Planners’ Commitments and Role Orientations

1.3.1 Why Planner Characteristics Might Be Associated with Hazard

Mitigation

Given the important role that land use planning can theoretically play in helping to mitigate harm and damage from flood hazards, and given that local governments (on their own accord) have not taken advantage of land use planning to the extent that tremendous flood damages have been prevented, it would appear that there is a need for planners to be proactive and promote hazard mitigation within their own communities. In this study, it is expected that the degree to which they are successful in doing so will depend in part upon their own commitments and role orientations.

When planners review site plans for proposed development projects, they typically do so with a long list of regulatory concerns that could be addressed. The process of deciding which concerns to prioritize and how to address them often involves negotiation between planners and developers, and planners have discretion in determining how ordinances apply (Dalton, 1986, p. 148). It follows that the stronger planners’ commitment to hazard

mitigation, the greater priority they might place on mitigation during this negotiation process. But this priority does not necessarily translate into flood hazard mitigation “on the ground.” Caring about mitigation is one thing; actively and successfully promoting it is

success they have in doing so may depend in part upon their role orientations. The literature on planners’ role orientations has traditionally identified two primary role orientation

dimensions: one “technical” and one “political”. Barrett (2001, Foreward) argues that planners’ perspectives on what is ethical depend largely upon their role orientations. In particular, technical role orientations envision a planner who internalizes his/her own values and takes direction instead from elected officials, procedural manuals, etc., whereas political role orientations envision a planner that actively promotes his/her own values (and

conception of the public interest) in the planning process.

These general features of planners’ role orientations suggest that the likelihood that planners will actively pursue their own commitment to hazard mitigation will depend in part upon the relative strengths of their technical and political role orientations. The literature on role orientations (described in detail in Chapter 2) gives reason to believe that political role orientations are more effective than technical role orientations at enabling planners to achieve substantive goals, because strong political role orientations are deemed necessary in order for planners to successfully influence the land use planning game. Thus, for a given strength of commitment to a particular cause, the degree to which a planner (successfully) pursues that commitment should increase with the strength of his/her political role orientation, and decrease with the strength of his/her technical role orientation. As a result, planners with strong commitment to hazard mitigation and strong political role orientations can be expected to actively promote mitigation in the negotiation process with developers, not only seeking to ensure that minimal legal mitigation requirements are fulfilled, but also encouraging

developers to do more than is legally required. In this way, planners may be able to directly affect flood hazard mitigation in development projects.

In addition to moderating the relationship between planners’ commitment and flood hazard mitigation, role orientations might also have a direct influence on mitigation. Different role orientations may influence hazard mitigation in different ways because different orientations lead to different behaviors on the part of land use planners. For example, technical role orientations may inspire planners to focus on producing and

disseminating technical information (e.g. maps of hazardous areas, summaries of applicable regulations, etc.) to the public, and on providing “objective” advice to decision-makers (e.g. city councils and planning commissions). Whether such information and advice has a positive or negative influence on hazard mitigation will depend in large part upon the nature of the information. Political role orientations may lead planners to intentionally involve the public in the site plan review process. Given that public participation has generally been found to have a positive influence on local hazard mitigation efforts (e.g. Brody et al., 2003; Burby, 2003; Godschalk et al., 2003), planners who intentionally mobilize the public to participate may have a positive influence on hazard mitigation. Political role orientations may also lead planners to personally advocate for proposals and/or design features that are consistent with their own commitments. When they do so, their influence on hazard mitigation can be positive or negative, depending upon which issues they prioritize. For example, some issues (e.g. economic development and affordable housing) may be antithetical to hazard mitigation goals, in that they might encourage the development of hazardous areas for economic and residential uses at the possible expense of public safety.

In addition, planners may also be able to affect mitigation indirectly. Howe & Kaufman (1979, p. 251) argue that politically oriented planners are more likely than technically oriented planners to involve citizens in implementation, whether by mobilizing

support for particular proposals, neutralizing opposition to proposals, or in some other way. This is relevant for hazard mitigation because researchers have found a link between public participation and the success of implementing hazard mitigation plans. Godschalk et al. (2003 p. 750) note that without active citizen involvement in their preparation, plans for hazard mitigation can falter when efforts are made to implement recommended policies. Conversely, Burby (2003 p. 39) found that the success of implementing hazard mitigation measures proposed in plans doubled when the number of stakeholders who participated in making the plan increased from less than five to ten or more. This suggests that planners can affect mitigation indirectly by actively involving citizens in the site plan review process, which they are more likely to do as the strength of their political role orientations increase.

1.3.2 Why Planner Characteristics Might Not Be Associated with Hazard

Mitigation

Yet a strong commitment to mitigation and strong political role orientations may not be sufficient to guarantee that planners will be able to successfully promote flood hazard mitigation. A number of observers have argued that other entities may have more influence over the development and design of communities than planners do, and that much of the planning of American cities is carried out by individuals who are not members of the

planning profession (e.g. developers, business leaders, elected officials, bureaucrats in other disciplines, etc.) (Brooks, 1988, p. 241). Despite the important role that planners play in reviewing development project applications, the persons holding proprietary interests in land are often the “real land use planners” who determine what actually gets built, when it gets built, and what it looks like (Peiser, 1990, p. 496; Caldwell, 1993a, p. 30). Because new development poses the potential for increased tax revenues, most American cities (fearful of economic decline and stagnation) have afforded the large-scale developer a “red carpet

reception” (Brooks, 1988, p. 246). Planners are valued primarily to the extent that they “facilitate” the development process, and attempts to inject other values into that process are often tolerated only until such values get in the way of private entrepreneurship (ibid).

Peiser (1990, p. 496) contends that, while planners can enforce rules and regulations, their influence in affecting change is in recession and they no longer create the “grand

design.” Berke (2002) notes that, while up until the 1960s planning had a history of visionary ideas for guiding the development of towns, cities, and regions, claims have been

increasingly made that planning no longer commands a “centering” influence. A number of other authors observe that planners typically do not have the authority to implement their proposals or to make important decisions about public policy (Beckman, 1964; Ranney, 1969; Kaufman, 1979; Baum, 1983; Healey, 1991; Alexander, 1992). This lack of influence can be particularly frustrating for those that Peiser (1990, p. 496) calls “positive” planners, whose goal is to have a “positive” impact on the built environment. These planners have frequently discovered that planning does not have as much influence over America's built environment as they may have once thought it did.

It has been argued that the very nature of planning as a reactive, regulatory process places limits on what planners can achieve. Dalton's study of local planning agencies in California demonstrates the weaknesses of regulation for implementing plans (Dalton, 1989). Dalton notes that the reactive nature of the regulatory process leaves the initiative for

implementation in the hands of developers, rather than planners. Because planners are generally cast in a position of reacting to developers' initiatives, that very role limits their impact. Planners can tell developers what they cannot do, and suggest what they should do,

but the developer frequently makes the final decision concerning what will or will not happen (Peiser, 1990, p. 498).