Evaluation of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Qualitymitigationguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/...! 1 Evaluation of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality By Ward Lyles, Philip Berke

1

Evaluation of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality

By

Ward Lyles, Philip Berke and Gavin Smith

Center for Sustainable Community Design UNC Institute for the Environment

Coastal Hazards Center

DHS Center of Excellence—Natural Disasters, Coastal Infrastructure and Emergency Management

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

July 2012

2

Introduction

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) was passed by Congress to shift the nation towards a more proactive, comprehensive approach to hazard mitigation that integrates discrete projects, regulatory changes and ongoing programs, rather than the previously reactive, disaster event-driven approach that prioritized isolated projects (Godschalk et al. 1999, Burby et al. 1999, Nolon 2009, Smith 2009). The DMA added a new requirement that state and local governments adopt hazard mitigation plans in order to remain eligible for certain federal mitigation grants. As of 2008, more than 14,000 state, local and tribal jurisdictions had adopted mitigation plans as a result (FEMA 2008 cited in Kang, Peacock, and Hussein 2010). Through federal and state grants and local resources, millions of dollars have been invested in these plans, not to mention the considerable time and effort spent engaging in participatory processes used to develop the plans. Just over a decade since passage of the DMA, empirical studies are beginning to emerge that assess the quality of state and local mitigation plans (Kang, Peacock and Hussein 2010, Olonilua and Ibitayo 2011, Berke, Smith and Lyles 2012). These studies are still few in number and somewhat limited in scope. A lack of baseline data remains about the quality of local mitigation plans and how that quality varies across states. These limitations in current understanding inhibit analysis of the impacts of the DMA and how those impacts vary across state and local situations. This report reviews progress and findings during the third and fourth years of a 6-year study of DMA-compliant state and local mitigation plans. The study includes multiple objectives, with the following addressed in this report:

Examine the quality of state and local hazard mitigation plans adopted in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. (State results reported in 2009; local results reported here)

In this report, we first review key requirements for local mitigation plans as stipulated by the Disaster Mitigation Act and subsequent FEMA requirements. We then present principles of plan quality that serve as criteria for evaluating the content and quality of plans for 175 jurisdictions in six states. Next, we introduce the study methods and data base, and then review findings from a comprehensive evaluation of the plans. Finally, we summarize our conclusions.

Conceptual Framework: Principles of Plan Quality Over the last two decades, planning researchers and practitioners have made considerable advances in the conceptualization of what constitutes plan quality (Berke and Godschalk 2009). Empirical studies of plan quality have identified core principles of plan quality. These first-order principles are normative standards that correspond to the different components that plans should include (Berke, Godschalk and Kaiser 2006). The principles are conceptualized so that they can be applied across multiple planning domains and have been productively used to understand

3

plans addressing hazard mitigation, sustainable development, housing, and other topics (Berke and Godschalk 2009). For the purposes of this study, therange of plan quality principles has been synthesized into a set of principles organized across two conceptual dimensions: direction setting principles and action-oriented principles (Lyles, Berke and Smith working paper 2012). Direction setting principles provide the foundation for “a clear and compelling picture of the desired future” (Lyles, Berke and Smith working paper 2012). These principles include three main plan components:

1. Fact Base summarizes existing local conditions and identifies needs, 2. Goals represent general aspirations, problem alleviations, and needs that are premised on

shared local values, and, 3. Policies (or actions) serve as a general guide to decisions about development and assure

that plan goals are achieved. Action-oriented principles “establish the usefulness and influence of the plan document” (Lyles, Berke and Smith working paper 2012). These principles include four main plan components

4. Participation of formal and informal actors, including other governmental bodies, private-sector institutions, non-profits and individual citizens.

5. Inter-Organizational Coordination recognizes state and local actions that are interdependent with plan components and need to be coordinated

6. Implementation to ensure organization responsibilities and costs need to implement proposed policies and actions, and

7. Monitoring to track performance of mitigation policy. These principles can serve as criteria that can be applied to evaluate plan quality across a wide range of subject matters, including planning for the mitigation of natural hazards. The plan components required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for DMA plans align closely with the principles, as shown in Table 1. According to FEMA’s ‘Blue Book’ guide for developing local hazard mitigation plans, mitigation plans must include four main sections, including: 1) planning process, 2) risk assessment, 3) mitigation strategy, 4) plan maintenance process (FEMA 2008).i

4

Figure 1: Conceptual Plan Quality Principles and FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan Sections

Conceptual Plan Quality Principles Direction Setting Principles

Principle 1: Fact Base Principle 2: Goals Principle 3: Policies

Action-Oriented Principles Principle 4: Participation Principle 5: Implementation Principle 6: Inter-organizational Coordination Principle 7: Monitoring

FEMA Sections and Requirements Corresponding Principles 1. Planning Process

Documents planning process, coordination among agencies and program integration

2. Risk Assessment

Identifies and profiles hazards, assesses vulnerability and estimates potential losses

3. Mitigation Strategy

Identifies goals; mitigation actions; and implementation information

4. Plan Maintenance Process

Monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan and monitoring progress of mitigation actions

Principle 4 (Participation) Principle 1 (Fact Base) Principle 2 (Goals) Principle 3 (Policies) Principle 5 (Implementation) Principle 7 (Monitoring) Principle 6 (Inter-organizational Coordination)

5

Methods Sample Selection and Collection The sampling unit for the study was a jurisdiction’s Disaster Mitigation Act-compliant local hazard mitigation plan.ii The sample consisted of 175 mitigation plans in coastal jurisdictions in six coastal states (California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Washington), which were selected to provide state-level variation in coastline (Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic) and state policy context for planning while maintaining some comparability for the hazards faced.iii Local jurisdictions in these states generally face development pressures along amenities such as beaches, rivers and other waterways; high vulnerability to hazards; and high population growth rates (Beatley, Brower and Schwab 2002 and NOAA 2004). The 175-jurisdiction sample included 30 randomly selected jurisdictions in five states (California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington) and, for Georgia, 25 coastal jurisdictions.iv Plans were collected online, directly from local mitigation officials, and from state mitigation officials in 2009 and 2010. Coding Protocol A coding protocol was developed to evaluate the three direction-setting principles of plan quality and the four action-oriented principles of plan quality. FEMA’s requirements for local mitigation plans (FEMA 2004) and coding protocols used in previous hazard mitigation studies were used as sources to generate the list of items to include in the protocol (e.g. Godschalk et al. 1999 and Berke, Smith and Lyles 2012).v The recording unit for the data is the coding item (see Table A.1 in Appendix for a list of the items by principle). The coding protocol is available online at www.ie.unc.edu/cscd/projects/dma.cfm. Using a comparable group of local plans from states not included in this study, multiple rounds of pre-testing were conducted. We followed standard content analysis procedures in our coding efforts (Krippendorff 2004). A combination of binary or ordinal scale items were used to measure the concepts of plan quality. For the binary items, plans were coded as 0 if the item in question was not included and 1 if the item was included. For the ordinal items, plans were coded as 0 if the item in question was not included, 1 if a brief, general description addressing the item was present, and 2 if a clear and detailed narrative description addressing the item was present, with lists, table, figures, and maps where applicable.vi Following pre-testing and revisions, a content analysis software, Atlas-ti 6.0, was used to to improve efficiency and reliability in coding procedures. Content Analysis Procedures We followed recommendations in the communications and plan quality literature for the content analysis procedures (Krippendorff 2004 and Berke and Godschalk 2009). Each local mitigation plan was independently coded by two of the seven team members who had been trained on how to use the software and apply the protocol items. We developed instructions and rules so the coders would interpret the items consistently. In order to deal with disagreements in scores between the coders that inevitably arose, the coders used a reconciliation process to determine the scores for the final dataset. This process consisted of the coders comparing their results, discussing each disagreement, and referring to the plan to finalize the score to record. We regularly varied the pairings of coders to reduce the possibility that inter-coder dynamics biased the results, as might happen if one coder deferred to the other on all reconciliation decisions. The coding process resulted in an average of 87.6% agreement for all the items in the full

6

dataset, which is in the range of percent agreements scores reported in previous plan quality studies (Berke and Godschalk 2009).vii Computation of Plan Quality Scores For each of the seven principles of plan quality, we developed index scores at the plan level. To generate the index scores, we added the scores for each of the items under a principle, divided by the total possible score, and multiplied by 10.0, which is in line with previous plan quality studies (Berke and Godschalk 2009). For the ordinal items, the scores were divided by 2.0 to place it on the same 0.0 to 1.0 scale as the binary items to which they were added. The standardization procedure resulted in all indexes being on a 0.0 to 10.0 scale, which allows comparability across principles of plan quality.

