Search

Cities are increasingly focused on building resilience. The literature on urban resilience governance emphasizes the importance of breaking down organizational silos and fostering collaboration between diverse actors. Yet few studies empirically examine whether existing resilience governance networks possess these theorized characteristics. This paper addresses this gap by focusing on flood resilience governance in four major U.S. cities and uses social network analysis to analyze the collaboration structures of organizations involved in resilience building efforts. Drawing on original survey data, results suggest that resilience governance is multi-level, with city, regional, state, and federal government organizations present in all city networks. The networks are also diverse, with nonprofit organizations, private firms, and educational or research institutions prominently featured. While these results are promising in terms of the potential for resilience to diversify participation in decision-making, we also find low levels of network density, meaning that the networks are generally sparsely connected. This suggests that the network is susceptible to fragmentation if organizations defect from the network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findingsTakeaway for practiceAs communities everywhere experience accelerating climate change impacts, local governments must proactively plan and implement adaptation or resilience strategies. A significant challenge is effectively scaling up these efforts in diverse communities. In 2015, the State of California passed Senate Bill 379 (SB379), requiring climate change adaptation and resilience strategies in local plans, making it the first U.S. state to broadly mandate such requirements locally. Our study measured the effects of SB379 on the quality of local plans that address climate change adaptation or resilience and assessed which types of plans jurisdictions selected to meet the requirements. Using a longitudinal study, we analyzed plan quality before and after SB379 took effect using criteria developed for earlier studies of voluntary climate adaptation plans. We found that California plans have significantly improved when assessed against theoretical criteria, and most jurisdictions have chosen their local hazard mitigation plans to meet the requirements. The flexible and cooperative design of the mandate and its loose enforcement suggest local jurisdictions are willing to address climate change, even when challenged with more stringent requirements if incentives align. As a natural policy experiment, California’s experience offers a unique opportunity to examine the effects of a state planning mandate and the choices local jurisdictions make to comply.Cooperative mandates that require local governments to address climate change adaptation and resilience in their plans but offer flexibility in how they do so may improve the quality of plans. Practitioners should seek to leverage flexibility in such mandates to the advantage of their local communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coastal cities facing growing flood risks are increasingly focused on resilience. Academic and policy discourse present a resilience-based approach to governing hazards as more collaborative, better connecting threats, systems, and actors. Literature on governance networks, collaborative governance, and networks of plans suggests collaboration enhances resilience, but empirical studies of the relationship between governance networks, networks of plans, and resilience policies are limited. This study addresses this gap by examining collaboration patterns and plans in the context of flood resilience in four U.S. cities (Fort Lauderdale, Baltimore, Boston, and Seattle). We use surveys and social network analysis to assess collaboration within the cities' flood governance networks. We analyze cities' networks of plans using three approaches: (1) plan quality evaluation, (2) plan cross-referencing, and (3) the spatial distribution and flood resilience impact of policies. We find that higher quality plans and those that integrate flood information are more likely to have policies reducing flood risk. Plans that are more connected to other plans also have higher plan quality scores and more flood information. At the city level, the relationship between collaboration across the governance networks and networks of plans appears more complex and requires additional research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Planning Education & Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cities are developing hazard mitigation plans (HMP) and climate change adaptation plans (CCAP) with the common aim of proactively reducing vulnerability to future hazards. Yet, they are often treated as distinct planning instruments. Some planning scholars have suggested that HMP and CCAP should be integrated since climate change impacts are increasing and communities have limited time and resources. But, it is unclear how synergistic these two planning approaches are in practice. Focusing on flooding as a key climate-related hazard, this study examines planning frameworks and helps to address this gap by exploring HMPs and CCAPs in three US cities at the forefront of flood resilience planning. We analyze the content of standalone HMPs and CCAPs in Boston, MA, and Seattle, WA, and a combined plan in Baltimore, MD to identify overlaps in practice and explore how, and to what extent, HMPs and CCAPs are synergistic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extreme heat is the deadliest climate hazard in the United States. Climate change and the urban heat island effect are increasing the number of dangerously hot days in cities worldwide and the need for communities to plan for extreme heat. Existing literature on heat planning focuses on heat island mapping and modeling, whereas few studies delve into heat planning and governance processes. We surveyed planning professionals from diverse cities across the United States to establish critical baseline information for a growing area of planning practice and scholarship that future research can build on. Survey results show that planners are concerned with extreme heat risks, particularly environmental and public health impacts from climate change. Planners already report impacts from extreme heat, particularly to energy and water use, vegetation and wildlife, public health, and quality of life. Especially in affected communities, planners claim they address heat in plans and implement heat mitigation and management strategies such as urban forestry, emergency response, and weatherization, but perceive many barriers related to human and financial resources and political will. Planners are concerned about extreme heat, especially in the face of climate change. They are beginning to address heat through different strategies and plan types, but we see opportunities to better connect planners to existing heat information sources and leverage existing planning tools, including vegetation, land use regulations, and building codes, to mitigate risks. Although barriers to heat planning persist, including human and capital resources, planners are uniquely qualified to coordinate communities' efforts to address the rising threat of extreme heat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Planning Education & Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)