State Mitigation Plans and the Disaster Mitigation Act: Do Plans Support Coastal Resiliency and Adaptation? Philip Berke, Professor* Deputy Director, Institute for the Environment Gavin.
Download ReportTranscript State Mitigation Plans and the Disaster Mitigation Act: Do Plans Support Coastal Resiliency and Adaptation? Philip Berke, Professor* Deputy Director, Institute for the Environment Gavin.
State Mitigation Plans and the Disaster Mitigation Act: Do Plans Support Coastal Resiliency and Adaptation? Philip Berke, Professor* Deputy Director, Institute for the Environment Gavin Smith, Associate Research Professor* Executive Director, Center for the Study of Natural Disasters & Hazards DHS Center of Excellence – Disasters, Coastal Infrastructure and Emergency Management Ward Lyles, Doctoral Candidate & Royster Fellow*, 2011 PERISHIP recipient *Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill National Hazard Mitigation Association Broomfield, CO July, 2011 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 • Motivation for DMA: – Rising disaster losses/HMGP implementation – Shift from reactive to proactive approach • Key Features of DMA: – Pre-event state and local plans – Federal mitigation funding – FEMA Blue Book guidance • Climate Adaptation Absent from DMA: – Adaptation not explicitly required in law or FEMA regulations; important future dimension of adaptation dialogue (Glavovic and Smith 2012) Key Research Questions • What is the quality of state and local mitigation plans prepared under the Disaster Mitigation Act? • What are the comparative strengths and weaknesses of state and local plans? • How well do state and local mitigation plans address adaptation to climate change? Plan Quality Principles • • Vision V1 Resilience/Sustainability • • • • • Goals G1 protect ecosystem services G2 reduce inequities G3 economic development G4 safety of population • • • • • Fact Base F1 location of hazards F2 number of people exposed F3 property value exposed F4 projections of loss • • • • • Policies P1 regulations P2 incentives P3 land acquisition P4 infrastructure Implementation I1 timeline to act I2 prioritized actions I3 organizational responsibility I4 funding Monitoring M1 measurable indicators M2 organizational responsibility M3 evaluation Inter-governmental Coordination C1 information sharing C2 inter-governmental agreements C3 conflict management procedures Plan Quality Principles: Links to FEMA Blue Book by Section 1. Goals: Loss reduction, organizational coordination, environmental protection, economic development 2. Fact Base: Hazard identification, risk assessment, capability assessment 3. Policies: Regulations, incentives, building codes, education 4. Implementation and Monitoring: Plan maintenance, capacity (funds, inspectors, technology) 5. Inter-governmental coordination: State review of local plans, set priorities for funding, technical assistance 6. Participation: Public engagement, private/public organizational involvement Resilience • Resilience … – “…the ability of social systems…along with the biophysical systems upon which they depend, to resist or absorb the impacts of natural hazards, to rapidly recover from those impacts and to reduce future vulnerabilities through adaptive strategies” (Peacock et al. 2008, p. 5). • Resilient city as the core goal of mitigation… – “Designed to anticipate impacts…composed of networked social communities…[capable of ] adapting to and learning from disasters…prepared with up-todate information…to reduce or eliminate vulnerability” (Beatley 2009, ch. 1). Principles of Mitigation Plan Quality & Links to Resiliency 1. Goals: Values of social system shape a vision of resiliency. 2. Fact base: Anticipate impacts, reduce uncertainty 3. Policies: Reduce vulnerabilities – avoid hazard areas, structural controls, protect biophysical systems 4. Implementation and Monitoring: Learning and adaptation 5. Inter-governmental coordination: Networked actions 6. Participation: Networked social systems Seaside, Florida: Smart Growth in Dumb Locations? Methods • Plan collection – – – – – 30 coastal state plans 174 local plans First updates (2006-2008) Online download Email and mail requests • Evaluation instrument – Developed and tested • Content analysis – Double-coded each plan using independent coders – Reliability analysis and score reconciliation (73% agreement) – Qualitative assessments of best practices Conclusions • State Hazard Mitigation Plans meet basic FEMA requirements but there is wide variability in plan quality. • Many plans score high on multiple principles, but 97% of plans below average on one or more key principles. • Limited discussion of land use as a risk assessment tool • Poor linkage between fact base and policy choices • Connectivity between the hazard mitigation and the planning community remains inadequate Policy Recommendations • State Plans – Strengthen FEMA review process to assess quality across all principles – Enhance emphasis on land use as a key mitigation tool – Expand enhanced plan designation to address plan quality principles, not just grants administration capability – Increase commitment of pre-event capacity building activities – Improve nexus between fact bases (risk assessment and capability assessment) and policy choices • Local Plans – Enhance emphasis on land use as a key mitigation tool – Increase commitment to identification of policies in addition to projects – Improve linkage between fact base and policy choices • Explore improving connectivity between hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation Links to Climate Change in State Hazard Mitigation Plans • Solid Foundation: Assessments of climatic hazards – – • 100% of state plans address floods 100% also address one or more of the following hazards: wildfire, drought, hurricanes, and winter storms Few plans mention climate change – – – 5 of 30 plans (17%) explicitly address climate adaptation California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire Others as part of plan update Climate Change: Fact Base Principle • Vulnerability and Risk Assessments – – – • Projected impacts emphasize sea level rise/coastal erosion, but also address storms, floods, and drought CA organizes suite of climatic hazards together in plan HI concerned with unique island vulnerabilities, including loss of indigenous knowledge Capability Assessments – – – Limited climate-oriented capability assessments MA explicitly references integration with MA Climate Protection Plan CT briefly references using flood warning program data to monitor climate change impacts Climate Change: Goals and Policies Principles • Goals and Objectives – – • Primarily studies, research and increasing understanding CT and NH include using adaptive strategies to reduce risks to infrastructure and natural environment Proposed Policies – – – Primarily research on impacts to increase understanding CT, HI, and NH also emphasize using new information to guide development regulation and infrastructure decisions CA includes mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as an adaptive action Current Project and Next Steps • Current Project – Year 3 – Complete plan evaluation, & state/local surveys – Year 4 – Analyze state and local plan quality and implementation – Year 5 – Conduct local case studies – Year 6 – Explore feasibility of a local demonstration project to apply best practices to state and local hazard mitigation plans • Ongoing and Future Projects (Possible connectivity to NHMA) – Seek funds to develop a new generation of web-based planning support tools • Strengthen local ability to carry out FEMA’s “cross-walk” across the plan quality principles – Implement new tools; disseminate to policy makers and other users – Develop and conduct training courses – Student internships and permanent jobs – University certificate program in hazards management planning – Create information clearinghouse, including best practices and mitigation guidance – Hazard mitigation advocacy