Citation
Content Evaluation of Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan in Florida Coastal Counties

Material Information

Title:
Content Evaluation of Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan in Florida Coastal Counties
Creator:
Zawani, Hoferdy
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (78 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.U.R.P)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Urban and Regional Planning
Committee Chair:
SILVER,CHRISTOPHER
Committee Co-Chair:
FRANK,KATHRYN I

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
recovery -- resilience
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.U.R.P

Notes

Abstract:
Florida coastal counties are vulnerable to natural disasters. When the unfortunate event occurs, the cost of disaster impacts to the community can be substantial and recurring. Recovery processes could take from a couple of months to several years. Planning provides an opportunity for managing future disaster risks and expediting the process of redevelopment through post-disaster redevelopment plan. Study on the quality evaluation of recovery plan, also known as the post-disaster redevelopment plan, to coastal jurisdictions in Florida, is relatively limited. The thesis seeks to examine recovery plan quality across selected coastal counties in Florida utilizing the content evaluation method to determine overall and categorical quality of the plans, compare plan's strength and weakness and discuss variables determine variation in plan quality. The study found that assessment to the content of recovery plan quality is vary. Some counties have recovery plans of high quality while some others were found below the average. Based on the average of score of the four counties, an overall quality of the four recovery plans is above moderate, scoring 6.25 on the scale of 10. Counties which develop stand-alone PDRP such as Manatee and Pasco county registered high scores in most indicators which are in contrast with counties developing recovery plan as elements of comprehensive plan. The state mandate does not guarantee high quality plan. The study promotes coastal counties to develop post-disaster redevelopment plans in the stand-alone format. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.U.R.P)--University of Florida, 2018.
Local:
Adviser: SILVER,CHRISTOPHER.
Local:
Co-adviser: FRANK,KATHRYN I.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Hoferdy Zawani.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
LD1780 2018 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CONTENT EVALUATION OF POST DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN FLORIDA COASTAL COUNTIES By HOFERDY ZAWANI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2018

PAGE 2

2018 Hoferdy Zawani

PAGE 3

To my parents my wife and son

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr Christop her Silver, for his insight, clarity and constructive comments on my research. I would like to thank Dr Kathryn Frank for providing direction and helped me stay on track. I would also like to thank Jerry Murphy for introducing me to post disaster redevelop ment plan dialogue. I thank Dr Fahmyddin Tauhid for discussions during develop ment of the study framework. I thank Indonesian students and family for friendship and camaraderie to make my time in graduate school a memory to cherish for life time. I would l ike to thank my parents for caring and endless support. I would like to thank my son and wife for their company during my study. Most of all, I thank to my wife for her sacrifice and love for the family. You are the best thing that ever happened to me. Fi nally, it is critical to recognize the generous support of the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education of the Ministry of Finance to fund my graduate program in the overseas. This study would not have been possible without this scholarship program.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Objective ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 Study Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Organization of Thesis ................................ ................................ ............................ 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Disaster Recovery ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 Hazard Plan System ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 ................................ ................................ .............. 23 Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes ................................ .............................. 24 §9J 5.012(3)(b)(8) F.A.C. ................................ ................................ ................. 24 §9J 5.012(2) F.A.C. ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 §9J 5.012(3)(c)5 F.A.C. ................................ ................................ .................... 24 §9J 5.012(3)(c)6 F.A. C. ................................ ................................ .................... 25 Plan Evaluation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26 Plan Content Quality ................................ ................................ ............................... 29 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 34 Scoring ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 Case Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 37 4 CONTENT EVALUATION ................................ ................................ ....................... 41 Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 41 Fact Base ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 43 Participation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46 Inter Organizational Coordination ................................ ................................ ........... 47

PAGE 6

6 Policies ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 48 Implementation and Monitoring ................................ ................................ ............... 50 Assessment Summary ................................ ................................ ............................ 50 Strength and Weakness ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 61 State Mandate ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 62 Plan Format ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 64 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 68 Plan Content Evaluation ................................ ................................ ......................... 69 Strength and Weakness ................................ ................................ .......................... 69 Overall Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 70 Factors Related to Plan Quality ................................ ................................ .............. 70 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 72 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 78

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Score assessment guidance ................................ ................................ .................. 38 3 2 Federal disaster declaration in Florida 2007 2017 ................................ ................. 39 4 1 Statement of recovery goals ................................ ................................ ................... 56 5 1 State mandate a nd plan format relationship with plan quality ................................ 67 5 2 Post disaster redevelopment plan quality (index of 10) ................................ .......... 67

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Official disaster management documents in Florida ................................ ............... 33 3 1 Case study location ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 4 1 Score on fact base ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 4 2 Score on participation ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 4 3 Score on inter organizational organization ................................ ............................. 57 4 4 Score on policies ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 58 4 5 Score on implementation and monitoring ................................ ............................... 58 4 6 Average score by principle ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 4 7 Summary of score by county ................................ ................................ .................. 60

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CPA Community Planning Act EOC Emergency Operations Center FAC Florida Administrative Code FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency LMS Local Mitigation Strategy NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework PDRP Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Prese nted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning CONTENT EVALUATION OF POST DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN FLORIDA COASTAL COUNTIE S By Hoferdy Zawani May 2018 Chair: Christopher Silver Cochair: Kathryn Frank Major: Urban and Regional Planning Florida coastal counties are vulnerable to natural disasters. When the unfortunate event occurs, the cost of disaster impacts to the communi ty can be substantial and recurring. Recovery processes could take from a couple of months to several years. Planning provides an opportunity for managing future disaster risks and expediting the process of redevelopment through post disaster redevelopment plan. Study on the quality evaluation of recovery plan, also known as the post disaster redevelopment plan, to coastal jurisdictions in Florida, is relatively limited. The thesis seeks to examine recovery plan quality across selected coastal counties in Florida utilizing the content evaluation method to determine overall and categorical quality of the plans, compare plan's strength and weakness and discuss variables determine variation in plan quality. The study found that assessment to the content of re covery plan quality is vary. Some counties have recovery plans of high quality while some others were found below the average. Based on the average of score of the four counties, an overall quality of the four recovery plans is above moderate, scoring 6.25 on the scale of 10. Counties

PAGE 11

11 which develop stand alone PDRP such as Manatee and Pasco county registered high scores in most indicators which are in contrast with counties developing recovery plan as elements of comprehensive plan. The state mandate does not guarantee high quality plan. The study promotes coastal counties to develop post disaster redevelopment plans in the stand alone format.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The loss from disasters in the state of Florida is enormous. According to the State Mitig ation Plan (Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2013), a total of $1.6 billion of the federal individual assistance grants has been delivered to recover. During the same period, the state issued several executive orders in response to natural disaste rs but not all events were accounted for in federal funding. This fact suggests that the cost of disaster impacts to the community can be substantial and recurring. Therefore, reducing risk by directing redevelopment away from high vulnerable zones offers a better option to prepare for future calamities. In addition, recovery processes could take from a couple of months to several years. Fortunately, planning provides an opportunity for managing future disaster risks and expediting the process of redevelopm ent through post disaster redevelopment plan. A successful disaster risk planning and implementation demands a great role on the part of planners (Schwab, 2014). Increased involvement of planners is an advantage since the profession is well equipped with l and use planning to devise a strategy for reducing risk by locating safer places for redevelopment that maintain contribution in designing public participation when introducing a range of development scenarios to address hazards promises meaningful results to feed into decision making process (Schwab, 2014). However, among other disaster management fields, recovery or redevelopment planning is the least understood du e to several reasons including the lack of a unified policy implementation framework, the pressing and rapidly changing nature of recovery, and varying commitment of local governments to leverage

PAGE 13

13 opportunities in the aftermath of a disaster (Berke & Campan ella, 2006; Olshansky, 2009; Smith & Wenger, 2007). Understanding these factors to determine successful post disaster recovery is useful not only for policy makers and government officials but also for survivors, relief organizations and social scientists (Aldrich, 2012). One important reason to examine the development and implementation of quality recovery plans is that they are not widely utilized. A study examined 280 jurisdictions of eight states in the southeastern part of the country in which Florida was part of the sample found only 87 counties had prepared a recovery plan. Based upon plan content evaluation, those plans received low scores (Berke, Cooper, Aminto, Grabich, & Horney, 2014). This assessment suggests the value of a systematic content ana lysis of existing plans to offer ways to improve disaster recovery practices among coastal communities in Florida. A second reason for this study relates to high vulnerability of coastal counties to natural disaster. One of the global issues that receives attention from disaster risk planning researchers concerns with Sea Level Rise (SLR). The sea level is rising globally and impacting Florida is virtually indisputable by any measures (Church et al., 2013; Hine, Chambers, Clayton, Hafen, & Mitchum, 2016). While the IPCC estimates the global mean sea level reached at 1 meter by 2100, evidence suggests the US East Coast and southeast Florida have seen fluctuations up to 6 times of the projected global mean sea level (Church et al., 2013; Valle Levinson, Dutto n, & Martin, 2017). The a relatively flat

