Need assistance with paper "Can case study findings be generalized?"

Natural Hazards 28: 211–228, 2003. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

211

Disaster Management and Community Planning, and Public Participation: How to Achieve Sustainable Hazard Mitigation

LAURIE PEARCE University of British Columbia, 5750 Indian River Drive, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7G 1L3, E-Mail: [email protected]

(Received: 7 July 2001, accepted in final form: 19 March 2002)

Abstract. The paper offers first a brief historical overview of disaster management planning. Second, it reviews Australian and American research findings and show that they urge the field of disaster management to shift its focus from response and recovery to sustainable hazard mitigation. It is argued that in order for this shift to occur, it is necessary to integrate disaster management and community planning. Current practice seldom reflects such a synthesis, and this is one of the reasons why hazard awareness is absent from local decision-making processes. Third, it is asserted that if mitigative strategies are to be successfully implemented, then the disaster management process must incorporate public participation at the local decision-making level. The paper concludes with a case study of California’s Portola Valley, which demonstrates that when public participation is integ- rated into disaster management planning and community planning, the result is sustainable hazard mitigation.

Key words: public participation, community planning, sustainable hazard mitigation, disaster man- agement planning.

1. Historical Overview of Disaster Management Planning

Historically, disaster management planning in North America has been viewed from a para-military perspective (Scanlon, 1982); that is, it has been conducted for, not with, the community (Laughy, 1991).� The field of disaster management originated during the Cold War, when planning for nuclear war and the building of bomb shelters was encouraged. Once the threat of nuclear war ebbed, concern turned towards responding to natural disasters. Interestingly, Drabek (1991) points out that in the United States disaster management planning is based on civil de- fence and natural disaster responses as well as on behavioural science research. Nevertheless, as Petak (1985, p. 3) notes, “public administration, as a discipline, has generally neglected to consider emergency management within the mainstream of its activities.” According to Aguirre (1994, p. 3), “it is very seldom that local

� Unless otherwise stated, I use the term “community” to mean “all the people living in a specific locality” (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).

212 LAURIE PEARCE

governments attempt to educate the public to the hazards that threaten them.” This is true despite the fact that surveys indicate that the public would welcome such efforts (Drabek, 1986, p. 23).

Not surprisingly, there appears to be a relationship between the degree to which communities accept disaster management planning and the degree to which they experience disasters: the greater the exposure to disasters, the greater the interest in disaster management (Drabek, 1986). If one were to designate those areas with the strongest community-based disaster management plans, they would undoubtedly be those with full-time emergency coordinators. As Kreps (1991) found, whether or not a community has an effective emergency management department depends, to a large extent, on the credibility given to it by local government officials (Kreps, 1991, p. 48). He concludes that there is no current work, either in Canada or the United States, that exhibits a comprehensive understanding of local government emergency management strategies and their effectiveness.

Rubin (1991, p. 240) observes that community members are becoming increas- ingly frustrated not only with being excluded from the decision-making processes involved in community planning, but also with being excluded from those involved in disaster management planning. Fortunately, public participation is gradually becoming an accepted part of the disaster management process. One example of this has swept up the Pacific coast from California to Canada and involves the push to develop neighbourhood emergency programs. These programs (e.g. the Home Emergency Response Organization System [HEROS] in Coquitlam, British Columbia) entail recruiting a leader and volunteers from each neighbourhood. Their tasks are: (1) to complete a neighbourhood inventory of equipment (e.g. chainsaws) and skills (e.g. nursing) that could be useful during and after a disaster; (2) to develop a list of special-needs situations (e.g. elderly people living alone); and (3) to arrange for local stockpiling of medical supplies, food and water. In return, the community provides basic emergency training, basic Search and Rescue (SAR) training first-aid training, and financial assistance with regard to equipment costs.

Similarly, in Australia recent findings suggest that disaster management is shift- ing its focus from response and recovery issues to mitigation issues (although not much has been done in terms of developing recovery plans) – a shift that involves a viable role for public participation. The Australia/New Zealand Risk Management Standard (Australia and New Zealand Standards Associations, 1995, p. 360) states that “risk management is a framework for the systematic application of manage- ment policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of identifying, analyzing, eval- uating, treating and monitoring risk.” It is recognized that while a top-down policy is needed, it is really the local-level bottom-up policy that provides the impetus for the implementation of mitigation strategies and a successful disaster management process. Salter (cited in Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, 1998, p. 179) summarizes the shift in disaster management as follows (Figure 1):

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 213

From To

· Hazards → · Vulnerability · Reactive → · Proactive · Single Agency → · Partnerships · Science Driven → · Multidisciplinary Approach · Response Management → · Risk Management · Planning for Communities → · Planning with Communities · Communicating to Communities → · Communicating with Communities

Figure 1. The shift in disaster management strategies.

