What factors predict the quality of hazard mitigation plans in Washington State?

Abstract

Hazard mitigation plans can help to reduce communities’ losses when faced with natural hazards, some of which (e.g., floods) are projected to intensify with climate change. A growing body of plan evaluation literature seeks to measure the quality of these plans, given that higher-quality plans may be more likely to achieve their objectives (e.g., reducing a community’s losses from flooding). Processes of collaboration (i.e., joint decision-making by various agencies and stakeholders) and diffusion (i.e., the spread of ideas between jurisdictions over time and space), among others, may influence plan quality, although empirical evidence is limited. This study assessed potential predictors of plan quality for 33 county-level hazard mitigation plans in Washington State, using a combination of survey data, county characteristics, and previously determined plan quality scores. Significant predictors of plan quality included indicators of vertical (state-to-county) and horizontal (county-to-county) diffusion, as well as economic capacity, although indicators of collaborative dynamics, along with several other hypothesized predictors, including past disaster experience (i.e., severity) were not significant. Hazard planning professionals at the federal, state, and local levels may benefit from integrating these findings into future work, in conjunction with other climate change adaptation initiatives. Specifically, fostering peer-to-peer interactions between counties might help to produce and disseminate knowledge about climate solutions.

Data availability

Data and material are available from the author upon request.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 County data considered in assigning peer groups. W/E refers to location (western or eastern WA), and R/U refers to rural or urban counties. At a minimum, each county within an assigned peer group shares the same characteristics for both of these categories, with the exception of Garfield, a rural county that is grouped with urban counties because it participated in a combined plan with two urban counties. Legal refers to each county’s status regarding comprehensive planning, under the state’s Growth Management Act. Results of the 2016 US presidential election are used as a proxy for political views. Income is reported by median household (in US dollars). Education was derived from the percentage of population aged 25 and above holding bachelor’s or higher degree (1 is the lowest; 4 is the highest). Staff refers to the number of county-level emergency management staff indicated in each HMP

Appendix 2

Survey questionnaire. The purpose of question 1 was to reduce bias by checking that the survey captured its intended participants. Questions 2–5 drew from the Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) framework for collaborative governance and Ulibarri’s (2015) measures of collaboration dynamics leading to an output. Specifically, questions 2 and 3 probed principled engagement, and question 5 corresponded to capacity for joint action. Question 4 checked for a potential barrier to collaboration. Questions 6–19 explored potential diffusion (e.g., Gilardi 2016) with regard to mitigation strategies from the plan quality evaluation protocol

Introductory statement: Thank you for taking this survey. I will be asking about your perspectives towards the hazard mitigation planning process of a county in Washington State. The goal of this research is to gather information that could help emergency managers and planners. Your responses are anonymous and confidential, and you may choose to skip questions (although answering all of them would be very helpful). The survey takes about 15 minutes. On a mobile device, the survey looks best when the device is turned sideways.

• (1) Did you have a role in a county’s hazard mitigation planning process in Washington State? (yes/no)

  • a. (if yes) Which county? (if you were involved in more than one county, please choose the one where you spent the most time working on hazard planning) [dropdown menu with list of counties]

  • b. (if yes) What was your role? (open-ended)

  • c. (if yes) During what part of the process were you involved? (answer choices: towards the beginning; throughout the entire process; towards the end)

  • d. (if no) Thank you for your time; however, this survey is intended for people who were directly involved in a county’s hazard mitigation planning process. Could you please suggest 1 or more people who were involved, along with their email address(es) if possible? (open-ended; then end survey)

For the following statements, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree (if at all). Questions 2-5 were followed by Likert-scale options: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither disagree nor agree, somewhat agree, strongly agree.

• (2) The hazard planning process – from start to finish – involved all of the stakeholders (i.e., all of the people and groups that have a significant interest in the issues and outcome).

  • a. (if disagree) Who was missing from the planning process? (please check all that apply)

    • local agency/agencies

    • special district(s)

    • non-governmental organization(s)

    • state agency/agencies

    • federal agency/agencies

    • other (open-ended)

  • b. (if disagree) Could you provide any further details about who was missing from the planning process? For example, if you indicated “local agency/agencies,” which one(s)? (open-ended)

• (3) Representatives of different partner organizations agreed – from the beginning – about the goals of the hazard mitigation plan (Defining partner organizations as other agencies, businesses, or non-profit groups participating in a county’s hazard planning process).

• (4) The planning process was contentious.

  • a. (if agree) You mentioned that the planning process was contentious. Did that inhibit your ability to learn from others? (yes/no)

• (5) All of the partner organizations had access to information that was relevant to the hazard planning process.