Findings: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality The presentation of the findings is organized by the sections required by FEMA – planning process, risk assessment, mitigation strategy, and plan maintenance – rather than the principles of plan quality. However, under the FEMA sections the different principles of plan quality are explicitly noted. FEMA SECTION: Planning Process The planning process section of the FEMA requirements aligns directly with the participation principle of plan quality (see Table 1). Participation Principle The participation principle consisted of 10 items (see Table A.1 in Appendix), including items related to the description of the planning process (e.g. describe who participated and their roles) and the public engagement techniques (e.g. public meetings and websites) used in the process. Most plans provided a detailed description of the planning process and most indicated use of public notices and public meetings, as shown in Figure 2. However, few plans noted that targeted outreach (e.g. focus groups and surveys) or citizen advisory committees had been used. The overall average across the 175 jurisdictions was almost exactly half of the total possible score, indicating moderate quality treatment of participation in the plans on average. Jurisdictions in Texas and Washington are the leaders for the participation principle, due in part to planning processes in those states including targeted outreach and websites to engage the public.

7

* Scores are all standardized on a scale of 0 to 10; 0 = low score and 10 = high score.

FEMA SECTION: Risk Assessment The risk assessment section of the FEMA requirements aligns with the fact base principle of plan quality (see Table 1). FEMA’s requirements include identifying and profiling hazards, assessing vulnerability, and assessing risks. To these requirements, we add assessing existing mitigation capabilities (e.g. policies, programs and resources). As such, the fact base principle consists of 101 total items: 32 for identifying and profiling hazards (e.g. identifying the likelihood, magnitude and other characteristics of hazards), 7 for assessing vulnerability (e.g. of population, property and environmental assets), 4 for assessing risk (provide loss estimates for public and private property), and 58 for the capability assessment (e.g. federal, state and local mitigation policies and programs). Fact Base Principle Most plans had low quality fact bases on average, as indicated by all states having average scores less than 5.0 out of 10.0 possible (Figure 3). Jurisdictions in Florida and North Carolina, which have strong traditions of planning and planning for hazards in particular, have the highest scores, followed by jurisdictions in Texas.

5.0 4.6 4.3 4.4 5.5 5.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

California Florida Georgia North Carolina

Texas Washington

Figure 2: Participation Principle (10 items)

8


Hazard Assessment On average, plans scored more than half of the possible 10.0 for the hazard identification component of the fact base, indicating that most plans identify a wide array of hazards (e.g. floods, fires, coastal storms, drought, etc.) and profile coastal storm and flood hazards with some detail (Figure 4). Plans gave the most attention to the location and boundaries of floodplain, past flooding events, and the likelihood and magnitude of future floods. Climate change generally and sea level rise in particular were rarely addressed. Jurisdictions in Florida, North Carolina and Texas, which regularly experience coastal storms and flood events, have the highest average scores. California and Washington jurisdictions pay less attention to coastal storms and Georgia jurisdictions provide less detail on if and how hazards are prioritized for attention.


2.7 4.1

2.7

4.5 3.9 3.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 3: Fact Base Principle (101 items)

4.3

6.7

4.8

7.2 7.0

4.7

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 4: Hazard Assessment (32 items)

9

Vulnerability Assessment The plans assess the vulnerability of the core types of assets (e.g. population, property, and environmental assets) with good detail, as indicated by the average scores in each state being around two-thirds of the 10.0 possible (Figure 5). The plans provide the most detail for vulnerable critical facilities, private property and general population and the least detail for environmental assets and especially vulnerable populations (e.g. elderly, low-income, people with disabilities). North Carolina’s higher scores are due to good detail on each type of vulnerability, but especially because of the detailed assessment of land use trends and environmental assets.


