Smith, G., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. (2013). The Role of the State in Building Local Capacity and Commitment for Hazard Mitigation Planning. International Journal Of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 31(2), 178-203.

Introduction

One of the most important things a local community can do to protect itself from damages caused by natural disasters is to prepare and implement a high quality and fully comprehensive hazard mitigation plan (HMP.) Furthermore, having a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved HMP available, and at-the-ready immediately following a natural disaster, will greatly expedite FEMA funds for local governments. This is a critical and much-needed resource for communities when they are facing after effects of natural disasters.

However, many local governments lack the resources and know-how necessary for putting together a quality HMP. Recognizing this need, along with the need to increase efficiency within FEMA, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) which provided a framework to help federal, state, and local governments work together in pre- and post-disaster planning. The goal was to encourage and enable local governments to take responsibility for their own hazard mitigation planning, and expedite the disbursement of FEMA funds when warranted.

In The Role of the State in Building Local Capacity and Commitment for Hazard Mitigation Planning, authors Smith, Lyles, & Berke, research the impact the DMA has had at the state level to answer the question: “What activities have states undertaken to assist local governments to build the capacity needed to develop hazard mitigation plans and policies in light of the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000?” (Smith et al., 2013:179) First, the authors provide a high-level review of the DMA. Next, they share the research methods used to evaluate how well states are helping local governments with pre-disaster planning. Then, after comparing and analyzing the results, the authors present the general findings from their research. And finally, the authors offer their conclusions and make recommendations on how federal, state, and local governments can improve hazard mitigation planning.

 The Disaster Mitigation Act

            According to the authors, at the time Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act, FEMA was under review for failure to efficiently disburse funds to several federally-declared disasters. The new law sought to correct issues within the FEMA organization and provide direction & funding to enable states and local governments to take a more proactive role in helping their local governments be “disaster ready.”

To this end, the DMA had three core functions. First, the DMA placed a heavy focus on pre-disaster planning: it required states and local governments to develop FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans in order to be eligible for federal hazard mitigation funds. Next, the DMA provided for predisaster hazard mitigation grants to help states and local governments create and implement effective hazard mitigation plans (HMP). This resulted in the creation of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program (PDM) which provided grants to help offset the cost of developing these pre-disaster mitigation plans. Lastly, the DMA helped states assist local governments with the development and implementation of FEMA-approved pre-disaster HMPs through the establishment and funding for State Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMOs). These officers are “responsible for the oversight and administration of state hazard mitigation planning and grants management activities as well as providing technical assistance to local governments.” (Smith et al., 2013:198)

Research Methods

The authors executed a systematic review of two Pacific coast states (California & Washington), two Gulf Coast states (Texas & Georgia), and two Atlantic coast states (Florida & North Carolina). These states all have coastal communities who were managing “…high growth pressures and high vulnerability to natural hazards (Smith et al., 2013:182). Data was collected via mail surveys, telephone interviews with SHMOs, the review of archived documents, and information from previous analysis of mitigation plan quality. Specifically, the authors wanted to review how states managed staffing SHMOs, funded mitigation programs, shared costs of developing mitigation plans, delivered technical assistance in hazard mitigation planning, and if states encouraged land use planning in the development of hazard mitigation plans. The findings from these issues would answer the original question regarding what steps states have taken to help local governments meet the requirements of the DMA.

 Results and General Findings

Results from the research efforts included data from the mail survey, anecdotal information from the SMHO interviews, and information found in the review of older mitigation plans and state and local policies and programs addressing hazard mitigation planning. In order to provide an accurate and comprehensive cross-state analysis of the research data, information was classified into one of the following six specific areas:

