[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Hazard Mitigation Research Program The Center for Urban and Regional Studies The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 HT392 R4655 no.85- WV." El Report No. 85-05 CONSTRAINTS ON THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE COASTAL STORM HAZARDS Timothy Beatley David J. Brower The information presented in this report is based upon research funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CEE-8217115, Hurricane Hazard Reduction Through Development Management. The findings and opinions are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 1985 LIBRARY U3. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2224 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE j- CHARLESTON, SO 29405-203 Constraints on the Use of Development Management to Reduce Coastal Storm Hazards Timothy Beatley and David J. Brower* Two dominant approaches to reducing coastal storm hazards are the reinforcement of the coastal environment (e.g., seawalls, groins, beach nourishment) and the reinforcement of building and facilities (e.g., hurricane-resistant building standards, floodproofing of sewer and water lines, elevation of streets and roads). An alternative approach, yet one which is less frequently used, is the management and guidance of urban development. The general objective of these pro- grams is to reduce the extent of exposure and to reorient growth away from high hazard areas. Development management can be defined to include programs and policies, which influence, either directly or indirectly, the location, density, timing and/or type of development occurring in a locality (see, for instance, Godschalk, Brower, et al. 1979; Brower et al., 1984). Six categories of measures might be deli- neated: 1) planning (e.g., local comprehensive or land use plans, post-storm reconstruction plans and policies); 2) development regula- tion (e.g., zoning, subdivision ordinances); 3) taxation, fiscal and other incentives (e.g., differential. property taxation, impact fees, transferable development rights); 4) capital facility and public investment policy (e.g., locating public structures in safe locations, timing sewer and water extension to influence private development patterns); 5) land and property acquisition (e.g., fe-simple acquisi- tion, acquisition of easements and less-than-fee-simple interests in land); and 6) information dissemination (e.g., hazard disclosure re- quirements in real estate transactions). This paper is concerned with uncovering some basic constraints on the enactment and effectiveness of development management measures designed to mitigate storm hazards. Insights are drawn from responses to a mail questionnaire by coastal planners in 420 hurricane- prone coastal localities. This questionnaire was mailed to all Gulf and Atlantic lcoalities containing "V-zones" (high hazard wave zones) as designated under the National Flood Insurance Program (plus four counties in Hawaii). Surveys were mailed to 637 localities, providing a response rate of approximately 67 percent. This questionnaire pro- vides detailed information about the types of mitigation measures currently used by coastal localities and the perceived effectiveness of these measures at reducing storm hazards (see Beatley, Brower, Godschalk, and Rohe 1985; and accompanying Coastal Zone '85 paper by Beatley and Brower). In addition, information was solicited from *Research Associate and Associate Director of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hickerson House 067A, Chapel Hill, North Carolinna 27514. 1 Beatley and Brower respondents concerning perceived obstacles to the use of development management, and to the effectiveness of those measures already in place. The bulk of the text below presents and interprets this data. Obstacles to the Enactment of Development Management Survey respondents were provided a list of obstacles to the use of development management to reduce coastal storm hazards, and asked to indi- cate which were important in their localities. In addition, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they were important. Conse- quently, two types of findings result: the number of localities in which particular obstacles are present, and the average importance of particular obstacles as compared to others. Table I presents the eleven obstacles in order of the frequency with which they were cited by respondents. Table 1: Obstacles to the Enactment of Development Management in Order of Frequency Rank Frequency Percent 1. General conservative attitude toward government control of private property rights N=373 327 87.7 2. General feeling that community can "weather the storm" N=371 317 85.4 3. Lack of adequate financial resources to implement mitigation programs N=360 304 84.4 4. More pressing local problems and concerns N=365 300 82.2 5. Lack of trained personnel to develop mitigation programs N=358 287 80.2 6. Lack of incentives or requirements, from higher levels of government N=358 286 79.9 7. Opposition of real estate and development interests N=369 294 79.7 8. Opposition of homeowners N=352 260 73.9 9. Opposition of business interests N=351 248 70.7 10. Absence of politically-active individuals and groups advocating hurricane/storm mitigation N=353 248 70.2 11. Inadequate or inaccurate federal flood insurance maps N=355 221 62.3 2 Beatley and Brower The general conservative attitude of a locality toward planning and the regulation of private property was the most frequently cited obstacle, followed by attitudes thatthe community can "weather the storm," lack of financial resources, more pressing local problems and concerns, and lack of trained personnel. The remaining six entries were also selected by a large number of respondents. Indeed, for each potential obstacle no less than 60 percent of the respondents indi- cated that it was at least somewhat important in their locality. The extent to which each obstacle is considered a problem may provide a better assessment of the relative importance of these fac- tors. Table 2 provides the top five entries in order of their average importance. While the order changes,the composition of the top five remains largely the same. Lack of adequate resources becomes the fac- tor receiving the highest importance ratings (on a five-point scale). Lack of trained personnel drops out of the top five, and is replaced by opposition from real estate and development interests. Table 2: Rank Order of Obstacles According to Average Importance Rating Average Rank Importance Score* 1. Lack of adequate financial resources to implement implement mitigation programs N=304 3.41 2. General conservative attitude toward government control of private property rights N=373 3.35 3. More pressing local problems and concerns N=365 3.26 4. General feeling that community can "weather the storm" N=371 3.07 5. Opposition of real estate and development interests N=369 3.03 *on a five-point scale The fact that the lack of financial resources is noted by respon- dents as the most important obstacle (on the five-point importance scale) largely reflects the Financial and fiscal circumstances of many coastal localities. Effective planning and development management are. not possible without certain financial commitments. Planning analyses must be conducted, regulatory frameworks established, ordinances written, personnel hired, and so on. Many of these functions may simply be infeasible in localities with traditionally low budgets, and a dedication to the provision of basic ("no frills") public services. 3 Beatly and Brower These findings also suggest the importance of certain political and attitudinal variables in constralning the use of development management in reducing coastal storm threats. It is apparent that coastal planners and policymakers must often overcome.strong conserva- tive attitudes about property rights and regulation. While coastal planners can work to educate elected officials and the public at-large, about development management, it may simply require time before whole- sale acceptance of such planning pressures is feasible in many coastal localities. Rapid population and demographic changes will often facilitate such attitudinal shifts (e.g., Rudel 1984; Garkovich 1982). In the short term, these represent constraints that coastal planners and supporters of development management must work within. Similar observations apply to attitudes about "weathering the storm." While coastal planners can work to heighten public awareness, in the short term this factor may retard.public support for development management programs. The data highlight, as well, the importance of political factors, such as the opposition of real estate and development interests, and the absence of politically-supportive groups. This suggests that for development management to be feasible in many coastal localities will require efforts to educate and gain the ;iil)port* of certain otherwise oppositional interests. It also suggests a greater need to emphasize the benefits of development management and the importance of building a vocal public constituency for its use. Such actions may serve to enhance the position of storm hazard mitigation, and the use of development management to achieve it, on the local politLeal. agenda. Arguments Against Development Management Anyone who has followed the course of a proposed zoning ordinance or growth manageiliont system where one did iioL prevLously exist will appreciate the powerful role played by the explLcit arguments made against development management measures by its opponents. To get at this issue, respondents were asked to evaluate the jmp()rtnnce oF several specific arguments that were expected to be of consi.derable importance. Table 3 presents these four arguments in order of fre- quency and importance (no difference in the order). Ily C;ir the argil- ment perceived to be the most important was that development management measures lead to increases in the costs of development. Nearly 85 percent of the respondents indicated that this irgumont was at least somewhat important. All of the remaining three argument.,; were con- sidered iiighly imporLaiiL by respundcuLs Lis wcl[-. These findings suggest that coastal planners and policymakers concerned with advancing t11C'. use of development management to reduce storm hazards must be prepared to respond to these arguments. These responses must be definitive and knowledgeable. Proponents of devel- opment management must be willing to indicate, for examp1e, why individuals should not be left entirely to make their own decisions about storm risks (e.g., because their actions and behavior affect the welfare of others, because they lack ful.1 information @ibout the hazard, and so on). They must, for example, be able to provide empiri- cal information that supports the position that developmcnL management measures will not substantially dampen the local economy. 4 iind Brower Table 3: Arguments Against Enactment of Development Management in Order of Frequency Average Importance Rank Frequency Percent Rating* 1. Development management measures lead to increased develop- mental costs N=382 324 84.8 3.16 2. Decisions about risks from coastal storms are best left to the individual N=359 254 71.0 2.65 3. Development management measures dampen local economy N=368 252 68.5 2.51 4. Particular development manage- ment measures are illegal or unconstitutionalN=351 232 66.1, 2.40 *on a five-point scale Enforcement and Implementation Problems For development arrangement programs to be effective at reducing storm hazards, theLrenactment is not sufficient. Rather, they must be enforced and implemented as well as simply adopted. The questionnaire was designed also to obtain information about problems encountered in the enforcement/implementation stage. Respondents were provided a list of five potential problems, and asked to indicate if any of these were important in their communities, and the extent to which they were important. Table 4 provides the results of these responses. Overall, about half of the respondents indicated tliat Lhey had U11COUntured no such problems at all. Of thoqe that did, instifficienr funds was the. clear leader, selected by over 60 percent of those who answered this question. This Suggests again t1te h1gh importance of financial re- sources in carrying out an effective mitigation program. A locality may have expended large amounts of time and energy in designating high hazard parcels to be purchased, an(] providing a detailed decision framework in which to evaluate these potential acquisitions, yet the program may fall on its face because there are no continuing sources of funds to acquire the land. Moreover, a locality may have a sophis- ticated and well thought-out regulatory system, yet may lack the financial resources to ensure its enforcement or to carry out its analytical and evaluation requirements. Public opposition and lack of support by public officials were also selected by a large number of respondents, highlighting how equally important political support is to implementation as it is to adoption. Development management pro@,rams w[11 encounter rosis@ance from a number of sources, includiiig indivichuils and gr011PS linrmed by 5 ;_LnC1 Browur Table 4: Problems in Enforcement and Implementation of Development Management Pleasures Rank 0rder Frequency Percent 1. Insufficient funds N=199 120 60.3 2. Public opposition N=198 91 45.9 3. Lack of support by public officials N=196 84 42.9 4. Lack of qualified personnel N=199 82 41.2 5. Insufficient data base N=199 65 32.6 such programs, and other public issues and problems that may serve to overshadow development management and hazard mitigation. Continued funding and commitment to enforcement are directly tied to their place on the local political agenda. Two factors of a more technical nature --lack of qualified personnel and an insufficient data base--were also identified by a considerable number of respondents and suggest the importance of such basic administrative inputs to the effectiveness of development management programs. It may be difficult or impossible to effectively implement, for example, a program designed to orient capital facilities away from high hazard areas, if an accurate delinea- tion of the hazard areas is not available. Furthermore, a sophisti- cated development management program may be of no use if it is left to be implemented by existing local personnel who have little or no experience in land use regulations (e.g., parks and recreation per- sonnel, public works personnel, police and fire officials). Undesirable Consequences of Development Management Effectiveness is not only a function of the extent to which devel- opment management rednees coastal storm hazards, but also the extent to which it advances or undermines other local goals. To get at this, respondents were asked if their communities had experienced any un- desirable consequences or side effects from the development management measures currently in place. Only about one-third of the respondents indicated that they had experienced such negative effects. Respondents in communities where these effects were evident were asked more spe- cifically about four potential consequences. Table 5 presents the results from this question. Only one potential effect, of the four presented, was selected by a significant number of respondents: that of an increase in construction costs. It is difficult from our data to determine in what sense such costs are increased, and by what types of development management measures. However, it does suggest that coastal planners and policymakers interested in using development management to reduce storm hazards should be sensitive to additional costs that may be imposed on builders and housing consumers, and to try, to the extent possible, to keep costs to a minimum. This finding also suggests that one of the arguments against tile use of development management cited above may have some basis in fact. 6 Beatley and Brower Table 5: Undesirable Consequenc ies Resulting From Development Management .Rank Order Frequency Percent 1. Increase in construction costs 108. 83.7 2. Slowed economic growth and development 26 20.2 3. Reduced tax revenues 19 14.7 4. Reduced land values 14 10.9 N=129 On the positive side, very few respondents indicated that devel- opment management measures had the effect of slowing local economic growth, of reducing local tax revenues or of reducing local land values. The most frequently selected of these three--the slowing of economic growth and development--was only experienced by about 6 per- cent of the responding localities. Conclusions This paper has presented some important information about per- ceived constraints to the enactment and effective implementation of development management measures to reduce coastal storm hazards. It suggests reasons why development management is not used in more coastal localities, and where it is used, why it is often not enforced or effectively implemented. The list of constraints included above is by no means exhaustive. We have not mentioned, for example, the role of federal flood insurance and dLsaster assistance, or the role of regional and state governments in encouraging the local use of development management. The set of issues identified above, however, encompass many of the most pertinent influences on adoption and implementation. It presents coastal planners and policymakers--at all levels of government--who are interested in increasing the use of development management with a potential set of policy levers. While some influences, such as the general conservative atmosphere prevalent in many coastal locales, are beyond adjustment in the stiort-term, other factors such as the lack of politically supportive groups may be more open to short term enhancement. In any event, whether these factors are accessible to change or not, proponents of development management programs must at least be cognizant of them and formulate their actions and strategies accordingly. 7 11,(,;it@](@Y nild Browur References Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk, and William M. Rohe. Storm Hazard Reduction Through Development Management: Results of a Survey of Hurricane-Prone Localities in Nineteen Coastal States, Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and Regional Studies, January, 1985. Brower, David J. et al. Development Management in Small Towns, Chicago, IL: Planners Press, 1934. Garkovich, Lorraine. "Land Use Planning as a Response to Rapid Population Growth and Community Change," Rural Sociology, Vol. 47, 1982. Godschalk, David R., David J. Brower et al. Constitutional Tssues of Growth Management, Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press, 1979. Rudel, Thomas. "The Human Ecology of Rural Land Use Planning," Rural Sociolo&y, Vol. 49, 1984. 8 BeaLlc,,, atid Brower DATE DUE 1, (1@jq @ a I i I I GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A. Ile, 3 6668 00003 4191 r