19hazardreduction.pdf

State

of the

Art

Timothy

Beatley

and David

R.

Godschalk

The

state of the art in using

development

management

strategies to reduce hurricane hazards is explored througha 1984 survey of hurricane-pronelocalities in 19states. Contrary to

some

of thehazardmitigation

literature, results

show

notonlyahighpriorityforhazardmitigationbut also a highreliance

on development

management

approaches, as

compared

with building, strengthening,

and

environmental alteration.

Untilrecently, theplans

and programs employed

by

coastal

communities

tohelp mitigate hurricane

and

severe storm impacts have been poorly docu-mented.

Our

researchseeks abetterunderstanding

oflocalhazardmitigationmeasures

and

their

effec-tivenessinreducing storm threats.

To

gather

infor-mation,

we

mailedaquestionnaireto planners

and

public officials in high-hazard coastal localities in

nineteen states.

The

questionnaire asked:

1.

What

types of

programs

and

measures

(including

development

management)

are currently

employed

by

coastallocalities to reduce hurricane

and

storm hazards? 2.

How

effective are these

programs

and

measures at reducing storm hazards? 3.

What

are the

major

characteristics

and

at-tributesof coastaldevelopment,

and what

are the factors

which

influence these patterns?

4.

What

are themajorfactors

which

influence thepoliticalfeasibility

and

acceptabilityof

hazard mitigation measures,

and

specifi-cally

development

management?

5.

What

are thefactors

which

influence the effectiveness of mitigation

programs

and

measures,

and

specifically

development

management?

This article synthesizes information

from

the surveyfindings.1

_Among

_{thehighlightsofthese}

find-ings are:

• a surprisingly high priority for hazard

miti-gation;

• a surprisingly high

number

of adopted storm hazard reduction strategies;

• asurprisinglyhighdegreeofoperating

develop-ment

management

programs;

• a reasonably high effectiveness rating for overall reduction efforts.

Survey Population

The

questionnaire

was

designed to

document

mitigationeffortsofcoastal areas

most

susceptible

to hurricane

and

coastal stormforces. Rather than

selectlocalitiesaccording to

some

subjective

assess-ment

of hurricane risk,

we

decided that an

objec-tive selection could be appropriately based

on

"Velocity-Zone" or "V-Zone" designationsprovided

by

the Federal

Emergency

Management Agency

(FEMA)

under the National Flood Insurance

Pro-gram

(NFIP). V-zones are coastalwaterfront areas

which

are ofsufficientfetchtosupporta

minimum

three-foot

wave

atopthestillfloodwaters(seeU.S.

Army

Corps

of Engineers, 1975). In these areas,

higher actuarial flood insurance rates apply

and

special building provisionsarerequiredunderNFIP. All localitiesofover 1,000populationcontaining V-zonesweresurveyed.

The

population

was

determined

from the

FEMA

"communitiesfile," supplementedby

a

FEMA

listing oflocalities currently being studied

forV-zonedesignation.2_{Questionnaireswere mailed}

to636localitiesin18Gulf

and

Atlantic coaststates

Timothy Beatley is a

Doc-toralcandidateinthe

Depart-ment of City and Regional PlanningattheUniversityof

North Carolina at Chapel

Hill.Beatley currentlyworks

asaResearch Associateatthe

Center for Urban and Re-gionalStudiesinChapelHill.

DavidR.Godschalkisa pro-fessor ofplanningatthe Uni-versity ofNorthCarolinaat

Chapel Hill. He is the co-principal investigator ofthe National Science

Founda-tion-funded research project

from which this articlewas drawn. Godschalk has

publishedandtaught inthe fields ofland useand

envi-ronmentalplanning, negoti-ation,andhazardmitigation.

mitigatestorm and

hurricaneimpacts

velocityzone

designations

This article is based

on

information collected under

NSF

Grant

No. CEE-8217115, Hurricane

Hazard

Reduction

Through Development

characteristicsof hurricane-prone localities

storm hazardreduction strategies

(Alabama,

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,

Geor-gia, Louisiana, Maine,

Maryland,

Massachusetts,

Mississippi,

New

Hampshire,

New

Jersey,

New

York,

North

Carolina,

Rhode

Island,

South

Caro-lina, Texas, Virginia). Inaddition, thefour counties

in

Hawaii were

included.

Each

localitycontainingV-zonesreceived a ques-tionnaire in June, 1984.

As

of

December

1, 1984,

420 survey responses

had

been received, for a

response rate of 66 %.3

Respondent

Characteristics

Information

from

the questionnaire provides

useful insights into a

number

ofimportant

charac-teristics of hurricane-prone localities. Important

highlights include:

•

The

predominant

type ofexistingdevelopment

within the floodplains of hurricane-prone survey

communities

issingle-family detached

residential. Assessments of

new

development

indicate that ahigh degreeofmulti-family

and

commercial

construction (including

commer-cial, recreational

and

hotel/motel is sited in

coastal floodplains.

• In a significant

number

of the

communities

surveyed(overone-third), hazard-free

develop-ment

sites (sites outside of the 100-year

floodplain)

were

consideredtobeeither scarce

or very scarce.

•

More

than half of the survey respondents

(57%)

did not

know

how

long it

would

take

to evacuate their

communities

should a hur-ricane threaten.

About

one-half of these

respondentswerelocatedinjurisdictionsofless than 20,000 in population.

•

_The

majority of respondents

were

at least

somewhat

familiarwithstate

programs

assist-ing localities in storm hazard

management.

Most

had

received

some

typeofstateassistance inthepastfiveyears, with information

on

the NationalFloodInsurance

Program

and

floodplain

maps

beingthemostfrequenttypesofassistance. One-half ofthe respondentsalso indicated that their communities

had

received assistance with

disaster preparedness plans.

• In over half of the communities, a regional

agency

had

beeninvolvedinstormhazard

miti-gation.

The

most

frequenttype ofinvolvement

was

the preparation ofa regional evacuation

plan.

Storm

Threat Priority

The

surveyresultschallengepreviously held per-spectives

on

thelocal politicalsalienceofhurricane hazards.Currentliteraturedescribingthe politicsof natural hazardsdiscount their relative importance to public officials (e.g. Rossi,

Wright

and

Weber-Burchin 1982; Drabek,

Mushkatel

and

Kilijanek 1983).

We

expected similar results

from

our

ques-tionnaire. Overall,however, approximately

72%

of

the respondents indicated that their jurisdiction's

governing

body

considered the threat of severe coastal storms ofat least

medium

priorityin

com-parisonwith otherlocal issues. Closetohalfof the

respondents

(46%)

indicated the priority to be of

either high or very high priority. (Table 1)

Table 1

ElectedGoverningBody'sPriority for

Storm

Hazard

in

Comparison With Other

Local Isssues

Frequency Percent

Very

High

Priority 68 16.3

High

Priority 126 30.2

Medium

Priority 108 25.9

Low

Priority 85 20.4

Very

Low

Priority 30 7.2

N=417

Thus, inapparent contrastto

much

of the recent natural hazardsliterature, a substantialpercentage

ofcoastallocalitiesconsider thestormthreatofhigh

importanceas

compared

with otherlocal issues.

A

partialexplanationforthisis, of course, seeninthe

nature of the population.

These

are coastal areas

where

the full force of coastal storms is felt

and

where

people havethe

most

to lose(i.e.

where

the

risk to life

and

property is greatest) should a hur-ricane or severe storm occur.

Mitigation

Programs and

Their Effectiveness

The

survey asked about storm hazard reduction

strategies

and

aboutthe use of

programs

to alterthe

coastal environment, to strengthen buildings

and

facilities,

and

to

manage

development. Respondents

described

and

ranked theseapproaches

and

evalu-ated their effectiveness.

Explicit

Storm Hazard

Reduction Strategies

Respondents

were

asked if their locality

had

in addition to their participation in the National Flood InsuranceProgram. Surprisingly, abouthalf

(51%) of therespondentsindicated that an explicit

strategy did exist.

Those

who

indicated they

had

such a strategy were asked about specific strategy

objectives. Tenobjectiveswerelistedinthe question-nairewith respondents permittedtocircleas

many

objectives as

were

applicable.

The

two most

fre-quently selected objectives (by about

60%

of the

respondentsineachcase)were: conservingthe

pro-tectivefeatures of the natural

environment

and

in-creasingthe abilityofprivate structures

and

facilities to withstand storms.

The

two

objectives

most

closely related to

development

management

also received ahighpercentageofresponses:guiding

new

developmentintolesshazardousareas

and

locating public facilitiesin lesssusceptibleareas. (Table 2).

The

lowestrankedobjectiveswererelocation, either

of private or public structures

and

facilities.

Programs

to Structurally Alter the Coastal

Environment

Programs

which

structurally

modify

oralterthe

coastal

environment

include sand trapping struc-tures (e.g. groins, jetties), sand

moving

programs

(e.g. beach nourishment, beachscraping), shoreline

protection

works

(e.g. bulkheads, seawalls, revetments),

and

flood control

works

(e.g. dikes,

channels, retaining ponds) (U.S.

Army

Corps

of Engineers, 1981). Substantial use of each of these

approaches

was

found, although shoreline

protec-tion

works

was

a clearleaderwith

more

than

two-thirds of the responding localities indicating that

such measures

were

in use.

The

use of sand

trap-ping, sand

moving and

flood control

works

was

about even, with approximately one-third of the

responding localities using them.

Respondents

were

also asked to evaluate the

ef-fectivenessoftheseprogramsinreducinglocalstorm

hazards. Floodcontrol

works and

shoreline

protec-tionreceived the highest effectivenessratings, with

the remaining

two

categories falling considerably

behind.

Sand

trappingstructuresreceivedthelowest

rating even

though

they

were

used

by

almost as

many

localities as flood control works.

Programs

to Strengthen Buildings

and

Facilities

To

strengthen buildings

and

structures,

and

the private

and

public facilities that

accompany

them,

local

governments

rely

on

building codes,

NFIP

re-quirements,

and

construction standards.

Almost

all

L27

74 9. Relocation of existingpublicfacilitiesand

structures into less-hazardous areas 14

10 Relocation ofexistingprivatedevelopment

into lesshazardous areas 11

N=212

"Respondents were asked tocheckallrelevant categories

responding localities

had

a building code in place

(90%) and

had met

the

minimum

elevation

and

floodproofing standards required

by

FEMA

under

theprovisions of theNationalFloodInsurance

Pro-gram (94%)

(SeeConservation Foundation 1980for

areviewof

NFIP

requirements).

About

47%

of the

respondents

had

special storm resistant building

standards in place

and

well over one-third

were

floodproofingpublicfacilities

and

structures.

Only

15%

of the responding localities, however,

had

adopted elevation

and

floodproofing standards

which were

more

stringent than those required

under

NFIP

(Table 3).

Development

Management

Measures

"Development

management"

isdefinedtoinclude

"programs

and

policies

which

control or influence the location, density, timing

and

typeof

develop-ment which

occurs in a jurisdiction" (Godschalk,

Brower

et al 1979;

Brower

et al 1984 fora review

ofthisconcept).Respondents were askedtoindicate

from

a list

which development

management

tools

and

measures

were

currentlyused intheir jurisdic-tion,

and

the extent to

which

they serve to reduce

local storm hazards.

Specificdevelopment

management

measureswere

organizedundersixheadings:1)planning; 2)

develop-59.9 Table 2

Objectives of

Storm

Hazard

Reduction Strategy* Rank Order Frequency Percent

1. Increasingabilityofprivate structuresand

facilities inhazardousareastowithstand stormforces

2. Conservingprotective features of thenatural

environment(e.g. duneprotection) 3. Increasingevacuation capacity

4. Increasingability of public structuresand

facilitiesinhazardousareastowithstand storm forces

5. Locatingnewpublicfacilitiesandstructures inareaslesssusceptibletostorm hazards

6. Guidingnewprivatedevelopmentintoareas lesssusceptible tostorm hazards

7. Provision ofadequate storm shelters

8. Structurally-alteringand/orreinforcing the coastalenvironment (e.g. seawalls,

bulkheads)

26 59.4

oo _46.7

^8 46.2

96 45.3

o D 45.3

82 38.7

34.9

6.6

5.2

modifyingthe coastal

environment

developmentmanagement

strategicplacementof capital facilities

the popularity ofzoning and

subdivision regulations

ment

regulation; 3)publicfacilitiespolicy;4) taxation, financial

and

other incentives; 5) public acquisition;

and

6) information dissemination. Overall, 21

dif-ferentmeasures

were

listed in thisquestion, ranging

from

zoning

and

subdivision provisions to

below

market

property taxes. (Godschalk

and

Brower,

1985;McElyea,

Brower and

Godschalk, 1982for

an

application of these techniquestohazardmitigation).

Table 3

Programs

to Strengthen Buildings

and

Facilities

AverageEffectiveness

Frequency Percent (on a five-pointscale)

1. Minimum elevation

and flood-proofing

under

NFIP 394 93.8 3.86 2. Building

code 378 90.0 3.6

3. Special storm-resistant

standards

Table 4

Number

of

Development

Management

Measures

in

Use

198 47.1 4. Floodproofing

of public facilitiesand

structures 161 40.2 5. More

extensive elevation

and

floodproofing 62 14.8

N=420

3.82

3.47

3.94

Most

local

governments

areusing

some

form

of

development

management.