Risk Assessment The plans include low quality risk assessments in general, as indicated by the average scores in five of the six states being at or below one-third of the 10.0 possible (Figure 6). Most plans did not provide loss estimates for public or private structures and very few included multi-hazards risk assessments. There is clear variation across the states, with Texas jurisdictions having far an away the highest average risk assessment score because they often included quantitative loss estimates for public and private property, while Washington jurisdictions had the lowest scores.

6.2 6.5 5.7 7.5 6.8 6.2

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 5: Vulnerability Assessment

(7 items)

10


Capability Assessment The plans include very low quality assessment of existing mitigation capabilities, as indicated by the average scores that are all below one-third of the 10.0 possible (Figure 7). The plans provided the most detail about federal programs that support local mitigation efforts (e.g. the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the National Flood Insurance Program), and less detail about state and local capabilities. Among the local capabilities, the most attention is paid to emergency services (e.g. evacuation, sheltering and maintain communications and utilities in an event), while very little attention is paid to preventative land use approaches (e.g. controlling permitted land uses and density). Florida and North Carolina, which have the strongest planning traditions, have the highest average scores because the plans in those states provide more attention to a wide range of mitigation capabilities, including preventative land use approaches and natural resource protection approaches.


2.6 3.3 2.7 2.3

5.3

1.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 6: Risk Assessment (4 items)

1.5 2.4

1.2 2.8

1.8 2.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 7: Capability Assessment (58 items)

11

FEMA SECTION: Mitigation Strategy The mitigation strategy section of the FEMA requirements aligns with the goals, policies and implementation principles, as shown in Table 1. FEMA requirements include local hazard mitigation goals, identification of mitigation actions, and implementation of mitigation actions. Goals Principle The goals principle consists of 13 items (see Table A.1 in the Appendix), including goals related to coordination, hazard losses and an overarching vision for mitigation. The overall average goals scores in the states of around half the 10.0 possible indicate moderate quality for goals (Figure 8). The most common goals were reducing property damages, protection public safety and increasing availability of information, while goals related to increasing resilience and sustainability and reducing inequitable distribution of impacts were least common. The states’ average goals scores are very similar.


Policies Principle The policies principle consists of 43 items (see Table A.1 in Appendix), with items for each of the following types of mitigation approaches: property protection, public information and awareness, preventative land use, emergency services, structural controls, post-disaster recovery, and protection of natural mitigation features. Most jurisdictions include a narrow range of policies, as indicated by the average scores around one-third to one-quarter of the 10.0 possible (Figure 9). Georgia and North Carolina are including the widest range of policies, while California, Florida, and Texas include the narrowest ranges.

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.2 4.7 5.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 8: Goals Principle (13 items)

12


Preventative Land Use Approaches Few jurisdictions are including land use approaches in their mitigation plans – two or less approaches on average were present in each of the states (Figure 10). The most common preventative land use approaches included in the plans were acquisition, subdivision regulations and permitted land use regulations, although each of those was present in less than 33% of plans. Density transfer provisions and post-disaster development moratoria were very rare. North Carolina and Georgia scores are the two highest on average because of occasional inclusion of the more common land use approaches.


2.3 2.1 3.6 3.5

2.4 2.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 9: Policies Principle (43 items)

0.6 0.5 1.6 2.0

0.4 0.8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 10: Preventative Land Use Approaches

(18 items)

13

Property Protection Approaches There was limited inclusion of property protection approaches in plans, as indicated by the average scores shown in Figure 11. The most common property protection approaches were building standard regulations, retrofitting public structures, and adjustments to public infrastructure, while freeboard requirements (i.e. clearance above expected flood levels) and changes to post-disaster building standards were least common. Jurisdictions in Georgia and North Carolina include more types of property protection approaches on average than jurisdictions in other states, particularly building standard regulations.


Public Information and Awareness Approaches Most plans include a narrow range of actions to inform the public about hazard mitigation, as indicated by the average scores around one-third of the total possible 10.0 (Figure 12.) The most common public information and awareness approaches are educational awareness programs and developing and updating data. Real estate disclosures (mandatory and voluntary) and posting signs in hazardous locations are least common. Georgia and North Carolina jurisdictions average the broadest range of public information and awareness approaches because plans often include approaches related to education awareness, developing and updating data, and technical assistance to developers and the general public.