There are several interesting aspects to this shift in disaster management plan- ning. First, it takes the focus away from specific hazards and incorporates general vulnerabilities into the disaster management process. While these vulnerabilities include property concerns (e.g. poorly constructed buildings), they also include concerns about people living in the community. Second, the shift from reactive to proactive measures moves disaster management from a focus on response and recovery activities to a focus on community planning (e.g. land-use policies, flood- plain management, etc.). Third, this multidisciplinary approach to disaster manage- ment recognizes the many interests that exist in the community, and by striving to create partnerships, attempts to balance competing interests while working towards common goals. Fourth, emphasis on working and relating with communities puts a strong onus on disaster managers and community planners to involve the public in their planning.

The work in Australia and New Zealand parallels the recent work completed by hazards experts and researchers for the second Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, summarized by Mileti (1999). In the mid 1990s many top U.S. hazards experts met and collaborated on this work, which was completed in 1998. Based on its findings, Mileti (1999, p. 2) concludes that, if we are to ensure “sustainable hazard mitigation,” then disaster management planning must shift its focus from response and recovery, which means that it must take into account both community planning and public participation. He argues that sustainable haz- ard mitigation requires: (1) maintaining and enhancing environmental quality (i.e. human activities should not reduce the carrying capacity of the ecosystem), (2) maintaining and enhancing people’s quality of life, (3) fostering local resilience and responsibility, (4) recognizing that vibrant local economies are essential, (5) ensuring inter- and intra-generational equity (i.e. not destroying a future genera- tion’s opportunity by allowing the present generation to exhaust resources), and (6) adopting local consensus building.

Godschalk et al. (1998) are very clear about the need to complete hazard, risk and vulnerability analyses before attempting to integrate sustainable hazard mit- igation and community planning. They believe that while state and federal gov- ernments and agencies have a role to play in establishing mitigation policies, it is up to local communities to initiate and implement those policies that will lead to

214 LAURIE PEARCE

the adoption of mitigative strategies. Given the obvious links between sustainable hazard mitigation and community planning, it behooves us to address the links between the latter and disaster management planning.

2. Integrating Disaster Management Planning and Community Planning

Community planning and disaster management planning are rooted in very dif- ferent ideologies, although they do share some common features: both have been conducted in isolation from the community; both are concerned with the physical community (e.g. buildings, infrastructure, etc.) as well as the human community; both are based in local government; and both take a predictive approach to plan- ning. They differ in that community planning has a long academic heritage and is rich in theory and design, is long range, is comprehensive, and has often been criticized for being overly optimistic “both about our analytical capabilities and about the altruism of community members” (Hodge, 1991, p. 182). Disaster man- agement planning, on the other hand, has only emerged since the mid-1950s and has often been seen as a second career for retired police officers and members of the military. It is only very recently that academic institutions have begun to offer degrees in this field. Disaster management has tended to be concerned with the short-term situation (e.g. rebuilding damaged homes in flood plains), to have a narrow focus, and to be pessimistic. For example, in many cases disaster managers have unrealistically focused on worst-case scenarios such as the nuclear bomb that destroys entire countries.

Both community planning and disaster management planning can make im- portant contributions to community safety, thus it is quite surprising that the two disciplines are not more highly integrated. According to Myers (1997, p. 1):

People who work to manage natural hazards must repackage themselves and what they know from the local community’s viewpoint, across adjustments and across hazards, but in context of non-hazards community goals. Our re- search is telling us that local stakeholders’ capacity to manage their own environment, resources, and hazards must be increased, and that it is the locals who must decide what they are willing to lose in future disasters.

As catastrophic losses from disasters mount, previous disaster management strategies are seen to be ineffective. Change seems inevitable, and the trend is clear: ensure more community involvement, ensure basic responsibility at the local level and ensure that there are links between disaster management planning and community planning. On a practical level, the links between disaster management planning and community planning seem abundant. Indeed, they may lead to zon- ing bylaws to avoid high-risk areas, building codes to reduce the consequences of hazards, mitigation strategies to offset the potential of hazards and so on. Yet, traditionally disaster management planning and community planning have not been linked. Why not?

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 215

To begin with, disaster managers and community planners come from very dif- ferent backgrounds, the former being comfortable with phrases such as “command and control,” “incident command system,” “emergency responders,” and “aid to the civil power,” and the latter being more familiar with phrases such as “not in my backyard (NIMBY)”, “community empowerment,” ’special interest groups,” and “public forums.” Furthermore, disaster managers see things differently than do community planners. For example, to local community planners, the gentrification of older unreinforced masonry buildings represents an opportunity to preserve local history and culture as well as to bring in tourist dollars; to disaster managers, these edifices represent collapsed buildings during an earthquake. However, des- pite their different orientations and backgrounds, both community planners and disaster managers have similar goals: to make the community as safe and as secure as possible while maintaining its cultural heritage and maximizing the quality of human life.

In looking at the relationship between disaster management planning and com- munity planning, we need to consider two kinds of phenomena: (1) those planning activities that occur before the disaster, and (2) those that occur during or after the disaster. Mitigation activities occur in all phases of disaster management and are usually conducive to cooperation and coordination between the disaster manager and the community planner. For example, most communities have official plans that plot their progress and future development. Discussions around these plans should include the local disaster manager as well as community planners. New developments should not be built without considering both existing and potential hazards and risks. This is especially important with regard to schools, hospitals and other critical facilities. As communities retrofit existing infrastructure, disaster managers as well as community planners should be directly involved in discussions and decision making.