1. State Hazard Mitigation Planning

            Staffing for mitigation planning offices appeared tenuous. Aside from the federally funded SHMO positions, the majority of hazard mitigation positions are paid for with time-limited post-disaster FEMA funds. This leads to a high turnover rate in hazard mitigation positions. “Fluctuation in size and experience levels of state hazard mitigation staffs was cited by SHMOs as a major problem.” (Smith et al.; 2013:184). The inability to fully hire, train, and maintain hazard mitigation staff impacts the effectiveness and longevity of hazard mitigation departments. The authors noted that the study only included actual state mitigation officials and did not include staff that works with other state agencies, so the “staffing levels [reported in this study] probably underestimated overall capacity.” (Smith et al.; 2013:184)

2. State Hazard Mitigation Funding, Policies, and Programs

Hazard mitigation funding, policies, and programs meant to strengthen the ability of local governments to manages hazard mitigation issues varied greatly among the six states reviewed. California and Florida focused on regulatory actions. California passed a law to provide local governments additional state funds following a presidentially-approved natural disaster if the local government had included hazard mitigation plans into local planning and development. Florida focused on building strong relationships with the insurance industry, water management districts, and homebuilders associations, as well as others, to help foster state regulatory programs to address hazard mitigation. One such program, the Residential Construction Mitigation Program, aims to educate and assist homeowners with wind hazard retrofit projects so as to help their homes survive a hurricane.

North Carolina, on the other hand, provides incentives to help local governments manage hazard mitigation planning. These incentives include grants to help with pre-disaster planning, relocation funds to help move low-income families out of disaster-prone areas, and a state floodplain mapping program to keep flood insurance rate maps up to date allowing home owners the ability to purchase adequate coverage. Furthermore, North Carolina created their own state-level natural disaster fund to help communities deal with smaller natural disasters and requires communities to adopt and maintain local hazard mitigation plans in order to be eligible to receive state funds under this plan. The authors note that North Carolina’s approach seems to have been a success as the local governments are quite capable of creating and implementing high-quality pre-disaster mitigation plans.

3. State Cost-Sharing of Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs

Data regarding state cost-sharing of federal hazard mitigation grants provides another way to assess the effectiveness of states in helping local communities access pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation grants. However, an interesting contradiction was found in reviewing the data from the six states surveyed: as states took on a willingness to provide some or all of the of the non-federal match requirements, local communities and individuals were less incentivized to adopt locally and privately funded pre-hazard mitigation measures. Additionally, how the non-federal match requirement was met differed in every state. Local governments in California cover the non-federal match requirement without any state-level support or matching funds, whereas North Carolina covers 100% of the non-federal match for the hazard mitigation grant program, but no other mitigation programs. And in most states, there are no provisions to help homeowners cover the non-federal share of housing related projects.

4. State Delivery of Hazard Mitigation Planning Technical Assistance

Aside from funding hazard mitigation planning, all six states provided technical assistance hazard mitigation planning through various outreach methods. All six states held workshops and conferences for training and education, provided local governments with data to use for pre-disaster planning, trained local governments in the planning process, and offered pre-review of local plans before submitting those plans to FEMA for approval. Other technical assistance and guidance provisions noted were: creation and distribution of training manuals and guidebooks, publication of case studies with best practices, hazard analysis training for local planners, direct help with the planning process, and connecting local governments to regional consultants or agencies.

5. State Encouragement of Local Awareness and Commitment to Hazard Mitigation

When conducting interviews with the SMHOs, it became apparent that, across the board, increasing awareness with local officials remains one of the most difficult and challenging aspects of hazard mitigation planning. Additionally, SMHOs noted that some local governments were not apt to identify hazard mitigation projects and/or implement hazard mitigation plans out of concern that in doing so cities will then be held liable when disaster strikes.

Overall SMHOs stated that the most successful thing a state could do, in order to help local governments, see the value in pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning, was the availability of a subject matter expert who could provide long-term assistance to the local communities. In providing a primary contact for the local community to turn to during all phases of the pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning, implementation, and recovery efforts following a natural disaster, provided the best outcome. However, the SMHOs admitted that the time-intensive nature of such a position negates the ability for the federal government to provide that service to local governments.

