Problem, research strategy, and findings: Land use planning is key to mitigating natural hazards and the effects of climate change. Communities adopt multiple plans that directly and indirectly address hazard mitigation; the integration of local plans can significantly affect future community vulnerability to hazards. We develop a resilience scorecard to assess the degree to which the network of local plans targets areas most prone to hazards and then evaluate the coordination of local plans and test it in Washington (NC), a community vulnerable to coastal floods and projected sea-level rise. We find that local plans are not fully consistent and do not always address the areas in a community most vulnerable to floods or sea level risks; moreover, some plans actually increase physical and social vulnerability to hazards. While these results indicate the validity of a resiliency scorecard, we were forced to use a narrow range of vulnerability indicators; better data would improve the process. Takeaway for practice: Planners can assume a crucial role in improving planning for hazards by using the scorecard to identify conflicts among local plans, assessing whether local plans target areas most vulnerable to specific hazards. Planners can inform the public and decision makers about missed opportunities to improve local hazard mitigation planning. To support such important efforts, the U.S. Federal -Emergency Management Agency and other federal agencies should consider developing additional databases that are widely applicable and available.

Problem, research strategy and findings: A pre-disaster recovery plan that considers how a community should be redeveloped is a logical first step to support resiliency during high uncertainty and rapid change, yet limited attention has been given to recovery plans. In this study, we evaluate local disaster recovery planning in eight southeastern states and find that such planning receives limited public support: Less than one-third of vulnerable local jurisdictions had a recovery plan, and those plans received low plan quality scores. Unfunded state mandates produce weaker plans than plans in other states without mandates. We find that a collaborative network of stakeholders initially intent on reordering priorities results in stronger plans. Takeaway for practice: Local recovery planning should be designed to operate under conditions of high uncertainty. Local jurisdictions can choose plan design options that reflect how they build capability for recovery planning: 1) standalone community-wide recovery plan; 2) comprehensive land use plan; 3) emergency management plan; and 4) small area recovery plan. Because recovery planning lacks a public constituency, and is new to most local jurisdictions, the stand-alone community-wide recovery plan design option is the most effective at building local commitment. This option involves a plan-making process that concentrates time, effort, and resources focused on a building a network of stakeholders who likely have the greatest responsibility in rebuilding efforts because they care most about the impacts of a disaster.

Urban plans often ignore the uneven impacts of hazards on socially vulnerable populations. We evaluate the degree to which equity policies in local networks of plans support risk reduction for socially vulnerable populations, and examine the relationship between equity policies scores and the level of social vulnerability in six cities exposed to floods and projected sea level rise. We find high variability in equity policy support for risk reduction, and that equity policies in plans actually actively increase risk of loss in neighborhoods with high levels of social vulnerability, which in turn could disrupt further development.

Problem, research strategy, and findings: In this study we analyze plan integration for flood resilience in the city of Nijmegen, the site of the largest Room for the River project in The Netherlands. Little is known about the degree to which local and regional plans are coordinated with the national Room for the River program or about the cumulative influence of plans on flood vulnerability. To effectively investigate these issues, we use and build upon the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard (PIRS) concept and method, which analyzes the consistency and effects of networks of plans on community vulnerability. We expand the scope to include plans from multiple administrative scales and the focus to include environmental vulnerability. Using a three-phase evaluation process, we demonstrate that Room for the River policies are well integrated in Nijmegen’s network of plans, particularly with respect to flood safety and natural protection. However, we also find that policies at different administrative scales lack consistency in some places, some socially vulnerable neighborhoods receive comparatively little policy attention, and local plans often prioritize development over flood resilience, though higher tier plans sometimes make up for these policy gaps. Flood resilience is still finding its way in the Dutch planning system. Takeaway for practice: The PIRS offers planning practitioners a method to assess how networks of plans influence community vulnerability and, as demonstrated in this analysis, to determine the degree to which plans at multiple administrative scales target the most physically, socially, and environmentally vulnerable geographic areas. It can be used to support the ambitious goals of a program like Room for the River and align them with local development priorities.

In the last few decades, there has been an increase in community-based participatory research being conducted within the United States. Recent research has demonstrated that working with local community organizations, interest groups, and individuals can assist in the creation of, and sustainability in, health initiatives, adoption of emergency protocols, and potentially improve health outcomes for at-risk populations. However little research has assessed if communal concerns over environmental contaminants would be confirmed through environmental research. This cross-sectional study collected survey data and performed surface water analysis for heavy metals in a small neighborhood in Houston, TX, which is characterized by industrial sites, unimproved infrastructure, nuisance flooding, and poor air quality. Surveys were completed with 109 residents of the Manchester neighborhood. Water samples were taken from thirty zones within the neighborhood and assessed for arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), and mercury (Hg). Survey results showed that the vast majority of all respondents were concerned over proximity to industry and waste facilities, as well as exposure to standing surface water. Barium was discovered in every sample and many of the zones showed alarming levels of certain metals. For example, one zone, two blocks from a public park, showed levels of arsenic at 180 (μg/L), barium at 3296 (μg/L), chromium at 363 (μg/L), lead at 1448 (μg/L), and mercury at 10 (μg/L). These findings support the hypothesis that neighborhood members are aware of the issues affecting their community and can offer researchers valuable assistance in every stage of study design and execution.