Evaluating Land Use and Emergency Management Plans for Natural Hazards as a Function of Good Governance: A Case Study from New Zealand

Abstract

Plan evaluation is of utmost importance as a function of good governance. It provides a means to improve the institutional basis for implementing land use controls, provides an important opportunity to improve future plans to reduce risk, and improves the vision for sustainable development and management. This article provides an overview of the methods and findings of a plan evaluation project undertaken in New Zealand. The project analyzed 99 operative plans, provided in-depth analysis of ten plans, and included a capability and capacity study of councils. This is the first time all operative plans in New Zealand have had their natural hazard provisions assessed in this manner. The information provides an important baseline for future policy improvements, and a basis for future research and policy directions. The project found that, while New Zealand land use plans appear to be improving over time, there are still opportunities for improvement. These include improving linkages between objectives, policies, and rules within land use plans; and strengthening the linkages between land use and emergency management plans. The largest challenge is the accessibility, understanding of, and updating of hazard information.

Keywords

Emergency management plans / Land use plans / Natural hazards / New Zealand / Plan evaluation

References

[1] Beban, J.G., and W.S.A. Saunders. 2013. Planning for risk: Incorporating risk-based land use planning into a district plan. GNS Science miscellaneous series 63. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[2] Beban, J.G., M.A. Coomer, and S. McBride. 2012. Addressing earthquake hazards: A review of council policies and plans within the Wellington region. GNS Science report 2012/31. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[3] Becker, J.S., and D.M. Johnston. 2000. Planning and policy for earthquake hazards in New Zealand. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Science report 2000/28. Lower Hutt: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences.

[4] Behn R. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 2003, 63(5): 586-606

[5] Berke PR, Godschalk D. Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 2009, 23(3): 227-240

[6] Berke PR, Roenigk DJ, Kaiser EJ, Burby RJ. Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1996, 39(1): 79-96

[7] Berke PR, Crawford J, Dixon J, Ericksen NJ. Do cooperative environmental planning mandates produce good plans? Empirical results from the New Zealand experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1999, 26(5): 643-664

[8] Berke PR, Smith G, Lyles W. Planning for resiliency: Evaluation of state mitigation plans under the disaster mitigation act. Natural Hazards Review, 2012, 13(2): 139-149

[9] Ehler C. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 2003, 46(3): 335-345

[10] Ericksen NJ, Berke PR, Crawford JL, Dixon JE. Planning for sustainability: New Zealand under the RMA, 2003, Hamilton: The International Global Change Institute

[11] IBHS (Insurance Institite for Business & Home Safety). 2001. Community land use evaluation for natural hazards. http://www.disastersafety.org/resource/resmgr/PDFs/CLUE.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2008.

[12] Krippendorff, K. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

[13] Lyles W, Stevens M. Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2014, 34(4): 433-450

[14] Lyles, W., P. Berke, and G. Smith. 2012. Evaluation of local hazard mitigation plan quality. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. https://ie.unc.edu/cscd/projects/pdf/Lyles_Berke_Smith_2012_LocalPlanQualitySummary.pdf. Accessed Jan 2015.

[15] May PJ, Burby RJ, Ericksen NJ, Handmer JW, Dixon JE, Michaels S Environmental management and governance: Intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability, 1996, London: Routledge

[16] New Zealand Government Resource management act 1991, 1991, Wellington: Published under the Authority of the New Zealand Government

[17] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Coastal hazards and climate change: A guidance manual for local government in New Zealand, 2008, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

[18] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 2008b. Natural hazards guidance note. http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/plan-topics/natural-hazards.php. Accessed 5 Jun 2009.

[19] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Preparing for climate change: A guide for local government in New Zealand, 2008, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

[20] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Preparing for future flooding: A guide for local government in New Zealand, 2010, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

[21] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Tools for estimating the effects of climage change on flood flow: A guidance manual for local government in New Zealand, 2010, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

[22] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Improving our resource management system, 2013, Ministry for the Environment: A discussion document. Wellington

[23] New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Resource management summary of reform proposals, 2013, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment

[24] Parfitt J. Flowerdew R, Martin D. Questionnaire design and sampling. Methods in human geography: A guide for students doing a research project, 1997, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman 76-109.

[25] Patton MQ. Developmental evaluation. Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use, 2011, New York: Guilford Press

[26] Quality Planning. 2013. Natural hazards. http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/planning-tools/natural-hazards. Accessed 5 Jun 2013.

[27] Ramsay D, Gibberd B, Dahm J, Bell R. Defining coastal hazard zones and setback lines: A guide to good practice, 2012, Hamilton: NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research)

[28] Renn O. Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world, 2008, London: Earthscan

[29] Saunders, W.S.A., and K.R. Berryman. 2012. Just add water: When should liquefaction be considered in land use planning? GNS Science miscellaneous series 47. Lower Hutt: GNS Science

[30] Saunders WSA, Ruske M. Tabulated results from review of natural hazard provisions in regional policy statements, territorial authority plans, and CDEM group plans, 2014, Lower Hutt: GNS Science

[31] Saunders, W.S.A., J.C. Beban, and M.A. Coomer. 2014a. Analysis of natural hazard provisions in regional policy statements, territorial authority plans, and CDEM Group Plans. GNS Science report 2014/28. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[32] Saunders, W.S.A., J.G. Beban, and M.A. Coomer. 2014b. Assessment of council capability and capacity for managing natural hazards through land use planning. GNS Science report 2014/50. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[33] Saunders, W.S.A., J.G. Beban, and M. Kilvington. 2013. Risk-based land use planning for natural hazard risk reduction. GNS Science miscellaneous series 67. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[34] Saunders WSA, Forsyth J, Johnston DM, Becker J. Strengthening linkages between land-use planning and emergency management in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 2007, 22(1): 36-43.

[35] Saunders, W.S.A., and P. Glassey. 2007. Guidelines for assessing planning policy and consent requirements for landslide-prone land. GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 7. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[36] Saunders, W.S.A., E.S. Grace, and J.G. Beban. 2014. Overview of the state of land use planning for natural hazards in New Zealand. GNS Science Report 2014/63. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[37] Saunders, W.S.A., G. Prasetya, and G. Leonard. 2011. New Zealand’s next top model: Integrating tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning. GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 34. Lower Hutt: GNS Science.

[38] Smith, K., and M. Dever. 2014. Warning: How to avoid s35 disasters. Planning Quarterly No. 194: 35–39.

[39] UN (United Nations). 2014. United Nations General Assembly resolution on building capacity for the evaluation of development activities at the country level. http://www.anzea.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/N1460333-L-doc-5-Nov-2014.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2015.

[40] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2007. Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Extract from the final report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. Geneva: UNISDR.

[41] University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2011. Hazard mitigation plan quality protocol. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[42] Warburton D, Yoshimura S. Velasquez J, Yashiro M, Yoshimura S, Ono I. Local to global connections: Community involvement and sustainability. Innovative communities: People-centred approaches to environmental management in the Asia-Pacific region, 2005, Tokyo: United Nations University Press 19-45.