3.4 2.9 4.3 3.8 3.0 3.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 11: Property Protection Approaches

(7 items)

14


Emergency Services Approaches Plans include the broadest range of emergency services approaches to mitigation, which should be considered preparedness and response measures and not mitigation measures (Figure 13). The most commonly included emergency services approaches are disaster warnings, emergency response capabilities (e.g. updating emergency operations centers, buying generators, and vehicles) and maintaining communications and utilities (e.g. buying radios). Notably, jurisdictions in Georgia include almost all of the emergency services approaches in their plans, whereas jurisdictions in each of the other states lack one or more of the approaches.


3.3 1.8

3.4 4.5

3.3 3.6

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 12: Public Information and Awareness Approaches

(8 items)

4.9 5.1

8.9

6.1 5.8 5.3

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 13: Emergency Services Approaches

(6 items)

15

Structural Controls Approaches Plans include a fairly narrow range of structural control approaches, as indicated in Figure 14. The most common structural control approaches were stormwater controls, followed by physical structures (e.g. levees and seawalls), and finally beach nourishment. Florida and Texas jurisdictions include more types of structural control approaches on average than the other states, particularly stormwater controls.


Implementation Principle The implementation principle is a ratio (see Table A.1 in Appendix), with items for the responsible agency, timeline, and expected cost for policies proposed in the mitigation strategy. The average scores indicate moderate to high levels of inclusion of information about agencies responsible, timelines and costs for actions proposed in mitigation strategies (Figure 15). The states’ average scores vary widely, from roughly one-third of the total 10.0 possible to more than two-thirds of the total possible. Jurisdictions in Florida and Texas have the highest average implementation scores – likely because their plans include a narrow range of project-oriented approaches with responsible agencies, timelines and costs that are relatively straightforward to determine.

2.2 4.2

3.2 2.8 3.9 3.3

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 14: Structural Controls Approaches

(3 items)

16


FEMA SECTION: Plan Maintenance The plan maintenance section of the FEMA requirements aligns with the monitoring and inter-organizational coordination principles of plan quality. FEMA requirements include monitoring, evaluating and updating the plan, incorporating the plan into existing planning mechanisms, and continued public involvement. Monitoring Principle The monitoring principle consists of 6 items (see Table A.1 in Appendix), including items related to identifying parties to be involved in future plan updates: indicators to be used in monitoring and identifying obstacles to implementation. The plans have low scores on average in each of the six states (Figure 16). All of the states’ average scores are around one-third of the total possible score. Almost all plans identify the agency with lead responsibility for monitoring the plan and indicate that the public will be involved in future monitoring and updating of the plan. However, very few plans include indicators for tracking progress or identify obstacles to implementation faced in the past. There is little variation across the states.

5.1 6.8

3.6

5.8 7.3

6.2

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 15: Implementation Principle

(Ratio)

17


Inter-Organizational Coordination Principle The inter-organization coordination principle consisted of 13 items (see Table A.1 in Appendix), including items related to conflict resolution procedures and coordination of the mitigation plan with other plans. Average inter-organizational coordination scores are very low, or below one-quarter of the total possible 10.0 score, indicating that all plans did a poor job of linking mitigation to other planning initiatives (Figure 17). Most plans provided a general description of the process by which the mitigation plan would be integrated with other planning efforts and referenced the local comprehensive plan. However, few mitigation plans referenced specific components of the comprehensive plan relevant to mitigation (e.g. fact base and goals) or other planning initiatives relevant to mitigation (e.g. disaster recovery plans, climate change planning, and hazard mitigation planning in adjacent jurisdictions). While all the states’ average scores are low, Florida and North Carolina have the highest average scores due to provision of more detail about comprehensive plans, and many Florida plans included descriptions of how conflicts in ongoing implementation would be resolved.

