution of population: Isolated communities and long distances
• Swamp lands and wetlands – effect on septic systems
VULN
ERAB
ILIT
Y • Vulnerable to hurricanes, flash floods, storm surge
• Housing vulnerability - Older homes, not to standard, not maintained
• Housing stock built in the floodway
• Mobile home parks in floodplain
• Demographic vulnerability – retiree communities
• Lack of infrastructure and business
• Low-income minority population
• Lack of insurance
PUBL
IC S
UPPO
RT
• No support for hazard mitigation in rural areas
• Educating community
• Help people understand hazard in community
• Lack of political will• Issues of property
rights very strong• Not a priority
unless hazard event occurs
• Difficulty educating public
• Most people reactive, keying in to immediate needs only
• Some attention because of an older population
• Resistance to change
• Tied to economy
PLAN
ISSU
ES
• Un-useable plans• Contractor driven
cookie cutter plans• Plan not for
average person, only those who understand terminology
• Acronyms make plan hard to follow
• Lack of familiarity with plan causes lack of implementation
WHY: Issues impacting decision to pursue hazard mitigation
RESEARCH FINDINGS: HOWFU
NDIN
G • Limited monies• Lack of funding• Financial constraint• Fiscal challenge• Tight budget• Need external
funds• Pursuing HMGP
grants• Acquiring funding –
tedious and complex
• Administration of funding is complex
• Who pays - Funding improvements of existing developments
STAF
F • Wearing multiple hats
• Stretched thin• Limited staff• Competing
priorities• Staff constraints &
capacities• Staff turnover• Lack of technical
expertise
OTHE
R • Fragmented implementation by multiple departments
• Limited people to help move projects forward
• Challenge coordinating among jurisdictions
COPI
NG S
TRAT
EGIE
S /
ADAP
TAIO
N• Staff Constraints: Implementation and compliance through consultant
• Funding Limits: Rely on state and federal governments for grants
• Public Support: Pro-active public education by going to churches
• Timing hazard mitigation initiatives
• Competition for funds and price tag for projects very high
• Cannot put up a cash match, small rural community with small tax base
• Cannot be competitive with municipalities with established tax base
HOW: Resources for implementing hazard mitigation
INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
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