6. State Encouragement of Local Land Use Planning

Surprisingly enough, FEMA does not require land use planning in the creation of hazard mitigation plans, and therefore most local governments do not incorporate land use planning into their mitigation plans. One SMHO suggested that the involvement of land use planners with hazard mitigation plans was low because local emergency managers were usually in charge of developing the hazard mitigation plans, and without the requirement for incorporating land use planners, emergency managers simply were unaware of the benefits of coordinating with land use planners.

Conclusions

After reviewing all the findings, and comparing it to the last state-level study on hazard mitigation planning (1999), the authors note that some progress has indeed been made with regards to the state governments helping the local governments develop and implement high-quality hazard mitigation plans. However, there is still a way to go. Major problems noted are:

• Too many variations across the states.
• Focus on access to federal funds vs. focus on the development of local hazard mitigation plans.
• Lack of incorporation of land use planning techniques into hazard mitigation plans, which is not required to meet minimum standards of the DMA.
• Understaffed state hazard mitigation offices which limit the effectiveness of the staff.
• The resistance of local governments to develop and implement hazard mitigation plans due to issues related to property rights, development pressure, and liability concerns.

Recommendations

The authors recommend three major steps be taken to help states do more to help local governments create and implement local hazard mitigation plans.

1. Reduce differences between the states to build consistency at the federal and state level.
2. Provide additional staffing to allow longevity at the state agency level, and better integrate cross-agency resources (emergency services, land use planners, city governments) to provide a more comprehensive and effective hazard mitigation plan.
3. Put more focus on land use planning as a primary tool during all phases of the development and implementation of local – and state-level hazard mitigation plans.
4. Encourage changes in the DMA to put a greater emphasis pushing states to help local governments take bigger steps towards accepting full responsibility for hazard mitigation planning.

The original intent of the DMA was to help states help local governments actually create and implement hazard mitigation plans. As you can see from the review of the study performed by the authors, states are not readily achieving these goals. Although progress has been made, the authors suggest even greater progress could be achieved if the local governments leverage land use planning as a tool to help build high-quality hazard mitigation plans, states bolster staffing to help SMHOs deliver resources to the local governments, and the federal government help smooth out all the differences between the states to bring about a universal standard for pre- and post-disaster mitigation planning.

Final Review Notes

This article brings up many good points that have not been covered elsewhere. The lack of any real longevity of employees in the state hazard mitigation office and the lack of involvement with land use planners in hazard mitigation planning stuck out as issues worth addressing from federal or state level legislation. The variation of functionality across the states seems reasonable as every state is so different in the types of natural disasters they face. Of most interest, however, was the statement made regarding the lack of interest in identifying or planning to hazard mitigation due to the perception that doing so would increase liability.

Daniels, T. 1999.  When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe

Introduction

Tom Daniels’ book, When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe, provides a comprehensive examination of the far-reaching and complex issues fueling land use development out past the farthest edges of suburbia and into what has been coined “the fringe.” First, Daniels starts by explaining what “the fringe” is in terms of where it is and why it is important. Next, Daniels weaves in a wide variety of topics in order to show how these different issues have collectively fueled growth and development out into the fringe. Finally, Daniels concludes with recommended counteractive measures to help fringe communities preserve their small-town character while facing challenges associated with absorbing a larger population and the commercial development that comes along with that growth.

Analysis of Content

Definition of The Fringe

Simply defined, the fringe is a geographical “…region of middle ground between wide-open rural lands…and expanding suburban residential and commercial development.” (Daniels, 1999:10) Just beyond the suburbs and edge cities, but before the farm and rural lands that lie beyond the major metropolitan regions, fringe areas (also known as exurbia) make up a large percentage of land surrounding major metropolitan areas. Fringe areas are the less developed regions of metropolitan cities and many nonmetropolitan counties that border metropolitan areas, have low population density rates, and have specific attributes that qualify the areas as “fringe” communities.