When a community has not been included in the policy and decision-making processes, in post-disaster situations it often finds itself caught between contrasting philosophies. For example, some people will want the community to return to pre- disaster conditions, while others will want to take the opportunity to pursue various other planning goals (Central United States Earthquake Consortium, 1993, p. 44). The challenge, therefore, is twofold: (1) to integrate the processes of community planning and disaster management planning so that both are working towards the same goals, and (2) to encourage a high degree of community participation. Con- sider the following principles, which are cited in Australia’s Safe Community Program (Salter, cited in Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, 1998, p. 127):

• Listen to the community – let them define what they believe are the most important problems;

• Mobilize all members of a community creatively; • Coordinate efforts at a regional level; • Raise public awareness of the importance of managing risk; and • Ensure that powerful interest groups support the community efforts.

216 LAURIE PEARCE

The above principles are representative of the social mobilization tradition within community planning (Friedmann, 1992): people in their own communities have to take their destiny into their own hands; the community should determine its own future; individual and collective needs must be balanced; and there must be a move towards self-reliance. As is evident, both this particular community planning tradition and the disaster management tradition espoused in the Safe Community Program stress the importance of public participation.

Godschalk et al. (1998), in presenting four community planning options, offer an excellent framework for sustainable hazard mitigation. Their four options con- cern: (1) stakeholder participation, (2) planning components, (3) plan types and (4) mitigation strategy. The first option involves the degree to which community help and support is enlisted in formulating and implementing the mitigation plan. The second option integrates the hazard, risk and vulnerability assessment into community values and is then used to formulate policy and planning actions in order to meet community expectations. The third option involves deciding whether or not the sustainable hazard mitigation plan should be fully integrated with the community development plan. (In all but a few situations, Godschalk et al. (1998) strongly advocate incorporating the two plans.) The final option – determining which mitigation strategy the community chooses – involves answering the follow- ing questions: (1) what is the degree of cooperation? (2) which local authority will take the lead role? (3) how will the strategy affect current development as opposed to future development? (4) to what degree will hazards be controlled and how will this be affected by human behaviour? (5) what will be the emphasis on pre-disaster as opposed to post- disaster activities? and (6) to what degree will outside partners be involved? Godschalk et al. suggest that the results of an adequate hazard, risk and vulnerability analysis may well determine the mitigation strategy that the com- munity finally adopts. However, a great deal of the impetus for adopting these four options will depend on the degree of community support.

3. Why Include the Public

If community planners and disaster managers ignore the local community, then they decrease their chance of providing reasonable solutions to disaster-related problems. As Britton (1989, p. 17) points out, following a cyclone in Darwin, Australia, there was “a rift between the public and the planners, and the destruction of public confidence contributed significantly to the failure of the planners to bring about changes in land use that were desirable . . . By 1977, as reconstruction neared completion, land use change in Darwin had, if anything, reinforced the pre-cyclone trends which the planners had tried to halt.”

For too long officials have not wanted to reveal hazards and risks to their re- spective communities, fearing that panic would prevail or that people would flee. Yet, the widespread success of HEROS, and other similar neighbourhood pro- grams, discussed earlier in this paper, demonstrate the contrary. Community mem-

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 217

bers have the right to know and to understand what hazards to expect, and they also have the right to participate in making difficult decisions. According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (1995, p. 37), all disaster research in the past decade has clearly indicated that community members in disaster-stricken areas already knew of both the risks and (for the most part) the remedies: “The gap has been in the political will to apply remedies prior to full- scale disaster and to commit resources to this vital developmental need rather than, for example, to the building up of a sophisticated armoury.”

In order for community members to influence politicians, they need to have access to the information essential to rational decision making. As the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (1995, p. 37) points out, the public’s right to information is a fundamental feature of democracy and is essential to disaster preparedness: “Once people have access to information as a right – not just from their country’s government, local authorities, companies and interest groups, but also from international organizations and aid agencies, they can then plan for themselves, make informed choices, and act to reduce their vulnerability.” Of course a community is not monolithic, and, as Boothroyd and Anderson (1983, p. 6) discuss, those involved in social planning must continuously address the ques- tion: “planning for whom?” For if the differences within any given community are not addressed prior to a disaster, then typically they hamper recovery efforts.

When the public is not involved in the disaster management process, it often, not surprisingly, challenges the decisions and actions of those in command. The following quote regarding the Italian Mezzogiorno earthquake in November 1980 exemplifies what may happen when a community is left out of the post-disaster planning process.

And in Calitiri, a town of 3,400 persons, an old man politely stopped a convoy of vans that had arrived to take villagers out of the storm-battered highlands and to hotels along the Amalfi coast. “You are a good and capable man, but don’t come again,” the old man said to the young police captain who was in charge of the relocation job. “This is where we lived, and this is where we want to die” (Ward, 1989, p. 281).

The disadvantaged (e.g. the poor, the sick, the marginalized) need to be able to gain access to information about, and to have a say in the development of, mitig- ative strategies. For example, as Bolin (1993, pp. 45–46) points out with regard to the earthquake in Whittier Narrows, a suburb of Los Angeles, the construction that followed it resulted in reduced low-rent housing and increased rents in commercial buildings. Because of a twenty-one-month delay in completing the comprehensive reconstruction plans (it took the city government seventeen months to appoint a consulting firm to prepare a plan for the uptown area), the Whittier Narrows’ Earth- quake Relief Fund ($420,000), originally intended to provide relief to all victims, ended up going exclusively towards grants for small businesses that agreed to stay in the uptown area.

218 LAURIE PEARCE

In post-disaster situations, the poor and visible minorities are always the most affected and constitute the majority of those who need alternate housing, coun- selling and other social services. This is true in both developed countries and in developing countries. The poor and the disenfranchised must not be overlooked in disaster planning activities – especially today, when “the ability of local groups to respond to crisis and the more chronic problems of vulnerability is becoming increasingly important as the traditional welfare net provided by governments is being eroded in almost all countries of the world” (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 1995, p. 16).

4. How to Ensure Public Participation

Of course, in spite of its importance with regard to sustainable hazard mitigation, it is not always easy to integrate public participation and disaster management. With this in mind, Lash (1995, p. 82) cites the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 1990 Scientific Advisory Board, whose objectives for public advisory committees involved “help[ing] educate the public about the technical aspects of environmental risks, and help[ing] educate the government about the subjective values that the public attaches to such risks.” In other words, how citizens are invited to particip- ate in disaster management is critical to the success of that participation. Recent work by Dorcey and McDaniels (1999), while focusing on public participation in Canadian environmental issues, has much to offer in terms of public participation in hazard mitigation. After all, both environmental risk management and hazard mitigation deal with complex issues concerning risk, and both concern themselves with sustainable development. Using British Columbia as an example, Dorcey and McDaniels document the plethora of multi-stakeholder consensus processes that proliferated in the early 1990s; however, by the mid 1990s enthusiasm had waned, and many processes ceased operating as funding dwindled and stakeholders (in- cluding governments) became fatigued by, and disenchanted with, the process. In many cases, public participation was seen to contribute to the problem rather than to aid in the solution. For example, some studies were “. . . seen by some as unpro- ductive in resolving issues and too time consuming and costly. The experiments with public involvement were criticized for delaying the process, overemphasiz- ing the interests of the active publics, and usurping the role of elected officials. There were commonly delays of up to two years in responding to recommenda- tions, which frustrated the heightened expectations that had been created by public involvement and sometimes meant that the recommendations were overtaken by events” (Dorcey and McDaniels, 1999, p. 13).�

� Dorcey and McDaniels (1999, p. 6) use the term “citizen involvement” to mean “processes for the involvement of citizens in advising and making decisions on matters under government authority, that augment or supplant decision making through established channels of representative government.” It encompasses such phrases as “public participation,” ’stakeholder involvement” and other similar terms.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 219

Nonetheless, Dorcey and McDaniels (1999) point out that, while the need for public participation was queried in the 1980s and 1990s, in the twenty-first century the question is not “if” public participation should be utilized but “how.” They argue that there has been a general shift, at least in principle, from a managerial per- spective (which trusts elected officials and administrators to act in the public good) to a pluralist perspective (which views government as an arbitrator among various organized interest groups). Citizens have become increasingly interested in a popu- lar perspective (which calls for the direct participation of citizens, rather than their representatives, in making policy). Thomas (1995) sees the increased education of citizens as a root cause of this shift. Accompanying this change in perspective has been an increasing interest in applying negotiation, facilitation and mediation tech- niques to the public participation process. There has also been increasing interest in co-management,�� which displays a move towards a related perspective – the shared power perspective – which is based on citizen empowerment. According to Dorcey and McDaniels (1999, p. 23):

Participation in voluntary associations, embodying norms of trust, reciprocity, tolerance, and inclusion, and activating networks of public communication, are believed to build and maintain the social capital upon which the vitality of the governance system and sustainable development are dependent.

Providing citizens with information is of course essential, but it is not suffi- cient. Many communities have available, and even distribute, an assortment of brochures and pamphlets. However, regardless of whether or not this material is read (never mind implemented), communities must do more to ensure that their residents become an integral part of their disaster management processes. Posting notices for opportunities to participate is important, but unless emergency planners make active efforts to directly involve community residents in the planning process, these opportunities may be ignored.

What can be done about the difficulty of getting disaster management programs established and getting local governments to recognize their importance? I would suggest that rather than asking ourselves how community participation can become an effective process within disaster management, we should be assuming that com- munity participation will ensure that disaster management will become an effective process within the community. According to Berke and French (1994, p. 247), high levels of government must dedicate themselves to encouraging community commitment to disaster planning. This dedication may manifest itself through edu- cation and consensus-building processes that heighten citizen ownership of any given disaster management plan. For example, Beatley and Berke (1993) discuss

�� The National Round Table of the Environment and the Economy, 1998, (cited in Dorcey and McDaniels, 1999) adopted the following definition of co-management: “co-management is a sys- tem that enables a sharing of decision making power, responsibility, and risk between governments and stakeholders, including but not limited to resources users, environmental interests, experts, and wealth generators.”