PAGE 14

14 terrain nearby the ocean, building adaptive capacity to respond threats that comes with climate change and natural disaster becomes necessary (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, 2010). Recognizing high vulnerability of Florida coastal co unties to natural disasters, the following text briefly outlines how coastal counties have address this challenge through planning. The third reason concerns with limited discussion on the comparison of Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP) quality by pl an format between stand alone plans and the element of comprehensive plan. Florida is among few states that incorporate disaster risk into the mandatory comprehensive plan for localities. Since 1993, the state legislation required every coastal county to p repare a PDRP as an element of its comprehensive Plan. PDRP is intended to guide redevelopment policies in the aftermath of a disaster and reduce vulnerability of public and private property and lives to disasters (Schwab, 2014). Some counties notable for pioneering the PDRP in the 1990s include Palm Beach and Lee County (Schwab, Topping, Eadie, Deyle, & Smith, 1998). However, lack of guidance in defining key contents of PDRP and no clear indicators to determine the quality have led many jurisdictions to bo rrow perspectives from emergency management which is heavy on short term recovery when designing recovery policy. It was not until 2010 that the state joined efforts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospher ic Administration (NOAA) in piloting the establishment of local recovery plan framework aiming to provide a major reference source for short and long term redevelopment process. One of the outputs is the release of PDRP guideline where much of the contents was established upon lessons from the early batch participants which included

PAGE 15

15 five counties and one municipality (Florida department of community affairs & Florida division of emergency management, 2010). The PDRP guideline enables the state to promote a streamlined approach for local governments to identify policies, determine responsibilities and implementing actions to facilitate long term recovery for their community. The enactment of the Community Planning Act 2011 altered the recovery planning landsc ape in Florida. Coastal management remains a requirement in the comprehensive plan, but the law removed the requirement of coastal counties to prepare Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan. Elaboration of changing state mandate is necessary to acknowledge the u pdate on regulations associated with post disaster redevelopment in Florida. Overall, the recovery plan enables the community to formulate redevelopment strategies that goes beyond returning to pre disaster levels (Berke & Campanella, 2006; Schwab et al., 1998; Schwab, 2014) and evaluation ensures that the plan is updated to recent situations and objectives. This thesis seeks to examine recovery plan quality across selected coastal counties in Florida. This will be carried out by demonstrating application of quality plan evaluation coupled with analysis of factors that determine variation in plan quality perspective, the study expects to enhance recovery plan quality as part of logical process of incorporating planning to improve resilience against natural disasters (Campanella, 2006).

PAGE 16

16 Objective The study objective is to assess and describe the content quality of the chosen local recovery plans and to examine factors associated w ith variation in plan quality. It also attempts to show utilization of the content analysis method for coastal communities to derive ideas for enhancement of Post disaster recovery plan. Area of study includes four metro coastal counties in Florida, respec tively Manatee, Pasco, Brevard, and Volusia County. Manatee and Pasco counties prepared and adopted PDRP as stand alone recovery plans respectively in 2009 and 2016 while the plan in 2016. To achieve the objectives of the thesis, three analyses are introduced. The first concerns measurement of overall and categorical quality of the plans. The second emphasizes comparison of strength and weakness sections in the plan and the thi rd relates to factors determine variation in plan quality. Results from the analyses will be added to discussion about connection between plan format and post disaster redevelopment plan quality. Research Questions The study utilizes cross section research to answer the following research questions: 1. How recovery plans vary based upon use of the content quality evaluation framework? How different is the quality of recovery plans when adopted as stand alone PDRP versus when they are incorporated into goals, o bjectives and policies of a local comprehensive plan? 2. What are the strength and weakness sections in the plans?

PAGE 17

17 3. Based on results of content evaluation, how do state mandate and plan format determine plan quality? Does this content analysis to local recove ry plans point to ways to improve disaster recovery practice among coastal counties in Florida? Study Framework The framework for the study is derived from the plan evaluation method established in Berke et. al. (2014). The method systematically compares p lan quality based on examination of 20 indicators across six categories that constitute a typical recovery plan. The study relies on the upstream part of planning process i.e. establishment of plan document. According to Baer (1997), evaluation of plan doc uments does not require the plan to be implemented nor resulting in some outcomes. Further, evaluation in this category is often administered by independent assessors rather than plan authors. This suggests content evaluation is a legitimate research topic In many occasions, content evaluation studies share similar characteristic such as involving large samples and cross reviewed by two people or more (double coded). This study undertakes as one person effort thereby the scoring is single coded and only ma kes use of a small sample. Organization of Thesis The thesis is organized into six chapters. The subsequent Chapter 2 puts together and review ideas from prior studies on recovery planning and content evaluation of post disaster redevelopment plans. Chapt er 3 details the methodology involving discussion on plan quality principles, scoring procedure and selection of case study. Chapter 4 elaborates the results of content evaluation examination and discusses the strength and weakness analysis of each plan. C hapter 5 presents study

PAGE 18

18 recommendations and indication of points for further study. Chapter 6 summarizes the findings and discussion.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter examines the relevant literature for this study. The first section offers a bri ef discussion on disaster recovery. The second section addresses the hazard plan system in Florida. The third section looks at changes of the state mandate in relation to establishment of the post disaster redevelopment plan. The fourth section assesses pl an evaluation types. The last section outlines the plan quality evaluation studies that defined the approach used in this analysis. Disaster Recovery Several studies have been carried out to determine recovery. Haas et al., (1977) generalizes disaster reco very as a set of sequential activities of overlapping episodes denoted as Emergency Restoration, Replacement, and Betterment. Haas et. al. claimed that the sequence is predictable and estimated a full operation could take up to ten years. Other important f indings pointed out that the recovery goal will be greatly affected by the pressure of returning to the pre disaster situation. Unlike Haas et al., (1977), Rubin et al., (1985) claimed that the city had distinctive processes to achieve goals which in some places recovered better than other and took a shorter time to achieve complete recovery. A related study argued that successful recovery planning and implementation is determined by effective leadership; knowledge of existing resources and capacity; and kn owing what to do during the emergency and post disaster (Rubin, Saperstein, & Barbee, 1985). This study will verify whether claims described above are relevant to date. The government through the Federal Emergency Management Agency has published the Nation al Disaster Recovery Framework (2011) in which it defines disaster

PAGE 20

20 recovery as capability to facilitate the community to achieve the desired recovery. The definition of recovery in NDRF recognizes planning as one of the critical features to enable successf ul recovery (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011). Typical activities related to recovery include restoration and rebuilding of critical components of the community such as infrastructure, housing, health and community service, economic development, natural assets and cultural assets. Recovery combines activities that are spread across disaster phases including mitigation, response and long term redevelopment. NDRF has broadened the definition created by Smith and Wenger (2007) which focused on long t erm redevelopment and mitigation but with less emphasis on disaster redevelopment adopts the definition of disaster recovery proposed by Smith and Wenger (2007). This is due to the parallel objective it offe developing PDRP is to enhance community's capacity to plan, implement and manage long term recovery and redevelopment. Elaboration about what type of plan has been designed to address unique characteristics of each disaster phases is provided in the following section. Research on disaster recovery alludes to several characteristics that have links to the rate of recovery, although there has been mix of results with regard to the connection bet ween variables and recovery results, presenting debates about whether the relationship is causation or association. Daniel Aldrich (2012) examines elements affecting recovery speed. The elements include quality of governance, amount of aid, severity of dam age, socioeconomic and demographics settings, population density, and

PAGE 21

21 social capital which centers in the book. While noting that some studies have reveals conceptual gap s by citing opposite claims which mainly are drawn from empirical studies. Although scholars repeatedly refer to the lack of theory describing disaster recovery, the following characteristics continuously come up in many studies: time compression to achiev e goals (Hopkins, Johnson, & Olshansky, 2012), mismatch and competition between resources and the pressing demand for recovery (Rubin, 1985), long complicated undertaking (Olshansky & Johnson, 2010), preparing a plan ahead of time helps facilitate recovery (Schwab et al., 1998), require big team of skills, some could be taken from outside of community (Schwab, 2014), and recovery planning tends hard to sell for public support (Berke et al., 2014). Hazard Plan System Local governments in Florida has at least four official planning documents to address hazards. Each plan is designed to serve a specified disaster phase which also to some extent touches on disaster recovery. The plans include comprehensive plan, comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP), lo cal mitigation strategy (LMS) and Post disaster redevelopment plan (PDRP). This section will elaborate the relationship between these plans and PDRP. CEMP establishes the local emergency management and disaster response framework. The main purpose of the p lan is to reduce loss of life and property damage caused by disasters (Manatee County Emergency Management, 2013). The framework is created to serve all phases of disaster management that include Prevention, Preparedness, Response, Recovery and Mitigation. The plan defines not only the role

PAGE 22

22 and responsibility of all levels of government but also the private sector and non governmental organizations during the emergency. This role is critical to support coordinated efforts such as mobilizing resources and ta king actions in each of disaster phase. Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) establishes the mechanism to eliminate impacts caused by exposure to hazards. The plan seeks to serve many purposes, some of which are to provide an approach to mitigation planning, pr ovide decision tools for mitigation actions and facilitate coordination of mitigation related programs among participating jurisdictions (Brevard Prepares, 2015). LMS does not provide direction to develop and maintain Post disaster redevelopment. Several e lements of the comprehensive plan which provide direction to hazard managements are coastal management, future land use, housing, intergovernmental coordination and capital improvement. Each element develops a separate goal, objective and policies and form some connection to a particular hazard plan. The connection between comprehensive plan and LMS or CEMP is not based upon a mandate. However, Florida PDRP guidance (2010) requires policies in PDRP adequately referenced in the comprehensive plan. Further, c onsistency of post redevelopment policies relies on successful integration between these documents, as noted in Figure 2 1 (Florida department of community affairs & Florida division of emergency management, 2010) Acknowledging the overlapping and cross cu tting topics among local hazard plans with comprehensive plan, the Florida PDRP guidance allows local governments to pick a format appropriate to their needs. The format includes passing ordinance related

PAGE 23

23 to post disaster recovery, adding recovery issues into Local Mitigation Strategy, widening the recovery annex of Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, incorporating PDRP into comprehensive plan, and preparing the stand alone PDRP (Florida department of community affairs & Florida division of emergency management, 2010). The last two categories elect to become focus in this thesis which find agreement in Berke and Campanella (2006) who suggested that both types are the most adopted format throughout the country. In terms of plan content, CEMP is predomin antly action oriented, especially when compared to the LMS, comprehensive plan, and PDRP. CEMP is organized into several chapters and the section on recovery is established as one of the annexes. The annex describes tasks, planning efforts and policies to facilitate short term recovery. Some of the assessments carried out in CEMP are also present in LMS and PDRP such as vulnerability assessment, review of regulations and capacity and identification of funding and resources. CEMP, LMS and PDRP have cross cut ting topics which provides potential for further integration and coordination in defining policy and action for Post disaster recovery. For instance, CEMP indicates the activation of Emergency Operations Center (EOC), a temporary coordinating unit establis hed during an emergency for allocating resources from the State. When the emergency is lifted, PDRP could provide guidance for transition to long term recovery. Florida is one state that takes integration of disaster recovery plan into development planning system with great care. Two provisions provided regulations for local government in coastal counties preparing planning are Florida Statute 163.3178 and Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 9J 5. These laws required or mandated coastal

PAGE 24

24 counties in Florida to include in the coastal management element of its comprehensive plan, a policy that mentioned intention to prepare a Post disaster redevelopment plan. Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes Each coastal management element requi red by Section 163.3177(6)(g), Florida Statutes, shall be based on studies, surveys, and data; be consistent with coastal resource plans prepared and adopted pursuant to general or special law; and contain: (f) A redevelopment component which outlines the principles which shall be used to eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal areas when opportunities arise. §9J 5.012(3)(b)(8) F.A.C. Prepare post disaster redevelopment plans which will reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life an d public and private property to natural hazards In addition, the requirement for coastal management goals, objectives and policies includes an outline of Post disaster redevelopment and regulation to identify areas for redevelopment: §9J 5.012(2) F.A.C. P ost disaster redevelopment including: existing and proposed land use in coastal high hazard areas; structures with a history of repeated damage in coastal storms; coastal or shore protection structures; infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas; and beac h and dune conditions. Measures which could be used to reduce exposure to hazards shall be analyzed, including relocation, structural modification, and public acquisition. §9J 5.012(3)(c)5 F.A.C. Post disaster redevelopment including policies to: distingui sh between immediate repair and cleanup actions needed to protect public health and safety and long term repair and redevelopment activities; address the removal, relocation, or structural modification of damaged infrastructure as determined appropriate by the local government but consistent with federal funding provisions and unsafe structures; limiting redevelopment in areas of repeated damage; and, policies for incorporating the recommendations of interagency hazard mitigation reports, as deemed appropri

PAGE 25

25 comprehensive plan when the plan is revised during the evaluation and appraisal process; §9J 5.012(3)(c)6 F.A.C. Identifying areas needing redevelopment, including eliminating unsafe conditions and i nappropriate uses as opportunities arise; These provisions have been in place since 1994. Nevertheless, Schwab (2014) maintains state guidance defining components of PDRP has not available until 2010, resulting in many redevelopment plans created as an ext ension of emergency management plan since many local officials had turned to emergency managers for advice. In 2011, the introduction of Community Planning Act (CPA) updates the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation A ct, providing new reference for local government planning bylaw. The CPA repealed administrative regulations in FAC 9J governments in coastal counties to prepare plans and to restrict harmful activities to human and natural resources. To compensate for the cutback, the CPA modified its provision in section 163.3178 (2) F.S., expanding requirements for the redevelopment element within coastal management policy. Some of the requirements include: Urging local govern ments to participate in National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System, Promoting redevelopment best practices that will result in clearance of property identified in FEMA flood zone Requiring new construction in flood plain to be consistent or stringent with Florida Building Code. In addition, the new regulation encourages local governments to apply innovative planning tools to address future new development areas (163.3168, F.S.). This policy

PAGE 26

26 provides an opportunity to apply mitigation and re development measures promoting new development away from high hazard areas. Plan Evaluation Plan evaluation study has been around over past few years in many different fields including in natural disaster related themes. Many researchers have attempted to apply plan quality principles to determine the quality of plan in scalable fashion. Plan quality principles, an original work of Berke and Godschalk (2009), characterizes plan quality from a set of measurable indicators essential for a plan to function and to be effectively implemented. The method has been seen in various topics of planning evaluation including in recovery planning. This chapter will review some concepts regarding plan evaluation and plan quality principles and to distill lessons from prior hazard planning studies. Additionally, a review of state legislations outlining preparation of post disaster redevelopment will be provided. There has been a large body literature dedicated to evaluating planning quality. Some of it has been driven for th e purpose of developing appropriate criteria to determine a good plan (Baer, 1997). Developing evaluation criteria for planning is seen as a contextual endeavor contingent upon the period which the plan established and conceptual character whereby the plan represented. This means, criteria being developed to assess plan quality undertaken in parallel with preparing a plan would be different to an evaluation carried out after a plan is fully implemented. Similarly, establishing criteria for a plan characteri zed with high degree of freedom such as a vision plan would be different with a rigid type of plan such as blueprint (Baer, 1997). According to Baer, five categories of plan evaluation includes analysis of best alternatives while preparing a plan, critics to a plan as does somebody reviewing a

PAGE 27

27 movie, evaluation of outcomes against a plan, assessment of criteria being used to prepare a plan, and systematic comparative evaluation of plans after they have adopted (Baer, 1997). This thesis incorporates the last category of evaluation. The subsequent work on planning evaluation was discussed in Alexander and Faludi (1989) who argue that standard planning practice cannot determine the criteria of evaluation. Typical evaluation addressed in their paper include eval uation during plan preparation, evaluation of planning process, and evaluation of outcomes driven by planning activity. Their study took the definition of planning proposed by Alexander (1981) who defines it as social activity to accomplish goals through d eveloping reasonable strategies to decide on actions based on supports and power essential to realize them. It holds an idea that planning is not an act of belief but rather logical which qualifies itself as subject of evaluation. The authors acknowledge u ncertainty in planning, leading to a flexible link between plan and implementation which further signify a conformity to original plan does not necessarily determine planning success (Alexander & Faludi, 1989). The planning concept discussed here lends its elf to the conceptual framework this thesis has attempted to build upon which is different from a a tendency to be rhetorical about the future and detached from the community it serves. For Talen (1996), defining the connection between planning and implementation is the ultimate business of plan evaluation. Talen argued that planning should come up with the original evaluation approach distinguished from those in poli cy analysis studies. Talen continued that unlike planning which is relatively stationary in developing evaluation methods, policy studies were more advance where the inquiry does not stop