For example, the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Service Area (Austin-RR MSA) is a free-standing metropolitan area composed of five counties, and bordered by another 9 counties, as defined by the Texas Comptroller. (http://comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/staxqtr/stxqtr_info.html)

In the map below, the Austin-RR MSA area is shown surrounded by the red border. Inside the Austin-RR MSA resides 5 counties with 8 large cities, 16 medium sized cities (suburbs), 23 small towns (edge cities), 15 fringe cities (exurbs), and 32 unincorporated areas. The population distribution is shown in the chart below. In this example, the 47 areas that make up the fringe cities and the unincorporated areas tend to lie on the outskirts of the area inside the red boundary line, and some of the smaller towns were even identified as residing in two different counties. These areas qualify as the fringe communities surrounding the Austin-RR MSA.

(table not included)

However, population distribution and proximity to the major city centers is only one way to identify potential fringe communities. It is possible for a fringe community to reside even as close as 10 miles away from the city center. When considering if an area is located in the fringe the following attributes can be considered:

• The population density in the fringe is generally less than 1000 people per square mile, although this is not a hard and fast rule.
• Fringe areas can lie a few miles beyond small cities to forty or more miles outside of major urban centers. Distance from city center can vary greatly in the fringe.
• Housing development will appear scattered, and the fringe will have low-density settlement patterns, and homeowners will generally own one or more acres of land.
• Most fringe areas utilize on-site sewage systems whereas suburban development will have mass-developed neighborhoods tied into the city sewer system.
• Fringe areas are not generally connected to major highway areas; farm to market roads and smaller highways are more common in the fringe.
• Agriculture, forestry, mineral mines, and other such industries often reside in fringe areas; however, they will be in decline as population growth and development is encroaching on these areas.
• Fringe areas are often described as having open space, a slower pace, and a sense of safety; commuters travel more than 25 miles to work and back each day, passing through the easily identifiable suburban communities on their way to work and back each day.

Fringe History

Fringe areas have been recognized as early as the 1800s, as the term “rural estate” was an object of envy. Where the city was crowded, noisy, filthy, and crime-riddled, the countryside offered a quiet, safe, and clean way of living. However, due to limited means of travel, owning property out in the country was often achieved by those who had the financial means to do so. At the beginning of the 19^th century, the city center was the hub of industry and commerce, and since most transportation was still limited to horse drawn carriages and walking, settlements were densely built so a person would have a means by which to reasonably live and work.

But transportation would advance and as people became more mobile, the exodus from the cities became achievable goals. In the late 1850’s the first suburban community was born in Llewellyn Park, New Jersey, to meet the aesthetics of well-to-do elitists who wanted out of the hustle and bustle of New York City. Some thirteen miles from city center, Llewellyn Park offered a direct access to the railroad which allowed residents to commute daily to New York City. Large homes built on spacious lots, planned green space, and a ban against commercial development, the Llewellyn Park suburb offered a “quiet, bucolic place to live” and other “railroad suburbs” started taking shape. (Daniels, 1999: 20)

The next boom came about with the invention of the streetcar at the turn of the century. This allowed much more people to commute to a job from the suburbs to downtown and cities experienced a surge in residential housing that appealed to the middle-class worker. Commonly referred to as “row houses” (houses that were built on uniform long and narrow lots), these streetcar suburbs gave commuters a clear separate of work and home life. The evolution of land use laws originated out of the introduction of the street car which was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court in 1926. The end result was a ruling that set the precedent for “zoning to be the primary land-use control in America” and by 1928 the Standard Zoning Enabling Act was imposed on all the states.

By the 1920’s the personal automobile was the preferred mode of transportation and the 1916 Federal Road Act paved the way for urban sprawl. No longer confined to trains or streetcars, the middle-class worker could now drive him or herself to and from their own office, in their own car, and every single day. By the 1950’s the suburbs were almost completely residential: work and commerce were in the city, home life was for the suburbs.

Cities were booming, suburbs were humming along, and the construction of interstate highways started opening up the countryside for commuter travel. By the 1970’s the nonmetropolitan counties grew faster than the metropolitan counties. Between 1977 and 1997, the suburban population grew by 30 million residents, the fringe area expanded to include 20 million people and more than 700 counties, while the 39 major metropolitan areas of the time saw less than 1 million new residents. (Daniels, 1999:40) For many, the cities were out, and the suburbs and fringe areas were in.

Problems & Solutions for Fringe Development

Growing pains facing rural-fringe areas is a relatively new problem that emerged from poor land-use planning practices as suburbs and edge-cities pushed out into the fringe. In essence, fringe communities are quickly becoming the suburbs of the suburbs. Eighty percent of Americans reside in and around 273 major metropolitan regions. Inside those regions lie 25% of all counties in the United States. While big cities and suburbs are the focus of city planners, state oversight, and federal bureaucrats, the fringe is struggling to keep up with explosive growth.

With the fringe taking up this growth trend isn’t going to reverse anytime soon (Daniels, 1999:40). City planners, managers, and leaders are feeling the stress of this growth as they struggle to manage growth while supporting concerned long-term residents, enthusiastic new neighbors, and eager developers. The biggest challenge, Daniels says, is in balancing growth while maintaining the essence, or community small-town feel, of a fringe city while safely absorbing increased population and the commercial development that comes along with growth. Daniels identifies eight complex obstacles, that are often interrelated, that encumber organized, sustainable, and successful growth management in the metro fringe:

1. Fragmented and overlapping governments, authorities, and special districts that influence development in the fringe (state agencies, school districts, medical districts, economic development boards, etc.).
2. The large size of fringe areas that include fringe cities and unincorporated areas that must be considered when planning city resources and basic emergency services.
3. Lack of a community, county, or regional vision given the private and independent nature of the residents in the fringe.
4. Lack of a sense of place and identity due to the vast settlement patterns exhibited in the fringe.
5. Conflicts between the newcomers who might want to see more commercial development in their new areas, and the long-term residents who want everyone to leave.
6. The spread of scattered new development which can result in a large sprawling rural town with too few residents to support city services.
7. Too few planning resources available for the area leaders.
8. Outdated planning and zoning techniques that lead to poorly designed communities with many unforeseen consequences.

Success for these communities depends on a thorough and proactive growth management plan to address the issues listed above and prepare the community for future growth. A successful growth management plan is exhaustive but when done properly will provide planners and community members with both a vision for their city and a direction in which to move. Community planning efforts that follow the formula below will reach tremendous milestones in their development and address many of the complex issues listed above.

Daniels Steps for Growth Management Planning

1. First: start with the end in mind. A successful growth management plan will rely on solid population estimations for the next ten to twenty years.
2. Next: compile the data. The plan must inventory, analyze, and identify existing and future needs. The region must be mapped out to show the current and future capabilities for housing, commercial, industrial, transportation, schools, water resources, parks, natural areas, farmland, etc. Each area must be mapped out for both current and future needs. For example, knowing that the population of the area will double in twenty years, how can the city ensure adequate fire, police, and ems services for its citizens? Does the city adopt a new residential housing plan to help wrangle in the community? Does the city build ten combined safety centers spread across the region? Each fringe area will answer these questions differently. This data collection and mapping exercise will provide the legal basis for the zoning ordinance as the foundation for the comprehensive plan.
3. Finally: collect the taxes. Once there is a legal basis for zoning in place, planners can begin to assess the financials, collect taxes, and move the comprehensive plan forward.

