Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Natural hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans The case of flood, wildfire and drought planning in Arizona

Natural hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans The case of flood, wildfire and drought... Purpose – Natural hazards such as floods, wildfires and droughts disrupt communities, their economies and environments, and cost millions every year. The existing literature on hazard mitigation shows that community resilience is best achieved when mitigation strategies are integrated with land use and comprehensive planning. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis uses a new plan evaluation protocol that integrates flood, wildfire and drought mitigation to evaluate the plans of the six largest and fastest growing counties in Arizona. Findings – The study finds that counties do not plan equally well for all hazards, that they tend to plan better for droughts than wildfires and floods, and indicates the need to improve hazard information in plans to support the adoption of mitigation goals, objectives and strategies. Research limitations/implications – The research is based on a small sample of comprehensive plans. It focuses on the content of plans rather than the causes that may explain this content or the implementation of the strategies included in the plans. Future research will thus need to analyze larger numbers of plans to identify the determinants of the degree to which comprehensive plans integrate hazard mitigation; and evaluate whether strategies advanced in plans are integrated with other planning documents and implemented. Practical implications – The paper makes recommendations to improve the plans evaluated and to guide planners as they develop or revise comprehensive plans in other jurisdictions subject to natural hazards. Originality/value – The key methodological contribution of the paper is the new plan evaluation protocol designed to assess the wildfire, drought and flood mitigation provisions in comprehensive plans. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Disaster Prevention and Management Emerald Publishing

Natural hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans The case of flood, wildfire and drought planning in Arizona

Download PDF
23 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/natural-hazard-mitigation-in-local-comprehensive-plans-the-case-of-YsFvhf1ae6

References (16)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0965-3562
DOI
10.1108/09653560610669936
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – Natural hazards such as floods, wildfires and droughts disrupt communities, their economies and environments, and cost millions every year. The existing literature on hazard mitigation shows that community resilience is best achieved when mitigation strategies are integrated with land use and comprehensive planning. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis uses a new plan evaluation protocol that integrates flood, wildfire and drought mitigation to evaluate the plans of the six largest and fastest growing counties in Arizona. Findings – The study finds that counties do not plan equally well for all hazards, that they tend to plan better for droughts than wildfires and floods, and indicates the need to improve hazard information in plans to support the adoption of mitigation goals, objectives and strategies. Research limitations/implications – The research is based on a small sample of comprehensive plans. It focuses on the content of plans rather than the causes that may explain this content or the implementation of the strategies included in the plans. Future research will thus need to analyze larger numbers of plans to identify the determinants of the degree to which comprehensive plans integrate hazard mitigation; and evaluate whether strategies advanced in plans are integrated with other planning documents and implemented. Practical implications – The paper makes recommendations to improve the plans evaluated and to guide planners as they develop or revise comprehensive plans in other jurisdictions subject to natural hazards. Originality/value – The key methodological contribution of the paper is the new plan evaluation protocol designed to assess the wildfire, drought and flood mitigation provisions in comprehensive plans.

Journal

Disaster Prevention and Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: May 1, 2006

Keywords: Natural disasters; Fire; Floods; Water supply; Contingency planning; United States of America

There are no references for this article.