220 LAURIE PEARCE

the progress made in Charleston, South Carolina, which has held a number of pro- fessional workshops and community information forums, and which is also home to such educational groups as the Earthquake Education Center at Baptist College. Experts, community officials, and elected representatives have to ensure that com- munity planning processes are designed to “allow the integration of specialized technical and abstract knowledge with local concrete knowledge and feelings . . . ” (Boothroyd and Anderson, 1983, p. 11).

The British Columbia Round Table produced a report that suggested that public participation needed to be used more effectively than is now the case and that consensus-based multi- stakeholder approaches to hazard mitigation should not be used in every case (Dorcey, cited in Dorcey and McDaniels, 1999). Clearly many stakeholders have an interest in sustainable hazard mitigation, but does this mean that it is always appropriate to use a consensus-based approach? Dorcey and McDaniels (1999, p. 31) argue that many of the difficulties in applying consensus- based approaches to mitigation occur when participants expect to be empowered to make decisions and then are disappointed. They argue that it is essential that stakeholders understand that their task is to make recommendations. If risk man- agement is defined as the process by which stakeholders can translate findings into recommendations for action, and by which they can provide information to communities so that they may forestall disaster through the implementation of effective mitigation strategies, then I would argue that, although a consensus-based approach to sustainable hazard mitigation is always desirable, it may not always be possible.

In order to decide when a consensus-based approach to public participation should be used, Dorcey and McDaniels (1999) refer to the contingent approach developed by Thomas (1995), based on the work of Vroom and Yetton (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1988). Thomas argues that dealing effectively with public issues amounts to attaining a balance between “quality” and “acceptability”. His “Effective Decision Model” (Thomas, 1995, p. 38) provides the disaster manager with a series of questions that need to be asked in order to identify which of five basic approaches to public participation – autonomous managerial decision, modified autonomous managerial decision, segmented public consultation, unitary public consultation and public decision – best suits the issue at hand (Figure 2).

Thomas presents a number of ways of involving the public in the decision- making process, and depending upon the degree of public involvement, different implementation methods (e.g, public meetings, surveys, etc.) will be appropri- ate. Although it is not always possible to use advisory committees (as will be discussed below), many communities find that they can be useful. According to Thomas, an advisory committee can be composed of “representatives from inter- ested groups, including business, labor unions, and agency staff as well as cit- izen groups” (Thomas, 1995, p. 125). The committee typically holds a series of meetings and hearings involving experts and policy makers on the one hand, and

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 221

Figure 2. The Effective Decision Model of public involvement. Source: After Thomas (1995, p. 74).

selected members of the public and interest groups on the other (Keeney et al., 1990, p. 1013).

Thomas’s findings suggest that the use of an advisory committee has several advantages: (1) when there are multi-stakeholders involved, it may be easier to reach consensus through an advisory committee than through a public meeting; (2) the honour of membership encourages participants to think on behalf of the entire community rather than on behalf of their own special interest group; and (3) it can serve as an important vehicle for building public acceptance. While the use of an advisory committee may be appropriate for communities that contain a number of interested individuals and groups, it may not be appropriate for very small com- munities where there is little public interest in disaster management. In yet other communities, particularly those that have recently had a disaster, there may be large numbers of stakeholders who have an interest in participating in the sustainable hazard mitigation process. In this case, additional implementation methods (e.g. public hearings) may be required to supplement the advisory committee.

222 LAURIE PEARCE

Choosing the best way to involve members of the public is therefore critical and will, as Aguirre (1994, p. 5) indicates, involve instilling in them a sense of individual responsibility vis-à-vis disaster preparedness. As Salter (cited in Dis- aster Preparedness Resources Centre, 1998, p. 127) posits, “the community that has established capabilities for building relationships, organizing community in- tervention, and achieving results has taken the valuable first steps for becoming a Safe Community.”

I now offer an example of what can happen when community planning and disaster management are fully integrated, and when public participation is given a crucial place in this process.

5. The Portola Valley: A Case of Fully Integrated Approach to Disaster Management

On 20 July 1964 residents voted to incorporate Portola Valley, a town of approxim- ately nine square miles located south of San Francisco, so that they could control its development and so better preserve and protect its natural and diverse environ- ment. The public was very much concerned with maintaining the character of the community and of the open spaces, which included brush, trees, hills and steep mountains (Mader et al., 1988).

Passing through the valley’s floor is the San Andreas Fault. Landslides are com- mon west of the fault, where steep slopes rise to 1,600 feet, while east of the fault, where rolling hills top 400 feet, land movement is negligible. Although most of the Portola Valley’s human population lives in the east, development pressures and growth have caused developers to stake out projects in the less geologically stable lands west of the fault. For this town of approximately 4,300 residents, the expenses incurred in such development come to $1.1 million and are not nearly enough to cover the costs of repairing the potential damage caused by an earthquake or a heavy landslide.

