Assessing the Relationship Between Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality and Rural Status in a Cohort of 57 Counties from 3 States in the Southeastern U.S.

Abstract

Rural counties face unique challenges with regard to disaster vulnerability and resilience. We compared the quality of hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) completed in accordance with provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 from 21 urban and 36 rural counties in three southeastern states. HMPs were content analyzed to calculate a score for six principles of plan quality. Generalized linear models were used to assess how the mean number of items within each of the six principles was related to urban status, adjusting for total county population and state-level differences. Adjusted mean ratios were higher in urban areas for goals, fact base, policies and participation. Rural areas performed better than urban counterparts in both implementation and monitoring and inter-organizational coordination. Our results suggest that there are important differences in hazard mitigation plan quality between urban and rural counties. Future research should explore characteristics of urban and rural counties that explain the observed differences, OPEN ACCESSChallenges 2012, 3 184 and whether such differences can help explain the inequalities in response and recovery to disasters between urban and rural counties.

Assessing the Quality of Rural Hazard Mitigation Plans in the Southeastern United States

“…This is also an emerging issue in the field of climate adaptation planning. Horney et al (2012) reports similar discrepancies between urban and rural jurisdictions in a comparable study of fiftyseven counties' HMPs in the southeastern United States. Urban counties scored higher for all three direction-setting principles, probably because of the higher capacity of urban government agencies (i.e., GIS and risk assessment capability, more resources to dedicate to planning, more planning and emergency management personnel, and more time and staff to dedicate to public meetings).…”

“…Horney et al also notes that rural HMPs scored higher than urban plans for both the Implementation and Monitoring principle and the Inter-organizational Coordination principle. This observation is mainly attributed to the less complex nature of rural jurisdictions and a likely history of cooperation between a smaller number of employees and municipalities in rural areas (Horney et al 2012). Our study, however, reports low plan quality scores in general, as well as for both the Implementation and Inter-organizational Coordination principles in rural HMPs; future research might focus on achieving a better understanding of this divergence as well as identifying reasons for this, including potentially the use of consultants to prepare plans.…”

Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012

“…Stevens, Lyles, and Berke (2014) have addressed this issue in depth recently, identifying a number of specific recommendations for how to improve the reliability of plan quality data and the assessment and reporting of that reliability. Just two studies in our sample, Edwards and Haines (2007) and Horney et al (2012), explicitly noted that plans were independently coded, that disagreements among coders were reconciled, and that reliability scores were compared to a published standard; both used average percentage agreement and cited Miles and Huberman (1984, 1994).…”

“…Norton 2008; Bunnell and Jepson 2011) and the process-oriented factors that contribute to higher quality plans (cf. Berke et al 1996; Brody, Carrasco, and Highfield 2006; Horney et al 2012). This variety of uses of plan content analysis data illustrates how plan quality concepts are being used as dependent and independent variables in analysis aimed at refining and extending theories of how plans are and should be developed and how they are and should be implemented.…”

Evaluating the Quality of Official Community Plans in Southern British Columbia

“…The seven dimensions of plan quality that were conceptualized by Godschalk et al have subsequently been utilized by various other researchers in numerous additional plan quality studies. At least five studies examined all seven dimensions (Norton 2008; Kang, Peacock, and Husein 2010; Berke, Smith, and Lyles 2012; Berke et al 2013; Horney et al 2012), and at least seven studies examined six of the seven dimensions (Brody 2003b; Brody, Highfield, and Carrasco 2004; Tang 2008; Tang and Brody 2009; Tang et al 2010; Tang et al 2011; Evenson et al 2012). What follows is a description of these dimensions of plan quality.…”