Public Participation in Local Government Review of Development Proposals in Hazardous Locations: Does it Matter, and What Do Local Government Planners Have to Do with It?
- 520 Downloads
Natural hazard investigators recommend that local governments adopt mitigation plans to help reduce hazard losses. However, such plans are unlikely to be effective unless a wide range of public stakeholders is involved in their creation. Previous research shows that stakeholder participation levels in hazard mitigation planning tend to be low, though there may be particular choices that local government planners can make to foster participation. We examine the importance of planners’ choices and role orientations (i.e., beliefs regarding appropriate behavior in the workplace) for participation levels in site plan review, wherein local governments review site plans for proposed development projects to ensure compliance between project design and applicable plans and policies. Using a national sample of 65 development projects located in areas subject to natural hazards, and bivariate and multivariate analyses, we examine whether participation levels during site plan review depend upon planners’ choices and role orientations, and whether participation levels are correlated with the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques into development projects. We find significant correlations between participation levels and planners’ choices, between participation levels and planner’s role orientations, and between participation levels and the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques. We encourage local government planners to revisit their beliefs, choices, and behaviors regarding public participation in site plan review.
KeywordsNatural hazard mitigation Public participation Land use planning Planners’ role orientations Implementation New Urbanism
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation [NSF Grant # CMS-0407720]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the editor of this journal for their helpful comments.
- Benveniste G (1989) Mastering the politics of planning: crafting credible plans and policies that make a difference. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Burby RJ, Cigler BA, French SP, Kaiser EJ, Kartez J, Roenigk D, Weist D, Whittington D (1991) Sharing environmental risks: how to control governments’ losses in natural disasters. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
- Callahan K (2007) Citizen participation: questions of diversity, equity and fairness. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy 13:53–68Google Scholar
- Cutter S (2001) American hazardscapes: the regionalization of hazards and disasters. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Godschalk DR, Kaiser EJ, Berke PR (1998) Integrating hazard mitigation and local land use planning. In: Burby RJ (ed) Cooperating with nature: confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, pp 85–118Google Scholar
- Godschalk DR, Beatley T, Berke P, Brower DJ, Kaiser EJ, Bohl CC, Goebel RM (1999) Natural hazard mitigation: recasting disaster policy and planning. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Howe E (1994) Acting on ethics in city planning. Center for Urban Policy Research, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- Insurance Information Institute (2009) Facts and statistics: Hurricanes. http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/hurricanes/. Accessed 12 Mar 2009
- International Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
- Leighley JE (1995) Attitudes, opportunities and incentives: a field essay on political participation. Political Research Quarterly 48:181–209Google Scholar
- Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
- Petak WJ, Atkisson AA (1982) Natural hazard risk assessment and public policy: anticipating the unexpected. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Song Y, Berke PR, Stevens MR (2009) Smart developments in dangerous locations: a reality check of existing New Urbanist developments. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 27:1–24Google Scholar
- United States Geological Survey (2007) Natural hazards—a national threat. Fact Sheet 2007–3009Google Scholar
- Warner J, Waalewijn P, Hilhorst D (2002) Public participation in disaster-prone watersheds: time for multi-stakeholder platforms? Paper for the Water and Climate Dialogue. Disaster Studies, Irrigation and Water Management Group, Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar