Digital Media and the Politics of Disaster Recovery in New Orleans

  • Jacob A. Wagner
Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 7)


In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the federal hurricane protection system, residents of New Orleans have struggled to rebuild their city in a context of uncertainty, contested leadership, and a highly politicized planning process. In the absence of a well-organized process, people have turned to other modes of planning action to address the problems of communication and information experienced during the recovery. In this chaotic context, digital communication tools served as an indispensible medium for disaster recovery by providing a forum for the critique of planning, which reflects a significant process of social learning and socio-political empowerment (Rocha, 1997).


Planning Process Social Learning City Council Digital Medium Citizen Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arnstein, S. (1969, July). The ladder of participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, L., & Green, R. (2007). (Mis)uses of data: What counts as damage in Post-Katrina New Orleans recovery planning. Retrieved from
  3. Batty, M. (2001). Contradictions and conceptions of the digital city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(4), 479–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, H. S. (1994). Community and consensus: Reality and fantasy in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(4), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauregard, R. (2000). Neither embedded nor embodied: Critical pragmatism and identity politics. In: M. Burayidi (Ed.), Urban planning in a multicultural society. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Bring New Orleans Back Commission. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  7. Bureau of Governmental Research. (2003). Runaway discretion: Land use decision making in New Orleans. New Orleans, LA: Bureau of Governmental Research.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, H. J. (1996). A social interactionist perspective on computer implementation in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, H. J., & Marshall, R. (2000). Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies, 5(3), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (1997). The rise of the network society: The power of identity (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Checkoway, B. (1984). Two types of planning in neighborhoods. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3(2), 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coats, G. (2008). Personal Interview.Google Scholar
  14. Codrescu, A. (2006, September–October). The (unreasonable) argument for our existence. World Watch Institute, 19(5), 36–37.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2006). Dare we jump off Arnstein’s Ladder? Social Learning as a new policy paradigm. Walton Hall: Open Systems Research Group, Systems Department, Faculty of Technology, Open University. Available from
  16. Community Gumbo. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  17. Craglia, M. (2004). Cogito ergo sum or non-cogito ergo digito? The digital city revisited. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Culley, M. R., & Hughey, J. (2008). Power and participation in a hazardous waste dispute: A community case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denzer, B. (2007). Civic Activism, Blogging, and Media Democracy in the Rebuilding in New Orleans. Accessed June 23, 2009, from Pt. 1
  20. Donze, F. (2006, March 20). Rebuild, but at your own risk, Nagin says; Recommendations from BNOB come with warnings and worries. Times-Picayune.Google Scholar
  21. Drummond, W. J., & French, S. P. (2008). The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fix the Pumps. Accessed June 23, 2009, from The Floodwall Project. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  23. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Friedmann, J. (1996). Reviewing two centuries of planning. In S. Mandelbaum et al. (Eds.), Planning Theory in the 1990s. Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.Google Scholar
  25. Friedmann, J. (2003). Toward a Non-Euclidian mode of planning. In S. Fainstein & S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in Planning Theory. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Graham, S. (2002). Bridging urban digital divides? Urban polarisation and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Urban Studies, 39(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greater New Orleans Foundation. Accessed November 7, 2006. from
  28. Greene, T. (2006, August 21). Eye of the hurricane: New Orleans prepares; Disaster-recovery plan following Katrina based on Wi-Fi, VoIP. Network World.Google Scholar
  29. Gutierrez, A. (2006, August 4). Outsourcing democracy, ThinkNOLA blog. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  30. Holden, M. (2000). GIS in land use planning: Lessons from critical theory and the Gulf Islands. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurricane Digital Memory Bank. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  32. Klosterman, R. (2008). Comment on Drummond and French: Another view of the future of GIS. Journal of American Planning Association, 74(2), 174–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krieger, M. (2004). Taking pictures in the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lauria, M., & Wagner, J. A. (2006). What can we learn from empirical studies of planning theory? A comparative case analysis of extant literature. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(4), 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.), Writings on cities. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Mandelker, D. R. (2002). A report on planning in New Orleans: For the master plan coalition. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  37. Mid-City Neighborhood Organization. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  38. Neighborhood Planning Network. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  39. Nelson, M., Ehrenfeucht, R., & Laska, S. (2007). Planning, plans and people: Professional expertise, local knowledge, and governmental action in Post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. Cityscape, 9(3), 23–53.Google Scholar
  40. Neuman, M. (2000). Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. New Orleans MetBlogs. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  42. New Orleans Neighborhood Rebuilding Plan. Accessed June 23, 2009 from
  43. Olshansky, R. (2006). Planning after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olshansky, R., Johnson, L. A., Horne. J., & Nee, B. (2008). Planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Preserve New Orleans. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  46. Reardon, K., Green, R., Bates, L., & Kiely, R. C. (2009). Overcoming the challenges of post-disaster planning in New Orleans: Lessons from the ACORN housing/university collaborative. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reichard, P. (2006, August/September 6–11). Curves Ahead, Planning.Google Scholar
  48. Ritchin, F. (2009). After photography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  49. Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sandercock, L. (2000). Cities of (In)Difference and the challenge of planning. DISP, 140, 7–15.Google Scholar
  51. Squandered Heritage. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  52. Stay Local! Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  53. ThinkNOLA. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  54. Tisserand, M. (2006, September 18). Don’t mourn, link. The Nation.Google Scholar
  55. Umemoto, K., & Suryanata, K. (2006). Technology, culture and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(3), 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Unified New Orleans Plan. (2007). Citywide Strategic Recovery and Rebuilding Plan. New Orleans, LA. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  57. The Urban Conservancy. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  58. Urban Land Institute. (2005) A strategy for rebuilding New Orleans, Louisiana. Washington, DC: ULI.Google Scholar
  59. Wagner, J. (2006). The privatization of urban planning and public space in New Orleans in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina. Paper presented at the Association of the Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
  60. Wagner, J. (2008). Understanding New Orleans: Creole Urbanism. In: R. Shields & P. Steinberg (Eds.), What is a city? Rethinking the Urban after Hurricane Katrina. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wagner, J., Frisch, M., & Fields, B. (2008). Building local capacity: Planning for local culture and neighborhood recovery in New Orleans. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 10(3), 39–56.Google Scholar
  62. Warner, C. (2006, August 31). N.O. planning process puts residents on edge. Times-Picayune.Google Scholar
  63. Williamson, A. (2007). Citizen Participation in the Unified New Orleans Plan. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard. Accessed June 23, 2009, from
  64. Wilson, P. (2008). Deliberative planning in disaster recovery: Re-membering New Orleans. Chicago: Presentation at the ACSP/AESOP Joint Congress IV.Google Scholar
  65. ZeroCarbon NOLA. Accessed June 23, 2009, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Urban Planning and DesignUniversity of Missouri-Kansas CityKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations