Using a resilience scorecard to improve local planning for vulnerability to hazards and climate change: An application in two cities

被引:28
作者
Berke, Philip [1 ]
Kates, Justin [2 ]
Malecha, Matt [3 ]
Masterson, Jaimie [4 ]
Shea, Paula [5 ]
Yu, Siyu [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Ctr Resilient Commun & Environm, Inst Environm, Dept City & Reg Planning, New East Bldg,Campus Box 3140-223 E Cameron Ave, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Emergency Management, Nashua, NH USA
[3] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[4] Texas A&M Univ, Texas Target Communities, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[5] Dept City Planning, Norfolk, VA USA
关键词
Community resilience; Urban planning; Climate change; Hazard mitigation; PLANS; NETWORK;
D O I
10.1016/j.cities.2021.103408
中图分类号
TU98 [区域规划、城乡规划];
学科分类号
0814 ; 082803 ; 0833 ;
摘要
Communities adopt multiple plans that directly and indirectly address the effects of hazards and climate change. A major obstacle to responding to the growing threats is poor integration of individual planning efforts that govern land use and development. We explore application of a Plan Integration of Resilience Scorecard (PIRS) in the U.S. cities of Nashua and Norfolk that involved a partnership between university experts and local government staff to assess the degree to which networks of local plans are coordinated and target hazardous areas. A team of local evaluators in each city found that plans are not fully consistent; moreover, some plans actually increase vulnerability. Outcomes from learning and engagement vary. Nashua included a broad network of stakeholder groups, but Norfolk was more focused on elected officials and neighbourhood groups. Nashua amended its hazard mitigation plan, reorganized the permitting process, and used crowdsourcing technologies to encourage public participation. Norfolk revised its comprehensive plan to improve coordination with other plans, prioritized funding to redress environmental injustices, and strengthened location standards for new infrastructure. PIRS represents a potential model that communities can use to respond to global calls to catalyse a shift from independent resilience operations to longer-term, more coordinated planning.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [21] The information system of plans approach: Using and making plans for landscape protection
    Finn, Donovan
    Hopkins, Lewis D.
    Wempe, Matthew
    [J]. LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2007, 81 (1-2) : 132 - 145
  • [22] Barriers to Municipal Climate Adaptation: Examples From Coastal Massachusetts' Smaller Cities and Towns
    Hamin, Elisabeth M.
    Gurran, Nicole
    Emlinger, Ana Mesquita
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 2014, 80 (02) : 110 - 122
  • [23] Autonomous planning: Using plans as signals
    Hopkins, Lewis D.
    Knaap, Gerrit-Jan
    [J]. PLANNING THEORY, 2018, 17 (02) : 274 - 295
  • [24] Institute for Sustainable Communities, COV COMM
  • [25] Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2020, PLAN INT RES SCOR
  • [26] Kates J, 2019, RESILIENT NASHUA
  • [27] Spatially evaluating a network of plans and flood vulnerability using a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard: A case study in Feijenoord District, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    Malecha, Matthew L.
    Brand, A. D.
    Berke, Philip R.
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 78 : 147 - 157
  • [28] Groups, Inequality, and Synergy
    Manago, Bianca
    Sell, Jane
    Goar, Carla
    [J]. SOCIAL FORCES, 2019, 97 (03) : 1365 - 1388
  • [29] Defining urban resilience: A review
    Meerow, Sara
    Newell, Joshua P.
    Stults, Melissa
    [J]. LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2016, 147 : 38 - 49
  • [30] Participatory action research: tools for disaster resilience education
    Meyer, Michelle Annette
    Hendricks, Marccus
    Newman, Galen D.
    Masterson, Jaimie Hicks
    Cooper, John T.
    Sansom, Garett
    Gharaibeh, Nasir
    Horney, Jennifer
    Berke, Philip
    van Zandt, Shannon
    Cousins, Tiffany
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RESILIENCE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 9 (4-5) : 402 - 419