3.3 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 16: Monitoring Principle (6 items)

18


Conclusion

In summary, local hazard mitigation plan quality is moderate to weak overall and varies widely across the principles of plan quality and across the six states in our study. The highest scoring principles (i.e. goals, participation and implementation) indicate that jurisdictions are paying attention to critical planning issues, although even for these high scoring principles considerable room for improvement remains. As argued by Berke, Smith and Lyles (2012), when a plan pays limited attention to even one principle, the usefulness of a plan for setting a community’s mitigation direction and shaping its ongoing actions can suffer. Thus, the low scores on four of the seven principles (fact base, policies, monitoring and inter-organization coordination) point to major weaknesses that need to be addressed in future updates to local plans, which are required every five years. Our findings align very closely with those of Kang and colleagues, who studied DMA-compliant local mitigation plans in Texas and are consistent with the general pattern of plan quality scores across multiple planning domains (Kang, Peacock, and Hussein 2010 and Berke and Godschalk 2009). Additionally, the findings are quite consistent with a companion study of state hazard mitigation plans adopted under the DMA, which found wide variation in plan quality from state to state and considerable room for improvement in plan quality (Berke, Smith and Lyles 2009). Findings related to specific principles that are similar between state and local plans include goals that address core issues like reducing loss of life and property damage, but not cross-cutting issues such as increasing resilience and sustainability; limited inclusion of preventative land use approaches; and weak monitoring provisions. While the high number of local jurisdictions that have adopted local mitigation plans points to a positive impact of the DMA on local governments’ willingness to undertake mitigation planning, this study clearly indicates that the quality of local mitigation planning needs improvement in critical areas. These improvements include adopting broader sets of mitigation approaches (i.e. policies principles), better coordinating mitigation with other planning initiatives, and improving monitoring provisions.

1.7 2.5

1.4 2.3

1.2 1.8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Texas Washington

Figure 17: Inter-Organizational Coordination Principle

(13 items)

19

References Beatley, T., D. Brower, and A. Schwab. 2002. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Berke, P., D. Godschalk, and E.J. Kaiser. 2006. Urban Land Use Planning, Fifth Edition. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Berke, P. and D. Godschalk. 2009. Searching for the Good Plan: A Meta-Analysis of Plan Quality Studies, Journal of Planning Literature 23(3): 227-240. Berke, P., G. Smith and W. Lyles. 2012. Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act. Natural Hazards Review. 13: 139-150. Burby, R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, R. Deyle, S. French, D. Godschalk, E. Kaiser, J. Kartez, R. Patterson, and R. Platt. 1999. Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resistant Communities, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65 (3): 247-258. FEMA. 2004. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3115). Washington, D.C. FEMA. 2008. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3336). Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Hazard Mitigation Planning,” Url: http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm cited in Kang et al. 2010. Godschalk, D. R., T. Beatley, P. R. Berke, D. J. Brower, and E. J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kang, J.E., W.G. Peacock, and R. Husein. 2010. An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans in Texas. Journal of Disaster Research. 5(5): 520-528. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Lyles, W., P. Berke, and G. Smith. 2012. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality in Four Coastal States. Working Paper. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004. “Population Trends Along the Coastal United State 1980-2008.” [Online] Available at: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/pdfs/coastal_pop_trends_complete.pdf Accessed September 2007.

20

Nolan, J. 2009. Climate change and sustainable development: The quest for green communities. Planning and Environmental Law. 61 (10): 3-7. Olonilua, O.O. and O. Ibitayo, 2011. Toward multihazard mitigation: An evaluation of FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Journal of Emergency Management. 9(1): 37-49. Smith, G. 2009. Planning for Sustainable and Disaster Resilient Communities. In Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters, ed. John Pine. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 221-247.

21

APPENDIX

Table A.1 Plan Quality Principles and Items Goals Principle (13 Items)

1. Coordination -‐ Increase

Information Availability 2. Coordination -‐ Local-‐Local

Coordination 3. Coordination -‐ State-‐Local

Coordination 4. Hazard Loss -‐ Distributes

Hazards Management Costs Equitably

5. Hazard Loss -‐ Minimize Fiscal Impacts of Disasters

6. Hazard Loss -‐ Protect Public Safety

7. Hazard Loss -‐ Reduce Damage to Private Property

8. Hazard Loss -‐ Reduce Damage to Property in General

9. Hazard Loss -‐ Reduce Damage to Public Property

10. Hazard Loss -‐ Reduce Impacts on Environment and Natural Areas

11. Overarching Vision -‐ Increase Resilience

12. Overarching Vision -‐ Promote Sustainability

13. Objectives

Fact Base Principle (101 Items) Plan Assesses Whether Following Hazards Are Relevant to Participating Jurisdictions:

1. Climate Change 2. Coastal Erosion 3. Dam Failure 4. Drought 5. Earthquakes 6. Extreme Temperatures (Cold) 7. Extreme Temperatures (Heat) 8. Fire 9. Floods 10. Hurricanes/Coastal Storms

11. Landslides 12. Man Made/Technological 13. Other 14. Sea Level Rise 15. Severe Storms 16. Subsidence/Sinkholes 17. Tornadoes 18. Tsunamis 19. Volcanoes 20. Winter Storm

Additional Hazard Assessment Items:

21. Identifies Factors Used in Prioritizing Hazards

22. Describes Classification System for Prioritizing Hazards

23. Delineates likelihood of flood events *

24. Delineates location and boundaries of hazardous areas for flood hazards *

25. Delineates magnitude and severity of flood hazards *

26. Describes separate characteristics of flood hazards *

27. Includes information of previous flood events *

28. Delineates likelihood of coastal storms *

22

29. Delineates location and boundaries of hazardous areas for coastal storms *

30. Delineates magnitude and severity of coastal storms *

31. Describes separate characteristics of coastal storms *

32. Includes information of previous coastal storms *

Plan Assesses Vulnerabilities of the Following:

33. Environmental Assets * 34. Especially Vulnerable

Populations * 35. Land Use Trends *

36. Population * 37. Private Property * 38. Repetitive Loss Properties * 39. Critical Facilities *

Plan Includes Following Risk Assessment Features:

40. Conducts Systematic Risk Assessment *

41. Provides Loss Estimates for Private Structures *

42. Provides Loss Estimates for Public Structures *

43. Conducts Multi-‐Hazard Risk Assessment *

Plan Addresses Following Federal and State Policies and Program:

44. FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program *

45. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program *

46. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program *

47. FEMA Pre-‐Disaster Mitigation Program *

48. FEMA Public Assistance Program *

49. Community Development Block Grant Program *

50. National Flood Insurance Program/Community Rating System *

51. Other Federal Programs * 52. State Coastal Management

Programs * 53. State Emergency Management

Programs * 54. State Mitigation Specific

Programs * 55. State Land Conservation

Programs * 56. State Natural Resource

Programs * 57. State Planning Programs * 58. State Transportation Programs

*

The fact base principle also includes assessment of 43 different capabilities for mitigating hazards. The list of policies and actions for which the capabilities were assessed is identical to the policies and actions items under the Policies Principle (see below). The measurement scale for the assessment of capabilities under the Fact Base Principle was ordinal (0, 1 and 2).

Policies Principle (43 Items) Items measure whether 43 policies were included as part of the plans’ future-oriented mitigation strategies. The policies assessed are the same for which the capabilities were assessed. All policies are measured using the binary, present/not present scale.

23

1. Elevation of Structures 2. Building Standards 3. Freeboard Requirement 4. Adjust Public Infrastructure 5. Retrofit Existing Public

Facilities 6. Building Design Change 7. Retrofitting of Private

Structures 8. Assessment Tools 9. Develop or update data 10. Educational Awareness 11. Encourage Insurance Purchase 12. Post Signs indicating

hazardous areas 13. Tech Assistance for

Developers/Public 14. Voluntary Real Estate Hazard

Disclosure 15. Mandatory Real Estate Hazard

Disclosure 16. Land Acquisition 17. Structure Acquisition 18. Density Bonuses 19. Tax Abatement 20. Cluster Development 21. Density of Land Use

22. Density Transfer Provision 23. Hazards included in Land

Suitability Analysis 24. Permitted Land Use 25. Setbacks or Buffer Zones 26. Site Review 27. Special Study/ Impact Fees

Assessment 28. Subdivision Regulation 29. Zoning Overlays 30. Site Public Facilities 31. Development Moratorium 32. Land Use Change 33. Postdisaster capital

improvements adjustments 34. Disaster Warning 35. Communications and Utilities 36. Emergency Plans 37. Emergency Response

Capability 38. Evacuation 39. Sheltering 40. Beach Nourishment 41. Physical Structures 42. Storm Water Controls 43. Protect Natural Mitigation

Features

Implementation Principle (Ratio) Three types of implementation-related information – responsible agency, timeline and expected cost – were assessed for all 43 items included under Policies principle. Ratio is calculated by dividing the observed county of implementation-related information by the number of items observed for Policies principle, in order to condition the implementation score on the possible score for the jurisdiction.