In all fringe cities, Daniels says there is a common sense of urgency to hurry up and solve the problem of growth – as if it is a one-time solution simply needs to be voted on. When, in reality, managing growth in fringe cities is an active exercise in “the search for and implementation of effective public policy solutions.” (Daniels, 1999:259) These policies boil down to three options: pro-growth, balanced growth, or no/slow growth. Pro-growth strategies allow development to take off and turn a fringe city into another suburb, or an edge city. The balanced growth strategy places an emphasis on pacing growth to allow for environmental preservation. Balanced growth works well in areas where there is a lot of agriculture, mining, forestry, or other natural environmental areas worth protecting. Balanced growth sees the environment as an asset worth protecting and will slow growth down to do so as needed. Lastly, no/slow growth strategy makes development difficult and expensive as a way to keep change to a minimum. These fringe communities are protective of their space, their tax base, and their quality of life.

Federal, State, and Local Governments + the Fringe

Proactive growth management in the fringe should be a collective responsibility between the federal, state, and local governments. Daniels suggests local and state governments should handle most of their own planning, and should actively improve coordination of efforts amongst each other, via open communication between local and state government – to help efficiently meet their community needs. Ideally, more transparent and open communication between local and state government will result in solid growth management policies that will face minimal risk of being overturned by the federal government. Regional planning between city and country, village, and townships is simply a necessity. In fact, he states that the “…emergency of regional metro governments with, at minimum, jurisdiction over planning & transportation, is the wave of the future” and the only way to ensure successful growth management in the fringe regions. (Daniels, 1999:208)

Furthermore, the federal government should be an active participant in managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. The federal government has the means and the ability to assist in a wide variety of ways. From helping communities with grants for infrastructure development (such as helping a large fringe area put in a regional water treatment system to replace or eliminate single-home septic systems), to protecting agricultural space & endangered species, and passing laws to protect the environment (such as the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act), the federal government can play a big role in driving the vision for fringe development.

A Sustainable Solution

Daniels concludes his work by outlining sustainable principles for land use with the goal being that current development can meet the present needs while affording future generations the ability to meet their needs. Daniels suggest the following:

• Compact, transit-oriented development will help reduce fringe dwellers reliance on personal transportation to get around fringe areas.
• A mixed-use development that emphasizes walking and biking in town, and between fringe towns, will help preserve the small town feel within these fringe areas.
• In-fill development to help fill-in vacant lots and open spaces in clustered fringe cities will help to minimize fringe-sprawl.
• Low-density zoning in the countryside can be leverage to reduce and discourage sprawl.
• Financial incentives to encourage rural landowners to keep their land open and not sell to developers.

Balancing these sustainable growth principles alongside a no growth, slow growth, or fast growth plan of action can help communities successfully manage growth in the fringe, but it will require the communities to work together in an open and transparent manner to develop both regional and community growth action plans.

Conclusion

Daniels book provides the reader a comprehensive understanding of what defines a fringe city, how fringe cities evolved into the fastest growing land area today, how the federal, state and local governments can prepare and manage the growth. Developing a growth strategy, managing long term land use and planning, designing for a sustainable, nurturing economy, and overseeing responsible stewardship of natural resources, requires careful consideration to many different details. Full of valuable information and insight for communities struggling to deal with the influx of residents and development, taking the steps to pull together a thoughtful and comprehensive plan for growth management will serve the community, the state, and has the potential to influence federal policies. Longevity and sustainability are the end game, and a successful end game requires a vision, takes careful planning, and requires work to implement. But Daniels suggests all these things are not lofty goals, but achievable gains when the foundation is prepared and the communities are committed.

 

Raymond J. Burbury, Arthur C. Nelson, Dennis Parker & John Handmer (2001) Urban Containment Policy and Exposure to Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44:4, 475-490

Introduction

Urban containment policies aim to create safer, more sustainable communities through limiting land available for development, preserving green spaces, and restricting the delivery of public goods and services within defined growth boundaries. However, a serious, unintended, consequence may have evolved from these policies. In Urban Containment Policy and Exposure to Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection?, Burbury, Nelson, Parker, & Handmer suggest that development into less-expensive, hazardous lands, outside the growth boundary lines, can lead to a higher loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. The authors explore this issue as a hypothesis by doing three specific things. First, the authors review urban containment policies and show how those policies have directly contributed to the increased development of hazardous areas. Next, the authors examine naturally contained urban areas and cite circumstantial evidence to support their claims regarding risks associated with development in known hazardous areas. And finally, while acknowledging that more research is needed to fully understand the big picture, they suggest that including hazard mitigation plans alongside containment policies will help reduce loss of life and property when nature strikes.