Immediately after incorporation, the town established a conservation committee whose mandate was to develop recommendations that would help conserve the nat- ural setting and character of the valley. Dwight Crowder, a geologist and resident of Portola Valley, was appointed to the committee and was the first to recom- mend that geological conditions be taken into account when considering zoning, subdivision and site development regulations. By familiarizing himself with the planning process and town regulations, Crowder was able to develop specific and feasible recommendations for considering geological conditions within the context of community planning. He suggested that:

• a town engineering geologist be retained, • development of steep slopes be restricted, • geological hazards be mapped, • development be set back from faults,

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 223

• subdivisions and site development be reviewed with respect to geological haz- ards, and

• lot sizes be allowed to fit the terrain (Mader et al., 1988, p. 8). Although he translated difficult geological data into practical terms and edu-

cated the town council as to the importance of considering geological conditions when making its regulations, the council did not incorporate his recommendations into its 1965 general plan. However, in May 1967 a new residential subdivision development, along with a large portion of a public road, was destroyed by a large landslide. At around the same time, a recently approved subdivision was damaged by another landslide, which destroyed a home. Although county funds were used to repair most of the damage, the costs were well above what the newly incorporated town could afford.

Following the 1967 slide, the town council returned to Crowder and asked him to form a geologic hazards committee. He decided that the committee would be comprised of one attorney; one geologist; one local consulting engineering geo- logist; one local research geologist; and one soils or foundation engineer. The committee’s mandate was to assist in minimizing geological hazards-related losses to developers, homeowners and the town (Mader et al., 1988). Shortly after the committee was formed the town planner joined it as an advisor in the hope of trans- lating the effects of geological concerns into feasible proposals for town expansion. Since 1965 Crowder had been discussing with the town planner his geological concerns regarding land development. In August 1967 the committee made three significant recommendations to the town:

• retain an engineering geologist to advise on matters relating to geological hazards;

• ensure that all ordinances and regulations that could be affected by geological hazards have in place procedures to mitigate potential losses; and

• compile a geologic “hazards map” of the town. (Mader et al., 1988, p. 9). The interpretive hazards map, indicating the locations of all possible geological

hazards, was of special significance to the town as it was to be designed so that it could be understood by non-geologists. In February 1968 the council approved the implementation of all three recommendations forwarded by the Geologic Haz- ards Committee. Immediately, the building inspector was to re-evaluate certain existing lots for potential geologic hazards, and the town planner insisted that all development applications contain a soil report or, if necessary, a geological report. All permits for buildings used for public assembly were henceforth required to submit a geologic report along with their building application. The position of town geologist was created not only to ascertain the possible geologic hazards close to town development, but also to oversee and review all subdivision maps and all soil reports submitted by developers. As well, the town geologist was to manage the preparation of a geological hazards map that would guide all future town developments.

224 LAURIE PEARCE

Using aerial photographs, field examinations and other pertinent sources, the town council, guided by the town geologist, drew up a preliminary map of Portola Valley and the portion of the San Andreas Fault that passes through the town at a scale of 1:1,000 (Mader et al., 1988, p. 13). Due to fault movement in the past, the town geologist recommended that “a belt 100 feet wide [should] be respected in considering development” (Mader et al., 1988, p. 16) and that properties that traverse the fault should require developers to present more detailed information. He also requested that with the help of the town council he form an ad hoc com- mittee that would outline specific criteria needed to guide any development close to the fault. In 1971 the ad hoc committee included the town planner, the town geo- logist, the town building inspector, the town engineer, two engineering geologists and a civil engineer. The recommendations proposed by this committee included improving the scale of the hazards map to 1:500, ensuring that houses currently on the fault would not be removed but would be reviewed, and resolving that setback requirements for developments along the fault would be applied uniformly to all properties. In 1972 the committee set forth standards to guide all types of development along or near the fault:

• Within a 100-foot-wide band along the entire length of the fault, no buildings for human occupancy should be permitted.

• Within a 250-foot-wide band along the entire length of the fault, only single- family residences limited to single-story, wood-frame construction should be permitted.

• Beyond a 250-foot-wide band along the entire length of the fault, no specific setbacks are necessary (Mader et al., 1988, p. 18).

In mid-1972 the town planner incorporated these recommendations into a draft of the proposed permanent zoning regulations. This draft was reviewed by the ad hoc review committee and was discussed at public hearings with property owners within the fault zone. The regulations prevented or restricted only new development within the fault zone; existing buildings did not require removal and their rebuild- ing would not be prevented. Since the new regulations allowed existing houses to be left untouched, the property owners agreed to the implementation of the proposed regulations. In February 1973 the town council adopted these permanent zoning regulations.

In 1974 the more precise geological map of Portola Valley and its surrounding area was completed. Although the map was prepared and used by geologists, local residents also referred to it in order to understand how it might affect them. The geological map was entitled “Movement Potential of Undisturbed Ground,” and its legend contained and explained the four basic categories of land stability, ranging from “relatively stable ground” to “unstable ground characterized by seasonally active down slope movement.” However, since the establishing of a property’s po- tential land movement was integral to its development potential, the town council wanted to investigate how to measure that movement and to create guidelines that would apply consistently to all development applications. In essence, it “did not

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 225

want to give property owners false hope” regarding the future development of their properties (Mader et al., 1988, p. 25).

To establish precise guidelines, the ad hoc geological committee was formed and in March 1974 issued its report. Among other things, it recommended reducing the permitted density of development according to the extent of the property’s geologic hazard (as measured by the land movement potential map). It also re- commended allowing owners whose properties fell within both stable and unstable land categories a higher density of development on the former in order to encourage them to leave the latter as open space. Since much of the land west of the fault is steep, the committee recommended the incorporation of slope- density regulations. In fact, Portola Valley was one of the first communities to pioneer the establishment of slope-density regulations in its zoning regulations. The idea for these new regu- lations “emerged from the work of the town’s planning consultant and a citizens” committee formed to advise” on the Geologic Hazards Committee’s general plan (Mader et al., 1988, p. 27). The main support for the slope-density regulations came from the public’s desire to encourage low-density development in certain areas in order to preserve the natural environment and the character of the town. The combination of a reduced yield for unstable land and slope regulations (including provisions for cluster development) not only created safer land developments, but also encouraged development “that is compatible with the natural environment of the community” (Mader et al., 1988, p. 30).

Analysis of the Portola Valley experience suggests that the town’s success lies in its ability to fully integrate disaster management planning and community planning with a high degree of public participation. It was the public’s interest in preserving the town’s setting, not a concern with geologic conditions, that resulted in Portola Valley forming a conservation committee. It was only after the major landslides of 1967 that the Portola Valley incorporated geology into its planning. Yet the public’s drive for scenic preservation did not change. The popular desire to preserve the town’s character worked in tandem with the Geologic Hazards Committee’s desire to limit development in certain areas and to encourage open space; thus, there was no public outcry when the town council set regulations that limited development in the outlying areas west of the fault. Although geological and safety concerns, not public opinion, were the main criteria for establishing development regulations, the end result was the same: a 60 per cent reduction in the initially proposed amount of land to be developed west of the fault. In other words, the wishes of the general population were both directly and indirectly satisfied by the Geologic Hazards Committee’s proposed development regulations.

If one takes a close look at the demands and concerns of the residents whose lands were to be directly affected by the development regulations, it becomes clear that there are two reasons why land owners offered no opposition to the new devel- opment regulations: (1) the location of Portola Valley and (2) the way in which the Geologic Hazards Committee proposed concerns regarding enforcement. Most of Portola Valley’s development lay to the east of the fault, where among small, rolling

226 LAURIE PEARCE

hills geologic hazards are low. The proposed 1965 subdivision and development plans covered the land to the west of the fault, where due to steep mountains and cliffs there were few residences. Although relatively few owners would be affected by the new regulations, the Geologic Hazards Committee foresaw the need for the latter to ensure the safety of both present and future residents.

The drawing up of a geologic map detailing the nature and the relative seri- ousness of geologic hazard potential in the Portola Valley area created a base of information for both the council and property owners. Because this map was used to serve the town geologist, the town planner, the developer and the land owners, it was revised to enable non-geologists to read and understand it. Also, the Geologic Hazards Committee worked towards standardizing the criteria for evaluating the potential hazard of a property (by encouraging clustering and establishing slope- density formulae), thus making the assessment of development applications more equitable. As long as the property owners understood the potential geologic hazards and what they were able to do, and as long as they felt that they were being treated fairly, they were unlikely to balk at the new regulations. Also, property owners were assured that previously existing structures would not have to be torn down or removed, nor would there be any restrictions placed upon attempts to rebuild or modify them. This concession was crucial: as long as the property owners did not have to modify their present situation, they were generally willing to comply with the new regulations.

This concern for addressing the needs of property owners and involving them in the process of implementing new regulations ensured that things ran smoothly. As long as the public’s concerns were listened to and considered, new regulations (which may, at first, have seemed foreign and intrusive) were seen as necessary and helpful. In the case of Portola Valley, many steps were taken to ensure that both public and geological needs were met. Indeed, the Portola Valley experi- ence provides a clear demonstration of how public participation, when combined with disaster management planning and community planning, results in sustainable hazard mitigation.

