Study implications 137

The study classified the most commonly used tools for planning in areas with transmission pipeline hazards. I found that communities use few tools to address pipeline hazards. Many use no tools, highlighting deficits in homeland security partnerships to protect pipeline infrastructure and a limited local emphasis critical infrastructure protection. The tools most commonly used were those that provided information about hazard locations. Regulatory and incentive tools were less frequently used than information tools. While these

138

findings echo concerns about local participation in homeland security planning (Reddick 2008), they also highlight a gap in research on how communities use different types of growth management tools for addressing hazard mitigation.

I found a statistically significant and positive association of perception of risk by environmental groups and pipeline operator groups with adoption of land use tools to

mitigate pipeline hazards. This finding illustrates the importance of perception of hazard risk for addressing development management outcomes for low-priority issues. The role of environmental groups was statistically significant and associated with adoption of regulatory tools and not information tools, illustrating the interest of environmental groups in achieving land use management that goes beyond information to protect the environment. In contrast, pipeline operator groups displayed statistically significant association with adoption of information tools, not regulatory tools. For planning practitioners, these findings illustrate how involvement of stakeholders with a perception of risk from a hazard can have a positive impact on local adoption of mitigation tools to address that hazard. Moreover, the results highlight how risk perception by different groups can influence adoption of specific

categories of policy tools. For planners concerned about pipeline issues, reaching out to these stakeholders could prove fruitful. Collaborations with emergency managers and other

planning departments could provide new ways to identify groups with a regional-level interest in these issues that could become active within planning processes.

Planning scholars have indicated the importance of commitment to achieving local mitigation goals. However, the results of this research suggest that commitment is

139

findings, practitioners should be aware that implementation of regulatory tools may require going beyond their agency’s commitment to mitigation.

Capacity for addressing pipeline hazards was associated with use of mitigation tools. The role of access to information about pipelines was especially interesting. Given the limited sources of information about pipelines that survey respondents used, the study illustrates that mitigation can be improved by addressing this knowledge gap. This finding exposes an opportunity for policymakers, pipeline operators, and planners, all of whom could facilitate risk reduction by shrinking the knowledge gap. The interviews in Chapter 4

revealed that some types of collaborative partnerships may address these deficiencies better than others. The full partnerships illustrated comprehensive knowledge sharing while information transmission in the other two partnerships was less inclusive and complete.

The study suggests continued research on exposure of marginalized groups to hazards remains necessary. Findings from Chapter 4 illustrate a statistical association of the variable for percent lower-income residents with a decrease in total tool use in the regression analysis. Additionally, I found pockets across the state where lower-income groups were clustered near transmission pipelines (Chapter 6). Land use scholars have identified inequalities in exposure to other hazards and planners should continue to reflect on these potential

disparities during land-use planning. Given that the study identified areas where vulnerable groups are exposed to pipeline hazards (Chapter 6), planners have a responsibility to take action to inform community members, introduce mitigation tools that address developed areas, and invite participation of affected community members in planning. The participation of these groups may help communities adopt community-wide hazard mitigation practices that can ameliorate potential effects of pipeline hazards. Nonetheless, given the findings in

140

Chapter 6 that the percentage of a block-group living under the poverty level dropped with distance from the pipeline, it may continue to be an issue of community capacity to address hazards rather than simply an issue of those living nearby. These contrasting findings are indicative of the nuances required to understand exposure to hazards and adequately address them.

Using interviews with planners and emergency managers, I assessed types of inter- agency collaboration and how these partnerships built capacity for pipeline hazard

mitigation. The results echo earlier findings that collaborative partnerships among local agencies can improve homeland security (Caruson & MacManus 2006), but go further by identifying how different types of collaborative groups build capacity. Some have noted the difficulties in addressing homeland security among agencies with different missions (Light 2004). This study illustrated that distinct types of collaboration influence capacity in

different ways, suggesting that some technical collaborations address these challenges better than others. Local governments can use this information to improve their partnerships so that the partnership meets mitigation goals. In the absence of interest or ability in improving the partnership, understanding a partnership’s limitations can also be helpful.