Search

This report presents the findings of Part 2 of a four part research project investigating the state of planning for natural hazards in New Zealand. Part 2 is a case study analysis of ten land use plans prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Each of the ten plans selected is analysed for examples of good practice in natural hazards planning. Development of the selection criteria for choosing the ten plans, and development of the indicators of good practice for natural hazards planning, is discussed. Nine indicators of good practice are considered: planning framework, maps, monitoring and evaluation, roles and responsibilities, interaction with CDEM plans, information base/management, uncertainty, cumulative and cascading hazards, and definition of risk. Each of the ten plans is assessed against each of these nine indicators. Many examples of good practice for natural hazards planning are identified for regional policy statements and unitary and district plans. Opportunities for improving practice in natural hazards planning are also identified. Advances in good practice over time are identified for the indicators of planning framework, roles and responsibilities, interaction with CDEM plans, cumulative and cascading hazards, and definitions. Advantages of a unitary plan (combined regional and district jurisdiction) over district plans (single jurisdiction) are identified for the indicators of planning framework, roles and responsibilities and cumulative hazards. Comment is also made on how the planning hierarchy works for natural hazards planning, by looking at the proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement and the proposed Thames-Coromandel District Plan.