Engaging the public in planning for disaster recovery

Abstract Communities engage in various ways with stakeholders around plan development. This project aims to validate quantitative content analysis scores for participation in disaster recovery plans with follow-up key informant interviews. Recovery plans from 87 counties and municipalities adjacent to the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast were collected and content analyzed using a plan coding protocol. Four jurisdictions – two with high and two with low scores in the plan quality principle of participation – were selected for follow-up key informant interviews. Several themes emerged from the qualitative data. Public engagement in recovery planning is more successful when planners actively engage individuals and groups and when dedicated staff are assigned to participation activities. While addressing the needs of socially and physically vulnerable residents can be challenging, there are effective ways of encouraging their participation. While the sample size of this study was small and the findings may not be generalizable to areas outside of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, findings do support the planning research literatures' suggestion that increased participation is associated with higher plan quality. Our findings provide specific examples for planners interested in increasing participation. However, an unanswered question remains as to the extent to which increased engagement in recovery planning will lead to increased stakeholder awareness of risk, available resources, and support for policies that build resilience.

[1]  Mark R. Stevens,et al.  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? , 2010, Environmental management.

[2]  A. Franklin,et al.  Examining power struggles as a signifier of successful partnership working: a case study of partnership dynamics , 2008 .

[3]  P. Berke,et al.  Capacity for Stakeholder Participation in Recovery Planning , 2016 .

[4]  S. Fainstein.  New Directions in Planning Theory , 2000 .

[5]  R. Olshansky,et al.  Disaster and Recovery: Processes Compressed in Time , 2012 .

[6]  L. Stern,et al.  Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key Informants , 1993 .

[7]  J. Knight.  Scientific literacy: Clear as mud , 2003, Nature.

[8]  M. Reed.  Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[9]  Ryan Ojerio,et al.  Limited Involvement of Socially Vulnerable Populations in Federal Programs to Mitigate Wildfire Risk in Arizona , 2011 .

[10]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Creating Hazard Resilient Communities through Land-Use Planning , 2000 .

[11]  Pamela Wridt,et al.  A Qualitative GIS Approach to Mapping Urban Neighborhoods with Children to Promote Physical Activity and Child-Friendly Community Planning , 2010 .

[12]  Jason Corburn,et al.  Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making , 2003 .

[13]  Mark R. Stevens,et al.  Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012 , 2014 .

[14]  Jennifer A. Horney,et al.  Adaptive Planning for Disaster Recovery and Resiliency: An Evaluation of 87 Local Recovery Plans in Eight States , 2014 .

[15]  Samuel D. Brody,et al.  Are We Learning to Make Better Plans? , 2003 .

[16]  S. Herbert.  The Trapdoor of Community , 2005 .

[17]  Brenda D. Phillips,et al.  Disaster Recovery , 2009 .

[18]  Carmen Sirianni,et al.  Neighborhood Planning as Collaborative Democratic Design , 2007 .

[19]  Siambabala Bernard Manyena,et al.  The concept of resilience revisited. , 2006, Disasters.

[20]  R. Burby.  Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action , 2003 .

[21]  L. Pearce.  Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation , 2003 .

[22]  P. Berke,et al.  Building Capacity for Disaster Resiliency in Six Disadvantaged Communities , 2010 .

[23]  S. Brody,et al.  Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Planning Choices , 2003 .