Urban Containment Policies & Hazardous Development Areas

With the rapid expansion of all major metropolitan areas in the 20^th century, and the urban sprawl that goes along with it, urban containment policies were quickly adopted as way to manage growth and reduce sprawl. Through a variety of rules and incentives, urban containment policies aim to promote, and even restrict, residential and commercial development towards the central areas inside the growth boundary lines. In doing so, cities and counties are able to keep the bulk of jobs and tax revenues in the central city, which allows the city to deliver public goods and services to its residents in the most efficient and fiscally responsible manner. Additionally, by confining growth within boundary lines, cities can maintain dedicated green space, protect farmlands, and preserve natural resources. City governments were the first to start implementing urban containment strategies, and several states have developed enforceable land use and planning containment policies.

However, as successful as urban containment policies have been, the development of residential and commercial properties within hazardous land areas has emerged as an unintended, yet, direct outcome of these growth strategies. Containment policies limit land available for development which inevitably leads to higher land prices. Land development then naturally turns to lower-priced areas inside and outside of the containment boundaries. These areas can include hazardous lands purposefully left outside of original growth boundaries, or lands inside the growth boundary that were originally not zoned for commercial or residential development. Hazardous land areas can include anything from land near a river that swells every time it rains, an active fault line, a dense greenbelt that becomes a fire hazard, or a retired landfill that isn’t truly old enough for development (among other conditions).

Since this land is cheaper to build on, development in inevitably happens. If developers take steps to mitigate the hazardous conditions during development (slope-stabilization on hillsides, elevated foundations in flood plains, reduce brush in green spaces, etc.), then the associated risks might be greatly reduced, or even negated. However, without local governments requiring developers to take these precautions, developers will most likely not make these expensive land improvements before building and the risks remain. Furthermore, homeowners generally do not take measures to protect or prepare their properties from natural disaster, even if their home is zoned in a previously known hazardous area. Either they do not purchase enough insurance (unless required to do so), or they do not want to pay a developer for the extra work needed to insure a safe and sound home has been built. But the issues just aren’t with the developers and the home owners: homes built outside of the containment areas may not lie close enough to allow the city to respond to an emergency in an efficient and effective manner. If a city or county has not planned accordingly, they will not be able to support those citizens who live in the hazardous areas in the event of a natural disaster. Considering all the variables, development in hazardous areas can clearly result in a marked increase in the risk of loss of life or property, as compared to non-hazardous development areas, or in the event of a natural disaster, if the known risks are not mitigated by the developers or local city planners through hazard mitigation plans.

Natural Urban Containment and Hazard Mitigation

Next, the authors examine circumstantial evidence provided by New Orleans, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, in order to demonstrate associated risks with development in hazardous areas, and justify the need for hazardous mitigation plans. These densely populated regions are constrained by natural, physical barriers (vs. an arbitrary boundary line set by a planning board.) When examined through a “contained urban area” lens, these areas can provide planners ample information on how to reduce damages from natural disasters. While the authors recommend more research is needed, they argue that circumstantial evidence supports their claims regarding hazardous mitigation plans as a necessary tool to help in managing development and growth in and around areas affected by urban containment polices.

