Measuring Tsunami Planning Capacity on U.S. Pacific Coast

Abstract

The U.S. Pacific coastal states are at risk from both locally and distantly generated tsunamis. This vulnerability can be reduced by effective hazard management plans, but no studies have been conducted to determine how local jurisdictions have incorporated tsunami hazard management into their planning frameworks. This paper analyzes the quality of hazard management plans from 43 coastal counties in these states. Plan quality was measured by a plan evaluation protocol defined by five components and 37 indicators. The results show that few Pacific coastal counties have prepared well for tsunamis. Most plans have a weak factual basis, unclear goals and objectives, weak policies, and few coordination and implementation mechanisms. The average plan quality score is 12.25 out of 50 points and 10 counties never mention tsunami risks in their local plans at all. This evaluation suggests that these jurisdictions need to build a solid factual basis about tsunami hazards, set appropriate goals and practical objectives, expand the array of tools used by planners, enhance interdisciplinary and interorganizational coordination mechanisms, and improve their mechanisms for plan implementation.

Using social network analysis to examine planner involvement in environmentally oriented planning processes led by non-planning professions

“…zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations) that direct people and property out of hazardous locations into safer areas and preserve ecosystem functions provide the best opportunities for reduction of long term hazard risks (Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley 1989;Godschalk et al 1999;Burby et al 1999;NRC 2006;Berke and Smith 2009). Land use approaches are usually inadequately integrated into hazard mitigation planning; however, planning for hazard mitigation in general is of moderate to weak quality (Berke and French 1994;Burby and Dalton 1994;Berke et al 1996;Burby and May 1997;Brody 2003;Tang et al 2008;Kang, Peacock and Hussein 2010;Olonilua and Ibitayo 2011). Multiple factors explain weak hazard mitigation planning and limited integration of land use approaches with hazards management, including elements of the state planning policy context, local community context, and the planning process (Berke and French 1994;Berke et al 1996;Burby andMay 1997, Prater andLindell 2000;Brody 2003;Burby 2003;Norton 2005;Brody, Kang, and Bernhardt 2009).…”

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is Properly Working?: Evaluation for the LHMP of Kumamoto City

“…By doing so, plan quality could be quantified and could be possibly compared with other cities or municipalities not a project-base but whole plan itself. With their efforts, its protocol has been used in many part of planning fields such as ecosystem management (Brody, 2003a), sustainable development (Berke and Conroy, 2000), plan quality associated with natural hazard emergency , planning theories with environmental plan quality (Tang and Brody, 2009), a local plan quality (Berke, Backhurst, Day, Ericksen, Laurian, Crawford, and Dixon, 2008), local environmental planning by evaluating comprehensive plan for each jurisdiction occupied by a significant wetland permit cluster (Brody and Highfield, 2005), measuring tsunami planning capacity (Tang, Lindell, Prater, and Brody, 2008), coastal zone land use planning capacity (Tang, 2008), climate change action plan quality (Tang, Brody, Quinn, Chang, and Wei, 2010), and evaluating local land use plans' Environmental Impact Review (Tang, Bright, and Brody, 2008). Actually, there are more than the above such as wild fire plan, landslide plan and so on.…”

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.

“…Table 1 provides a description of each principle, examples of their corresponding content, and a count of the number of items assessed in each principle. The item measures were replicated from previous research on hazard mitigation plan quality [18,19,22,27,28]. We used a nominal measure (1 = present, 0 = not present) as an indicator of whether a given item for a given principle was mentioned in the plan or not.…”

“…Direction setting principles include: (1) goals, which express future desired conditions grounded in community values; (2) a fact base, which provides the factual foundation about the hazards identified and the existing capabilities to reduce risks from those hazards; and (3) policies that guide actions to achieve goals. Action-oriented principles include: (1) implementation and monitoring, which provides information about how the community will carry out the proposed policies; (2) inter-organizational coordination, which identifies how organizations coordinate across levels of government and the across the public and private sectors; and (3) participation, which recognizes involvement of formal and informal actors engaged in the planning process [20][21][22].…”