Plans Can Matter! The Role of Land Use Plans and State Planning Mandates in Limiting the Development of Hazardous Areas

requirementsfor local planning. Year in and year out the nation experiences an estimated $20 billion in losses from natural disasters (National Research Council, 1991). The conventional ways of dealing with that problem are to limit the hazard (e.g., flood control programs), limit buildings' susceptibility to damage (e.g., wind, flood, and earthquake provisions of building codes), and limit individuals' and communities' exposure to financial loss (e.g., insurance and disaster relief). Each of those approaches has received strong support in federal legislation, some of it dating back more than 55 years; but, the annual toll of losses has not declined appreciably, because every year more and more people and property are placed at risk (L. R. Johnston Associates, 1992).

[1]  Louis F. Weschler,et al.  INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDING CODES WITH LATERAL FORCE PROVISIONS , 1985 .

[2]  J. Stonecash.  Politics, Wealth and Public Policy: The Significance of Political Systems , 1979 .

[3]  Virginia Gray,et al.  The determinants of public policy , 1980 .

[4]  Joanne M. Nigg,et al.  Effect of objective risk on key actor support for seismic mitigation policy , 1987 .

[5]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Coping With Floods: The Land Use Management Paradox , 1981 .

[6]  R. Platt.  Land use control : geography, law, and public policy , 1993 .

[7]  REGULATORY POLICY DESIGN: COOPERATIVE VERSUS DETERRENT MANDATES , 1992 .

[8]  Daniel A. Mazmanian,et al.  Implementation and public policy , 1983 .

[9]  D. Easton,et al.  The political system , 2009 .

[10]  Scott A. Bollens,et al.  State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives , 1992 .

[11]  Wj Petak,et al.  Natural Hazard Mitigation: Professionalization of the Policy Making Process , 1984, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[12]  L. Associates.  Floodplain management in the United States : an assessment report , 1992 .

[13]  T. Drabek.  Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings , 2011 .

[14]  R. Healy,et al.  Land use and the States , 1976 .

[15]  Richard F. Elmore,et al.  Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions , 1979 .

[16]  T. Beatley,et al.  Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics, and Policy , 1992 .

[17]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Sharing Environmental Risks: How To Control Governments' Losses In Natural Disasters , 1991 .

[18]  Burton Al.  The environment as hazard , 1978 .

[19]  F. Popper.  The politics of land-use reform , 1981 .

[20]  Gary G. Rudholm,et al.  The Limits of Regulation Evidence from Local Plan Implementation in California , 1989 .

[21]  R. Elmore,et al.  Organizational models of social program implementation. , 1978, Public policy.

[22]  Kirk R. Karwan,et al.  Can We Manage Natural Hazards?@@@Evacuation Planning in Emergency Management@@@Social Science and Natural Nazards@@@Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy: Anticipating the Unexpected , 1982 .

[23]  Aj Wyner.  Earthquakes and Public Policy: Implementation in California , 1984 .

[24]  J. Graham.  SOME EXPLANATIONS FOR DISPARITIES IN LIFESAVING INVESTMENTS1 , 1982 .

[25]  D. Easton,et al.  A framework for political analysis , 1966 .

[26]  Peter J. May,et al.  Disaster Policy Implementation: Managing Programs Under Shared Governance , 1986 .