New Orleans, San Francisco, and Los Angeles are three regions in which a dense city center is surrounded by naturally occurring “containment” boundary line. New Orleans is bound by the “…Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, and extensive coastal marshes and is one of the most contained urban areas in the USA.” (Burby, 2010) San Francisco is bordered by the water and hills. Los Angeles lies in between the Pacific Ocean and a mountain range. All three geographic areas must manage their growth within a tightly contained region. All three are very densely populated. All three are susceptible to one or more natural disasters: floods, fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. The authors highlight the costs associated with disasters in these areas. A category 5 hurricane could cost New Orleans an estimated $30 billion+. A massive earthquake in San Francisco could cost upwards of $120 billion just in damaged buildings. And if another major flood, massive earthquake, or roaring fire hits Los Angeles, the losses would soar well beyond anything they’ve managed before, well into the $100 billion range. Again, this information is provided to show how development of residential and commercial properties in hazardous regions poses an increased risk of loss of life and property in the event of a natural disaster. The authors are not suggesting that development not occur in those areas; but rather, if they must occur, that the development plans should include hazard mitigation plans so that if the worst case scenario unfolds, loss of life and property will not be as extensive.

Hazard Mitigation Plans & Urban Containment Planning

Finally, hazard mitigation plans require careful consideration in order for planners to fully understand all costs associated with containment policies – good and bad. A solid hazard mitigation plan can let a city planner know if the proposed containment policy is affordable and sustainable. This information is invaluable in the early stages of city and development planning and because the costs associated with implementation of a hazard mitigation plan after development would be considerably higher it is imperative that the hazard mitigation plan be completed alongside, or even before, the development plans kick off.

The authors provide applicable information on how to develop comprehensive hazard mitigation plans and explain why they should be created right alongside any urban containment plan development with the following six different types policies and action plans:

1. Preventative Policies: Seeks to limit new development in hazardous areas.
2. Property Protection Policies: Affords financial support to retrofit old properties, relocate structures, or obtain insurance.
3. Structural Protection Policies: Normally used in flood-prone zones, these policies require both cities and builders to invest in and proper flood control measures such as drainage ditches, levees, dams, etc.
4. Emergency Services Policies: Aims to reduce the severity of a natural disaster after it strikes by providing efficient and effective emergency response teams and provisions.
5. Natural Resource Protection Policies: Protecting spaces that are prone to natural disasters as a preemptive measure to reduce hazardous development.
6. Public Information Policies: Building awareness by educating home owners on their options, and developers on their duties, is a major part of any hazard mitigation plan.

Because every region is different, every hazard mitigation plan will be different, and these six policies above are not the full extent of what kinds of policies and action plans will be required to properly mitigate every hazardous area. It will be important for the hazard mitigation plan to adequately and appropriately apply to the specific region or development area for which is being planned. For example, an area prone to hurricanes and flooding will want to focus on property protection, structure protection, and emergency services policies. However, an area prone to fires and earthquakes may want to adopt some preventative policies, natural resource protection policies, and emergency services policies. Each different type of hazard mitigation policy is equally important – it all depends on the area in question.

Conclusions

The authors conclude by stating that this article is simply an examination of an issue they have identified within the urban containment planning and policies. While they are adamant that hazard mitigation plans will help reduce the loss of life and property, in the event of a natural disaster, they admit that this is an hypothesis that needs more fleshing out. Never the less, they hold firm their stance that planners have a duty to produce a thoughtful, comprehensive, and thorough hazard mitigation plan.

Additionally, they offer two other questions which they say deserve more research. First, they want to know if urban containment actually does increase development in hazardous areas. The authors have suggested that this is the case, but admit there is no hardcore evidence to support their claim. Secondly, they want to know what extent have other “…areas pursuing urban containment adopted appropriate hazard mitigation plans…” in order to answer the nagging suspicion that without state mandates, planners will continue to ignore the need for hazard mitigation planning.

This article is interesting in light of issues faced by development in far outlying areas known as “fringe cities.” Fringe cities can mitigate their risks in the event of a natural disaster by developing a hazardous mitigation plan at the same time containment plans are being developed. While these remote communities may not initially have resources to plan for natural disasters, as fringe cities adopt containment policies, it would be prudent to produce a comprehensive hazardous mitigation plan. Not only will this plan be of vital importance in the event of a natural disaster, it could shield the city from any negligence suits, as well as help the city prepare for its own future sprawl.