Natural hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans

Abstract

PurposeNatural hazards such as floods, wildfires and droughts disrupt communities, their economies and environments, and cost millions every year. The existing literature on hazard mitigation shows that community resilience is best achieved when mitigation strategies are integrated with land use and comprehensive planning. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis uses a new plan evaluation protocol that integrates flood, wildfire and drought mitigation to evaluate the plans of the six largest and fastest growing counties in Arizona.FindingsThe study finds that counties do not plan equally well for all hazards, that they tend to plan better for droughts than wildfires and floods, and indicates the need to improve hazard information in plans to support the adoption of mitigation goals, objectives and strategies.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is based on a small sample of comprehensive plans. It focuses on the content of plans rather than the causes that may explain this content or the implementation of the strategies included in the plans. Future research will thus need to analyze larger numbers of plans to identify the determinants of the degree to which comprehensive plans integrate hazard mitigation; and evaluate whether strategies advanced in plans are integrated with other planning documents and implemented.Practical implicationsThe paper makes recommendations to improve the plans evaluated and to guide planners as they develop or revise comprehensive plans in other jurisdictions subject to natural hazards.Originality/valueThe key methodological contribution of the paper is the new plan evaluation protocol designed to assess the wildfire, drought and flood mitigation provisions in comprehensive plans.