More

than seventy

per-cent of therespondentshavesixor

more

techniques currentlyinuse (Table4).

About

15%

haveeleven

or

more

of thesemeasuresin use.

The

majority of

localities, roughly

55%,

fallwithinthe6to10

mea-sure range.

The

most

popular measuresinuse include zoning, subdivision regulations,

and

planning.Table5lists

the

development

management

techniques in order

of frequency selected

by

respondents.

Development

regulation includestraditionalland

use controls, particularly zoning

and

subdivision

regulations.These

two

measuresarecurrentlyinuse

in

most

responding localities, including

87%

for

zoning

and

85%

for subdivision regulations.

Ap-Number

1-5

6-10 11-15

Over

15

N=420

Frequency 121 229 58

7

Percent 29.2 54.5 13.8 1.7

proximately halfof therespondentshaveshoreline

setbackprovisions, whileoverone-thirdhave

dune

protection

and

overa quarter have special hazard

area ordinances.

Under

planninginstruments, the comprehensive

or land use plan

was

the

most

frequently used (84%). Evacuationplansranked secondinfrequency at

66%,

while the capital

improvements program

rankedthird, withabouthalftherespondents

indi-cating its use.

Not

surprisingly, plans

and

policy

documents

dealing specifically with the reduction

ofstorm hazards

were

considerablyfewer in

num-ber.

About

19%

of therespondents

had

hurricane/

storm

components

intheircomprehensiveplans

and

about

21%

had

recovery/reconstruction plans or

policies.

Public facility policies concerning the construc-tion

and

location offacilities, structures

and

other public investmentscan be an important

means

of controllingdevelopment.Forty-sixpercent ofthe re-spondents noted that their locality

had

policy in

placetolocatepublicstructures

and

buildingsin

low

riskareas;

31%

indicatedthat their localityattempts

to discourage

development

in high hazard areas

throughthestrategicplacementofcapitalfacilities.

Unlikethe

more

general techniques, thesecapital fa-cilities approaches are explicitly storm hazard

related.

Threetypes ofmeasureswereincludedunderthe

headingof taxation

and

financial incentives:reduced

or

below market

taxation, impact taxes orspecial

assessments,

and

devices for the transfer of

devel-opment

potential.

Each

of these measures

was

specifically related to the mitigation of storm

hazards. Perhaps

due

to the narrowness of the

definition, relatively

few

respondentssaid theyare

using these techniques for such purposes. Impact

taxes/special assessments received the smallest

below

market taxation (11%).

Development

poten-tialtransfermeasureswere

more

popular, beingused

by

22%

of respondents.

An

effectiveapproach tostormhazardmitigation

is public acquisition of

undeveloped

land in high hazardareas,preemptingitsavailabilityforprivate

development.

One

option is to purchase the

fee-simple titlefor theland(all the rightsto theland),

whileanother option istopurchaseonlythe

"devel-opment

rights"tothisland(aneasementrestricting

development).

The

formerisa

more

traditional

ap-proach

and

29%

of the respondentsindicated that

suchan

approach was

in use,

compared

with

14%

using thesecond

approach

—

thepurchaseof

devel-opment

rights or easements in high hazard areas.

Veryfew

were

using

programs

topurchase

damaged

buildings

and

structures in hazard areas

(3%)

or

programs

to relocate structures outside of hazard

areas (2%).