• (6) Were you specifically involved in writing the county’s hazard mitigation plan document? (yes/no/other [open-ended])

  • a. (if yes, continue to question 7)

  • b. (if no or other, skip to question 20)

• (7) During the process of writing your county’s plan, did you search for information from any of the following sources? (please check all that apply)

  • federal government (e.g., FEMA)

  • state government(s) (e.g., WA Emergency Management Division)

  • other county/counties (in either WA or another state)

  • other participant(s) in your county’s planning process

  • smaller government(s) within your county (e.g., city)

  • consultant(s)

  • general online search (e.g., Google)

  • other (open-ended)

• (8) Could you provide any further details about where you searched for information? For example, if you searched in other county plan(s), which county/counties? (open-ended)

• (9) During the process of writing your county’s plan, did you adopt any strategies from other county/counties? (These counties could be in WA or other states.) [yes/no/other (open-ended)]

  • a. (if yes, continue to question 10)

  • b. (if no or other) Although you did not mention adopting strategies from other counties, did you adopt strategies from any other source(s)? If so, could you mention any particular source(s), and what strategies you adopted from them? (open-ended; then skip to question 20)

The next set of questions will ask about hazard planning strategies that you may have adopted from other counties.

• (10) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following general strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Discourage development in hazardous areas

• Support adoption of new regulatory legislation at local level

• Other (open-ended)

• (11) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following regulatory strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Permitted land use

• Low density conservation or other hazard zone

• Overlay zone with reduced density provisions

• Down zoning of floodplains

• Dedication of open space for hazards

• Policy to locate public facilities in zones not subject to hazards

• Transfer of development rights

• Cluster development

• Setbacks

• Site plan review

• Special study/impact assessment for development in hazard zones

• Building standards/building code

• Land and property acquisition

• Impact fees

• Retrofitting of private structures

• Separate hazard mitigation plan

• Relocation of structures out of hazard zones

• Other (open-ended)

• (12) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following incentive-based strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Tax abatement for using mitigation

• Density bonus

• Low interest loans

• Participation in National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

• Join Community Rating System (CRS)

• Other (open-ended)

• (13) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following structural strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Levees

• Seawalls

• Riprap

• Bulkheads

• Detention ponds

• Channel maintenance

• Wetland restoration

• Slope stabilization

• Storm water management

• Maintenance of structures

• Other (open-ended)

• (14) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following awareness/educational strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• General awareness

• Real estate hazard disclosure

• Disaster warning and response program

• Posting of signs indicating hazardous areas

• Technical assistance to developers or property owners for mitigation

• Maps of areas subject to hazards

• Inclusion of floodplain boundaries

• Education and training in several languages

• Hazard information center

  • Other (open-ended)

• (15) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following public facilities/infrastructure strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Capital Improvements Plan

• Retrofitting public structure

• Retrofitting critical facilities

• Other (open-ended)

• (16) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following recovery planning strategies from other counties? (please check all that apply)

• Land use change

• Building design change to meet enhanced safety standards

• Moratorium

• Recovery organization

• Private acquisition

• Financial recovery

• Other (open-ended)

• (17) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following emergency preparedness strategies from other counties’ plans? (please check all that apply)

• Evacuation

• Contingency plan

• Preparedness plan

• Require emergency plans

• Purchasing rescue materials

• Other (open-ended)

• (18) During the planning process, did you adopt any of the following natural resource protection strategies from other counties’ plans? (please check all that apply)

• General description of best management practice

• Forest and vegetation management in riparian areas

• Sediment and erosion control regulations

• Stream dumping regulations

• Urban forestry and landscape

• Other (open-ended)

• (19) You are almost finished with the survey. Did you adopt strategies from other counties for any of the following reasons? (please check all that apply)

• The strategies were successful in mitigating hazards in the other county/counties.

• The strategies seemed normal because the other county/counties had already adopted them.

• The strategies could help your county to compete economically with the other county/counties.

• Other (open-ended)

• (20) Lastly, would you be open to scheduling a follow-up interview?

  • a. (if yes) Please provide your name and email address, so that I can contact you about possibly setting up an interview. (open-ended)

Closing statement: Thank you very much for your time. Your responses will be helpful in informing research and practice of hazard mitigation planning.

Appendix 3

Table 5 Number of individuals (from each county) to whom the survey was sent, number of responses, and each county’s respondents as a proportion of total respondents, along with the counties’ respective plan quality scores

Appendix 4

Table 6 Data used for independent variables in models. CJA is capacity for joint action, and PE is principled engagement (averaged from Likert-scale survey responses). For ease of model interpretation, economic capacity is reported in tens of thousands of US dollars; peers’ experience and past experience are measured in tens of millions of dollars

Appendix 5

Table 7 Sources of information reported by respondents who were involved in writing the plan documents (by county, excluding counties where no respondents reported sources), followed by strategies that a subset of these respondents reported having adopted from other counties (respondents could select more than one strategy in each category). Under strategies, open-ended “other” included “plan format/layout” (n = 1) and several ambiguous responses, such as “unknown”