Sustainable Cities: Hazards and Disasters
•
4 likes•411 views
The document discusses hazard mitigation planning challenges in coastal North Carolina. It notes that while the 20 coastal counties all have certified hazard mitigation plans, implementing the policy recommendations remains uneven. There are difficulties balancing safety with development pressures, as structural mitigation like levees can encourage risky development. The National Flood Insurance Program also has limitations, as it does not adequately reflect flood risks and subsidizes hazardous areas. Key issues impacting hazard mitigation in the counties include population pressures, vulnerability to hazards, public support, and limited funding and staff to support mitigation efforts. The document concludes that building resilience will require helping counties balance safety and costs, and improving coordination of mitigation activities across different agencies.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Sustainable Cities: Hazards and Disasters
Similar to Sustainable Cities: Hazards and Disasters (20)
More from Anuradha Mukherji
More from Anuradha Mukherji (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Sustainable Cities: Hazards and Disasters
- 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)
- 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)
- 7. KEY CONCEPTS NATURAL DISASTER VULNERABILITY ABSOLUTE VS RELATIVE LOSS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CYCLE HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
- 8. NATURAL DISASTER HURRICANE HAIYAN (TYPHOON YOLANDA)
- 9. NATURAL DISASTER HURRICANE HAIYAN (TYPHOON YOLANDA)
- 10. HURRICANE HAIYAN (TYPHOON YOLANDA) NATURAL DISASTER
- 11. HURRICANE HAIYAN (TYPHOON YOLANDA) NATURAL DISASTER
- 12. HURRICANE HAIYAN (TYPHOON YOLANDA) NATURAL DISASTER
- 13. NATURAL DISASTER HURRICANE HAIYAN – NATURE OR MAN • Location – Risky low lying area, storm prone region • Meteorology – 195 mph, storm surge 6 meters high (2 stories) • Poverty – Extreme poverty, vulnerable coastal area • Construction – Poor flimsy construction, a third of houses with wood walls & grass roofs, weak storm shelters • Rapid Population Increase – Tripled from 76,000 to 221,000 in 40 years • Climate Change – Increased frequency and intensity of storms
- 14. VULNERABILITY • “Vulnerability is defined as the characteristics of a person or group that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, and recover from the impact of a hazard” • “Vulnerability is very relative – some experience higher level of vulnerability” • Some variables are: class, occupation, ethnicity, gender, health, disability, age, and immigration status (legal or illegal). • Vulnerability does not necessarily equate to financial poverty – wealthy living on the coast can be vulnerable to loss of property • Vulnerable to loss of life, health, livelihood, resources, assets, etc – not to be equated with capacity or ability to cope Ian Davis and Colleagues (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability & Disasters
- 15. ABSOLUTE vs RELATIVE LOSS • Absolute and Relative Loss (wealthy greater absolute loss; poor greater relative loss) • Wealthy also suffer losses in a disaster – but they hold resources such as home insurance, personal savings, financial assets, and stable employment – so able to recover faster • Low-income groups – have fewer assets, usually no insurance, no access to financial resources, and less diversified sources of income • Assets can include: Financial (cast, savings, loans, pensions); Physical (house, land, livestock, tools, equipment, gold), human (education, skills, knowledge, health); social (kinship networks, relations based on trust, access to institutions) Ian Davis and Colleagues (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability & Disasters
- 17. HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING • 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
- 18. This image is attributed to Aaron Forrest @ 2007 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Structural Mitigation: Levee
- 19. This image is attributed to Travis Morgan @ 2006 (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Structural Mitigation: Sea Wall
- 20. This image is attributed to Financial Times Limited @ 2013 Kirikiri, Otsuuchi Municipality, Iwate Prefecture, Japan Structural Mitigation Limits
- 21. 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
- 22. Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, Japan This image is attributed to Reuters @ 2012 Structural Mitigation Limits
- 23. Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, Japan Structural Mitigation Limits
- 24. • 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)
- 25. 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
- 26. 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).
- 27. WHAT: Hazard mitigation measures pursued & challenges ELEVATINGHOMES BUYOUT DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS OTHER ENC: Hazard Mitigation Measures
- 28. ENC: Hazard Mitigation Measures POPULATION&GEOGRAPHY VULNERABILITY PUBLICSUPPORT PLANISSUES WHY: Issues impacting decision to pursue hazard mitigation
- 29. ENC: Hazard Mitigation Measures FUNDING STAFF OTHER COPINGSTRATEGIES/ADAPTAION HOW: Resources for implementing hazard mitigation
- 30. 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
- 31. QUESTIONS??
Editor's Notes
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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