Models

ofrationalbehaviorsuggestthat

individ-publicpurchaseof

development rights

Rank

Order

1

2 3 4 5 6

10

11 12

13

14 15

16

17

18 19

20

21

Table 5

Development

Management

Measures

in

Order

of Frequency

Used

Number

of

Survey

Type

of

Measure

Zoning

ordinance

Subdivision ordinance

Comprehensive/land

use plan

Evacuation plan

Shoreline setback regulation Capital

improvement program

Location of public structures

and

buildings to reduce storm risks

Dune

protection regulations

Location of capital facilities to reduce or

discourage

development

in high

hazard areas

Acquisition of undeveloped land in hazardous areas

Special hazard area ordinance

Hazard

disclosure requirements

in real estate transactions

Transfer of

development

potential

from

hazardous to

non-hazardous

sites Recovery/reconstruction plan or policies

Hurricane/storm

component

of

comprehensive plan

Construction practice seminars

Acquisition of

development

rights

or scenic easements

Reduced

or

below

market taxation

Acquisition of

damaged

buildings in hazardous areas

Building relocation

program

Impact taxes or special assessments

N=420

Communities

Using It Percent

368 86.6

359 85.5

352 83.8

278 66.2

225 53.6

222 52.1

193 46.0

159 37.9

131

121 109

107

31.2

28.8 26.0

25.5

89 21.2

88 21.0

81 19.3

65 15.5

58 13.8

45 10.7

14 3.3

2.1

Rank

Order

1

2 3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19

20 21

Table 6

Development

Management

Measures

in

Order

of Perceived Effectiveness

Average Effectiveness Rating

Type

of

Measure

Special hazard area ordinance Impact taxes or special assessments

Dune

protection regulations

Location of public structures to minimize risk

Acquisition of

undeveloped

land in hazardous areas Shoreline setback regulations

Evacuation plan

Acquisition of

damaged

buildings in hazardous areas Transfer of

development

potential

from

hazardous

to

non-hazardous

sites

Location of capital facilities to reduce or discourage

development

in high hazard areas

Hurricane/storm

component

of comprehensive plan

Building relocation

program

Construction practice seminars for buildings

Zoning

ordinance

Subdivsion ordinance

Reduced

or

below

market taxation

Recovery/reconstruction plan or policies

Comprehensive/land

use plan

Hazard

disclosure requirements

in real estate transactions

Acquisition of

development

rights or scenic easements

Capital

improvements program

N=420

(on a five-point scale)

3.85 3.75 3.68 3.66 3.61 3.59 3.54 3.54

3.44

3.41 3.34 3.33 3.22 3.15 3.06 3.02 2.99 2.94

2.92 2.88 2.55

construction practice

ualswill

make

responsible decisionsiftheyhave ac-cesstoalltherelevantinformation.Thishasspurred

interest in

programs

to inform the housing consu-mer, thedeveloper/builder

and

thegeneral public

aboutthe risksassociatedwithhurricanes

and

severe coastal storms (e.g. see

Palm

1981).

Two

types of

information dissemination

programs were

investi-gated: hazarddisclosure in real estatetransactions

and

construction practice seminars.

About

one-quarter of the respondents

had

hazard disclosure provisionsinplace, whileapproximately

15%

used

construction practice seminars.

Table6 presentsrankingsofthespecific

develop-ment

management

measures

by

their perceived

ef-fectiveness atreducinglocalstormhazards.

No

plan-ning approaches appearin thetop ten interms of

effectivenessatreducingstormhazards.Three regu-latoryapproaches are highlyrated: special hazard

area ordinances,

dune

protection regulations,

and

shorelinesetbackregulations. Bothpublicfacilities

policiesare perceivedto behighlyeffective, as are

programs

designedtoacquireundevelopedland

and

damaged

buildingsinhazardousareas. Impacttaxes

and programs which

transferdevelopmentpotential

from

hazardoustonon-hazardous sitesarealso

per-ceived as highlyeffective.In contrast,

among

those

programs

and

policiesperceived asleast effectiveat

reducingstorm hazardsarethefollowing(thelowest

five): capital

improvements

programs, acquisition

of

development

rights or sceniceasements, hazard

disclosure requirements, comprehensive/land use

Ranking

Mitigation

Approaches

Respondents

were

askedtorank the importance

ofthe threemitigationapproachesinreducingstorm hazards in their jurisdiction.

Of

the three ap-proaches,

development

management

received the

most

top rankings. Strengtheningbuildings

and

fa-cilities received the

most

second rankings, while

structuralreinforcement of thecoastalenvironment

received the

most

third rankings (Table 7). It should be

remembered

that this ranking is

relativetothespecificrespondinglocality.

That

is, even in circumstances

where

development

manage-mentisrankedthird(last)bya respondent,thelocality still

may

have a solid

and

innovative development

management

program. Itslower ranking

may

be

at-tributable, for instance, totheimportanceof struc-tural

improvements

(e.g., inthe case

where

a large

amount

of the hazard area has already been

developed.)

Overall Effectiveness

After considering all of thestrategies

and

tech-niques

employed

intheir jurisdictions, respondents

rated the

combined

effectivenessof theseatreducing

local storm hazards.

Most

felt that local

programs

were

at leastpartially effective.

Over

70%

believed

their

combined programs

wereeithermoderately

ef-fectiveorveryeffective, while onlyasmall

6%

be-lievedthese

programs were

noteffective atall.

The

majorityofrespondents

(58%)

placed their jurisdic-tions in the"moderately effective" category. Thus,

in

most

respondingareas,

room

forincreased

effec-tiveness exists (Table 8).

Feasibility of

Enactment and

Enforcement

A

primary

objective of the survey

was

toobtain

insights into factors

which

influence the political feasibilityof

development management.

Of

eleven possible obstaclestotheenactmentof

development

management

measures, thefollowingfivewere

most

frequently identified, with each chosen

by

nearly

seventy percent of the respondents: 1) thegeneral conservativeattitudetoward

government

control of privatepropertyrights; 2)a generalfeelingthatthe

community

can"weatherthestorm"; 3)lack of

ade-quatefinancial resources; 4) the existence of

more

pressinglocalproblems

and

concerns;

and

5)the op-position ofreal estate

and

development interests.In addition, theabsenceofpolitically-activeindividuals

and

groups advocating hurricane/stormmitigation,

while not as frequentlyselected,

was

rankedas an important obstacle.

Respondents

were

also asked to review several

popular

arguments

against

development

manage-ment and

toindicatethe extentto

which

thesehave

Table 7

Ranking

of the Mitigation Strategies Based

on

Overall

Importance in Reducing Local

Storm Hazard

Rankings

Most Least

Important Important

1 2 3

1. Structural reinforcement of coastalenvironment

N=397

87(21.9%) 118(29.7%) 192(48.4%)

2. Strengthening buildingsand

facilities

N=398

103(25.9%) 185 (46.5%) 110 (27.6%)

3. Development management

N=403

215 (53.4%) 90 (22.3%) 98(24.3%)

been important in their localities.

One

important

argument

against the

enactment

of

development

management

identified

by

respondents isthatsuch measureslead toincreaseddevelopmentcosts.Other arguments

which

were

deemed

importantsuggested:

1)decisionsaboutrisks

from

coastal stormsarebest

lefttothe individual; 2)

development

management

measures will

dampen

the local

economy;

and

3)

particular

development

management

measuresare

illegal or unconstitutional.

The

survey also sought to determine

whether

problemsexistinimplementing

and

enforcing those

development

management

measuresinplace.

About

halftherespondents

(49%)

indicated that they

had

encountered implementation or enforcement

prob-lems.

Of

these respondents, the

most

frequently

identified typeof

problem

was

thatof insufficient

funds. Public opposition, lack ofsupport

by

public

officials, lack of qualified personnel,

and an

insuf-ficientdata base werealso indicated asproblems

by

asignificantportionofthe respondents.Moreover, approximately one-third of therespondents

(33%)

indicatedthat theirlocalities

had

experienced

nega-tiveconsequencesas aresult of

development

man-agement

programs.

The most

frequentselection

by

an

overwhelming margin was an

increase in

con-struction costs.

theeffectivenessof

combined programs

opposition todevelopment

management

Analysis of Relations

From

theinformation containedin the

relationshipbetween

factors affecting mitigation strategies

feasibilityofmitigation

raisingtheawarenessof local officials

Table 8

Overall Effectiveness of

Storm

Mitigation Frequency Percent

1. Very effective 50 12.6

2. Moderately effective 231 58.0

3. Slightly effective 93 23.4

4.

Not

effective 24 6.0

N=398

toprovidecluesaboutinteractions

between

coastal

developmentpatterns, political feasibilityof mitiga-tion measures

and

perceived effectiveness of these

programs

at reducing storm hazards.

While

this

analysisispreliminary, severalinteresting

relation-ships emerged:

•

_The

extent of the coastal floodplaindeveloped appears to be positively influenced

by

the ex-tentofthelocality'sarea lyinginthefloodplain

and

the scarcity of hazard-free

development

sites. Also,

where

anagricultural

economy

still exists,

development

in the floodplain is likely

to be less substantial.

•

_Adoption

of an explicit storm hazard

mitiga-tion strategy is positively related to the

prior-itygivento thestormhazard

by

thelocal

gov-erningbody, thepercentage ofalocality'sland inthe coastal floodplain,

and

theproportionof

local

development

occurring in these hazard

areas.

•

About

60%

of the respondents indicated that their localities

had

experienceda hurricaneor

severestormsince1970.Thispaststorm experi-enceappearstobepositivelyassociatedwiththe

adoption of explicit storm hazard reduction

strategies

and

development

management

measures.

•

The

quantity of

new

development, as

measured

by

buildingpermitdata, ispositivelyassociated

withtheadoptionofexplicithazardreduction strategies

and

development

management

measures.

•Population size

and

number

of planning

per-sonnelarepositively associatedwith the

adop-tionofexplicithazard reductionstrategies

and

development

management

measures.

•

An

active role of regional agencies in storm hazardmitigation ispositively associatedwith

theadoptionof explicithazardreduction

strate-gies

and development

measures.

•

The

overalleffectiveness ofstormhazard

miti-gationprograms, including

development

man-agement, ispositively associatedwithpriority giventothestormthreat,

and

negatively

associ-atedwitha lack ofsupport

by

publicofficials.

As

well, areas thathaveexplicit storm hazard

reductionstrategiesare

more

likelyto have

ef-fective storm hazard

management

programs. •

Knowledge

of sources of state assistance is

positively associated with the effectiveness of

development

management

measures.

Implications for planning

The

preliminarysurvey findings suggest a

number

of implications for coastal planners

and

policy-makers

concerned with enacting

and

implementing

development

management

measurestoreducestorm

hazards.

Many

factors

and

community

characteris-ticsaffectthefeasibilityofhazardmitigation.

Some

are

beyond

thecontrol of planners, whileothers are

more

accessibletoinfluence.

Even though

planners can

do

littleto

change

thefixed factors, they

must

be

aware

ofthese constraints

when

designing their

programs.

Obviously, mitigationmeasureswillbe

more

feas-ible in localities

where

higher priority is given to

stormhazards. Planners can heighten awarenessof the severity

and

potentialdestructiveness ofstorm

forces, both

on

the part of the general public

and

localelectedofficials.

They

can connect concernover hurricanes with planning

and development

solu-tions. Sincemitigationeffortstend tobe

more

feas-iblein localities

which

have

had

recent experiences

withhurricanes

and

severe coastal storms,planners

can

highlight the

storm

histories of their

jurisdictions.

Mitigationprogramsare

more

feasiblein localities

oflargerpopulationsize,

and

withgreaterplanning

resources

and

personnel.

While

these factors

may

be largely

beyond

the control of local planners, higherlevels of

government

may

beable to

influ-encethem.Stategrants

which

supportthe

prepara-tionoflanduseplansand/or

which

allow fundsfor technical assistancehave

enhanced

many

states' local planning capacity. Regional agencies can also be used to supplement local personnel, resources

and

planningexpertise. In

many

states, regional agencies

have been instrumentalin raisingtheawarenessof

A

locality'sphysicalcharacteristics

and

develop-ment

patternspresentbothmitigation opportunities

and

mitigation constraints. Keeping

development

away

from hazardareaswilltendtobe

more

feasible

in localities

where

viable non-intensive usesforthese areas, such as agricultural activities, stillexist.

As

well,

development

pressures in hazard areas will

tend tobegreater

where

alternativesitesfor

devel-opment

are less available. In

many

circumstances

it simply

may

not be possible to prevent

develop-ment

in hazardousareas withoutentirelystopping

development

in the locality.

Storm

hazardpriorityisalsoaffected

by

physical

characteristics

and

patternsofdevelopment.

Where

the hazard area comprises a larger portion of the

locality,

and where

a high degree of

development

isalready occurringinthehazardzone, storm haz-ardpriorityisenhanced.Inthesesituations, the po-tentialdestructiveness ofstormsishardertoignore.

The

finding,

which shows

thatthe use of

develop-ment

management

is greater

where development

pressures are

more

extensive, supportsthis. It

sug-gests moreover, a kind of "tipping-point" theory

about the use of

development management.

The

needfor

management

programs

may

notexistuntil acritical level of

development

occurs.

The

trickfor

planners

and

policymakers concernedabout

mitiga-tion, then, isto

employ development

management

tools before the extent

and

pace of hazard zone

development

forecloses

any

possible future

reduc-tion in coastal

damages and

loss of life.

The

survey results also indicate the importance

ofpoliticalconstraintsto mitigation, including the opposition ofreal estate

and

developmentinterests,

and

the absence of politically-supportive groups.

Planners

must

begin to

work

withrealestate, busi-ness

and

other politically importantgroups in the

localitytoinform

them

ofthe benefits of mitigation.

Planners

may

alsoneedtonurture

and

developother

localconstituencies thatwillbepoliticallysupportive

of mitigation efforts. Recreation

and

conservation groups, forexample,

may

represent potentpolitical allies in the support of mitigation programs.

The

importance of

combining

storm hazard reduction

withothersalient localgoalscannot be overstated.

continued on page42

Wilmington StarNews

politicalconstraints to mitigation

intergovernmental

approaches

comprehensiveand

effective storm hazards

mitigation program

continuedfrom page 27

Coastal setbacksisanothertenable

means

of

devel-opment

management.

Coastal setbacks can assure protection ofbeachaccess

and

continued

develop-ment

of the local

economy

in addition to reducing

flooddamages. Localplanners

must

beginto

capital-ize

upon

this"strategic dovetailing" of localconcerns.

Higher levels of government,

and

particularly

states,

may

playan importantroleinassisting plan-ners

and

policy

makers

in overcominglocalpolitical opposition to hazardmitigation.

The

North

Caro-lina coastal

management

program

now

requires

coastal jurisdictionstodevelophurricane mitigation

and

post-storm reconstruction plans as part oftheir localland useplans.Thistypeof extra-local

require-ment

deflects politicalopposition

from

thelocal to

thestatelevel,

and

allowslocal supporterstopoint

to staterequirements for justification

and

support

for local efforts.

The

importanceof particular

arguments

against the use of

development

management

is also ap-parent

from

the survey. Thisstrongly suggests the

need for local planners to beable to explicitly ad-dress

and

respond to these challenges. Mitigation proponents shouldnotpermit argumentsagainstthe legalityorconstitutionality of a

proposed

develop-ment

management

measure, forexample, to jeopar-dize its adoption

and

effective implementation. Plannersshould be preparedto respond

knowledge-ably

and

authoritativelytotheseargumentsinorder

toinspirea

more

comprehensive

and

effectivestorm hazards mitigation

program

for high risk coastal

area.

NOTES

1. SeeBeatley,Brower,

Godschalk

and

Rohe, 1985, foracomplete reviewofthe findings ofthe

ques-tionnaire.Thisreportcanbe obtained

by

writing

totheCenterfor

Urban and

Regional Studies, 108

Battle Lane,

Chapel

Hill, N.C. 27514.

2. Thesewere communitiesfor

which

anadditional

wave

height (under a

new

methodology)

had

been

or

was

in the process of being computed.

As

a further check,

NFIP

State coordinators in

everysurveyedstate

were

askedfor

an

indepen-dentlistoflocalitieswith V-zonesintheirstates. Because

we

feltthatverysmall coastallocalities

were

unlikely to be undertaking

development

management

programs, localities of less than

1,000population(asofthe1980census)werenot surveyed.

3.

A

follow-uptonon-respondinglocalitiesallowed

ustoeliminate15localitieswithoutcoastalstorm

hazards, bringingouroverallsurvey population

to 621,

and

increasing the final response rateto about

68%.

REFERENCES

Beatley, Timothy,

David

J. Brower,

David

R. Godschalk,

and

William

M.

Rhoe. 1985.

Storm

Hazard

Reduction

Through

Development

Man-agement: Results of aSurvey of Hurricane-Prone

LocalitiesinNineteen CoastalStates. ChapelHill,

N.C:

University of

North

Carolina, Center for

Urban

and

Regional Studies, January.

Brower,

David

J.,

Candace

Carraway,

Thomas

Pollard,

and

C. Luther Propst. 1984.

Managing

Development

in Small Towns. Chicago:

APA

Planners Press.

Conservation Foundation. 1980. Flood

Hazard

Management

and

Natural Resource Protection,

Washington,

DC:

Preparedfor

FEMA,

October.

Drabek,

Thomas,

Alvin

Mushkatel and

Thomas

Kilijanek. 1983. Earthquake Mitigation Policy:

The

Experience of

Two

States. Boulder,

CO:

In-stitute of Behavioral Science, University of

Colorado.

Godschalk,

David

R.

and David

J. Brower. 1985.

"Mitigation Strategies

and

Integrated

Emergency

Management,"

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 45, January, pp. 64-71.

Godschalk,

David

R.,

David

J.

Brower

et. al. 1979.

Constitutional Issues of

Growth

Management.

Chicago: Planners Press, 1979.

McElyea,William

D,

David

J.

Brower and David

R. Godschalk. 1982. Before the Storm:

Managing

Development

to

Reduce

Hurricane

Damages.

ChapelHill,

N.C:

University of

North

Carolina,

Center for

Urban

and

Regional Studies.

Rossi, Peter,

James Wright and

Eleanor

Weber-Burchin. 1982. Natural

Hazards

and

Public Choice:

The

State

and

Local Politics of

Hazard

Mitigation.

Academic

Press.

U.S.

Army

Corps

ofEngineers. 1975. Guidelines for

IdentifyingCoastal

High Hazard

Zones.

Galves-ton District.

U.S.

Army

Corps

of Engineers. 1981.

Low

Cost

ShoreProtection:

A

Guide

for Local

Government