6. Conclusion

Recent Australian and American research has urged the field of disaster manage- ment to shift its focus from response and recovery to sustainable hazard mitigation. In this paper it is argued that in order for this shift to occur, it is necessary to integrate disaster management and community planning. Current practice seldom reflects such a synthesis, and this is one of the reasons why hazard awareness is absent from local decision-making processes. Although disaster management planning has not traditionally been linked with community planning, the emerging focus on sustainable hazard mitigation clearly calls for the integration of these two disciplines. It is also clear that any successful approach to sustainable haz- ard mitigation must be participatory in nature and must be linked with the local

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABLE HAZARD MITIGATION 227

decision-making level. Thomas’s (1995) Effective Decision Model of Public In- volvement shows that, in most situations, shared public decision making is crucial to any effective approach to mitigation. As is demonstrated in the Portola Valley case study, public participation in combination with both disaster management planning and community planning results in sustainable hazard mitigation.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Anthony Dorcey, Wayne Greene, Peter Nemetz and Olav Slaymaker (all from University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.); and Peter Anderson (from Simon Fraser University, Bernaby, BC) for their assistance in the completion of my doctoral dissertation, a portion of which was adapted for this paper. I also thank Dave Etkin (Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario), Slobodan P. Simonovic (Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, London, Ontario) and Ingrid Leman Stefanovic (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario) for their com- ments and criticisms on an earlier draft of the paper.

References

Aguirre, B.: 1994, Planning, Warning, Evacuation and Search and Rescue: A Review of the Social Science Research Literature, Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, Texas.

Alesch, D. J. and Petak, W. J.: 1986, The Politics and Economics of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Australia and New Zealand Standards Associations: 1995, The Australia/New Zealand Risk Manage- ment Standard, Australia and New Zealand Standard #4360, Sydney and Auckland.

Beatley, T. and Berke, P. R.: 1993, Time to Shake Up Earthquake Planning, Hazard Reduction Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College Station: Texas.

Berke, P. R. and French, S. P.: 1994, The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Planning Quality, Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, Texas.

Bolin, R.: 1993, Household and Community Recovery After Earthquakes, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Boothroyd, P. and Anderson, O. A.: 1983, The Difference Between Corporate and Social Planning, and the Implications for Indian Affairs, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Regina, SK.

Britton, N.: 1989, Decision-making in emergency organizations under conditions of crisis and un- certainty, In: Risk and Perception and Response in Australia: Proceedings of a Workshop at the Australian Counter Disaster Colleg, July 1989, The Center for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australia.

Central United States Earthquake Consortium: 1993, Emergency Response and Recovery: Mono- graph 4, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, Tennessee.

Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre: 1998, The Mitigation Symposium: Towards a Cana- dian Mitigation Strategy, Comprehensive Symposium Proceeding, January 1998, The Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Dorcey, A. H. J. and McDaniels, T.: 1999, Great expectation, mixed results: trends in citizen involve- ment in Canadian environmental governance, (http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/dorcey/trends), Cited with permission.

Drabek, T. E.: 1991, The evolution of emergency management, In: Drabek, T. E. and Hoetmer, G. J. (eds), Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, International City Management Association, Washington, DC, pp. 3–29.

228 LAURIE PEARCE

Drabek, T. E.: 1986, Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Friedmann, J.: 1992, Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E.J., and Berke, P.R.: 1998, Hazard assessment: the factual basis for planning and mitigation, In: Burby, R. (ed.), Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities, Joseph Henry, Washington, DC, pp. 85–118.

Hodge, G.: 1991, Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles, Practice, and Participants, Second Edition, Nelson, Toronto, ON.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: 1995, World Disasters Report 1994, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland.

Keeney, R. L., Winterfeldt, D. V., and Eppel, T.: 1990, Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions Management Science 36(9), 1011–1030.

Kreps, G. A.: 1991, Organizing for emergency management, In: Drabek T. E. and Hoetmer, G. J. (eds), Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, International City Management Association, Washington, DC, pp. 30–54.

Lash, J.: 1995, Integrating science, values, and democracy through comparative risk assessment, In: Finkel, A. M. and Golding, D. (eds), The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 69–86.

Laughy, L.: 1991, A Planner’s Handbook for Emergency Preparednes, Centre for Human Settle- ments, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Mader, G. G., Vlasix, T. C., and Gregory, P.A.: 1988, Geology and Planning: The Portola Valley Experience, Consolidated Publications, Portola Valley, CA.

Mileti, D. S.: 1999, Disaster by Design, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC. Myers, M. F.: 1997, Insights Emerging from the “Assessment of Research and Applications for

Natural Hazards” in the United States, Disaster Preparedness Resources Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education: 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Paterson, R. G.: 1998, The third sector: evolving partnerships in hazard mitigation, In: Burby, R. (ed.), Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities, Joseph Henry, Washington, DC, pp. 203–230.

Pearce, L. D.: 2000, An Integrated Approach For Community Hazard, Impact, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis: HIRV, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Petak, W. J.: 1985, Emergency management: a challenge for public administration, Public Adminis- tration Review 45(1), 3–7.

Rubin, C.: 1991, Recovery from disaster, In: Drabek, T. E. and Hoetmer, G. J. (eds), Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government, International City Washington, DC, pp. 224–261.

Thomas, J. C.: 1995, Public Participation in Public Decisions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Scanlon, T. J.: 1982, The roller coaster story of civil defence planning in Canada, Emergency

Planning Digest, April–June, 7–14. Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G.: 1988, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations,

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Vroom, V. H. and Yetton, P.: 1973, Leadership and Decision Making, University of Pittsburgh Press,

Pittsburgh, PA. Ward, K. (ed.): 1989, Great Disasters, Readers Digest, Montreal, Quebec.