Inter-Organizational Coordination Principle (13 Items)

1. Conflict Management/Dispute Resolution Procedures Described *

2. Process of Incorporating into other Planning Mechanisms *

3. Adjacent Jurisdiction Hazard Plans *

4. Climate Change Plan * 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Overall *

24

6. Comprehensive Plan Fact Base *

7. Comprehensive Plan Goals * 8. Comprehensive Plan

Monitoring and Implementation *

9. Comprehensive Plan Strategy and Policies *

10. Disaster Recovery Plan * 11. Emergency Operations Plan * 12. Flood Mitigation Plan * 13. State Hazard Mitigation Plan *

Monitoring Principle (6 Items)

1. Identifies Obstacles Faced in

Implementation * 2. Tracking Losses Post Disaster

Event * 3. Tracking Use of Post-‐Disaster

Funds *

4. Identifies Parties to be Involved in Future Updates/Monitoring

5. Indicators for Monitoring 6. Public Involvement in

Updates/Monitoring

Participation Principle (10 Items)

1. Documents Process to Develop & Update Plan *

2. Identifies Organizations Roles to Support Plan Development *

3. Identifies Why Organizations Were Involved *

4. Public Engagement Techniques – Citizen Advisory Committee

5. Public Engagement Techniques – Identifies Emergent Organizations

6. Public Engagement Techniques – Information Distribution

7. Public Engagement Techniques – Open Meetings/Workshops

8. Public Engagement Techniques – Targeted Outreach

9. Public Engagement Techniques – Public Notice

10. Public Engagement Techniques – Website

25

i The FEMA Blue Book also requires a repetitive loss mitigation strategy, which describes how the state intends to reduce flood-related losses to properties insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The strategy also is required to describe how the state’s actions are achieved in coordination with local jurisdictions. We did not include a stand-alone repetitive loss section in our analysis as the repetitive loss strategy is part of the overall mitigation strategy. Instead, we incorporated repetitive loss components into the mitigation strategy as part of our analysis. Additionally, states can opt to pursue an Enhanced plan status, which includes all of the standard plan components plus topics addressing integration with other planning initiatives, project implementation and program management capabilities, an assessment of mitigation actions, effective use of mitigation funding, and commitment to a comprehensive mitigation program. We have only included data related to the standard plan requirements in this study. ii Many local hazard mitigation plans are multi-jurisdictional, in which case two or more jurisdictions adopting the same overall plan but some components of the plan are individualized to each participating jurisdiction. In the sample, the 115 jurisdictions participated in 62 distinct plans in total – 21 plans in Florida, 11 in Georgia, 21 in North Carolina and 9 in Texas. iii Categorization of a jurisdiction as coastal was done by using the definition for coastal set by states in accordance to the Coastal Zone Management Act. iv Jurisdictions under 2,500 in population were eliminated from the sampling frame because their preponderance would skew the sample towards very small communities with low capacity for mitigation planning. Jurisdictions with populations over 750,000 (e.g. Miami-Dade FL) were also removed to ensure comparability in planning complexity and capacity with over jurisdictions in the sample. v Under FEMA guidelines (FEMA 2004) local mitigation plans must include four main components. The components align with the principles of plan quality assessed in this study. Direction Setting Principles: the fact base principle corresponds to FEMA’s Risk Assessment; the policies principle includes elements of FEMA’s Mitigation Strategy; the goals principle include with aspects of FEMA’s Mitigation Strategy. Action Oriented Principles: the participation principle includes FEMA’s Planning Process; the implementation and monitoring correspond to FEMA’s Plan Maintenance Process. vi The coding scales used here follow Berke, Smith and Lyles (2012). In particular, see footnote 6 in that paper regarding the theoretical rationale for using a combination of binary and ordinal items rather than only binary or only ordinal items. vii Percent agreement scores were calculated for each of the seven principles and for the individual items comprising the principles. The principle with the highest percent agreement was monitoring (92.6%) and the lowest was participation (83.1%). The percent agreement for the individual items ranged from 53.1% to 100%.