PAGE 28

28 in identifying difference between policy and action but had expanded to examine factors affecting policy realization. The study delineates on implementation of plan as a guiding document, suggesting distinction with planning implementation which according to Talen was more of a process. On that front, Talen pushed for asse ssing outcome of implemented plans to investigate how plans are transformed into actions and to determine factors built into an effective plan. paper acknowledges other forms of e valuations such as analysis of the plan document However, Talen classifies the analysis as evaluation prior to implementation which is his category, much of the efforts are spent on decoding text to unravel insights about how planners organize their thoughts in developing a plan. The fact that plan evaluation exists suggests that the plan is meant for actions which further indicates that a full spectrum of evaluation should take into account the years of plan implementation, otherwise any claim related to outcomes should be deemed unreliable (Talen, 1996). Additionally, Talen argued that, if the plan was made for a dherence must be expected or else there would be no way for communities to identify which elements of the plan had worked and which had not, let alone factors responsible to yield such outputs. An investigation of the connection between plan and implementa tion is a valid inquiry. Critics of this approach reject the linear relationship between the plan and actions, attributing the cause to the uncertainty of future. It is argued that, when outcomes come to fruition, the surrounding future conditions have cha nged which may

PAGE 29

29 2009). Hence, Berke and Godschalk (2009) argue, that it would be more difficult to determine plan effectiveness by evaluating outcomes at the end of planning period than to figure out what could be done at the present time to develop an effective plan based on a shared understanding among plan makers about what defines a good plan. Developing the standard good plan is a continuous learning process in which eval uation of plan content is one of the method to achieve it. The underlying argument of conducting plan content evaluation draws from Lyles and Stevens (2014) who assert that the study of plan making by means of content analysis is significant in its own rig ht. This thesis undertakes plan content evaluation to investigate the quality of adopted plans. This will allow communities not only to judge pattern to formulate an enhan cement strategy that better suits the current and projected situations (Baer, 1997; Berke & Godschalk, 2009). Realizing the potential of a plan as guidance to reduce damage and losses from natural disasters creates a learning opportunity that is too valuab le to overlook (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Burby et al., 1999). Drawing from Brody (2003), accumulative knowledge obtained from plan evaluation may accelerate learning processes in the community which is pivotal to address recurrent problems such as hazardou s events more effectively. Evaluation of a plan is built upon assessment of its content in which the concept will be discussed further in the following section. Plan Content Quality Many scholars studying plan content quality converge on analysis that comp ares quality of plan principles drawing from large sample to draw suggestions for enhancing

PAGE 30

30 the quality of specific principle in which a plan was identified lacking (Berke et al., 2014; Fu, Gomaa, Deng, & Peng, 2017; Horney, Nguyen, Salvesen, Tomasco, & Be rke, 2016; L. W. Lyles, Berke, & Smith, 2014; Woodruff & Stults, 2016). Some scholars examine contributing factors toward plan quality such as a state mandate (Berke & French, 1994; mitment over environmental issues (Burby &May, 1998); and the participatory level of stakeholders in planning process (Burby, 2003; Horney et al., 2017). Broad implications resulting from plan quality evaluation is made possible through quantitative measur ement of indicators which allowing cross assessment between principles within a plan and across plans (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Burby, 2003). This section will review concepts related to plan quality studies and adopt those that are essentials for this res earch. Over the last two decades, researchers seem have come to some consensus surrounding what defines plan quality study (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Lyles & Stevens, 2014; Stevens, Lyles, & Berke, 2014). It refers to a study conducted to compare adopted pl ans that follows the plan evaluation category prescribed in Baer (1997). When defining what constitutes the quality of a plan, many studies arrived with their own conceptual framework. Baer (1997) for instance, introduces criteria for plan quality composed of the context which highlights the what and why of a plan; rational process which demonstrates basic elements of the plan such as defining goals, identifying problems, and proposing solutions following logical and realistic methods; procedural which ela borate who was involved in the process and how they had contributed; connection to wider issues; guidance to implement; accountable data and

PAGE 31

31 methodology; consistency of elements within the document and communication strategy; and plan format. Over time, m ore principles have been added to improve plan quality evaluation which were finalized in the work of Berke and Godschalk (2009). At this point, plan quality characterizes of criteria including Issue identification and vision, goals, fact base, policies, i mplementation, monitoring and evaluation, internal consistency, organization of content, inter organizational coordination, compliance to guidance/mandate. Regarding critics of the plan quality evaluation method, the literature review has led to scanty evi dence about studies made to criticize the method. In response to the growing works related to content evaluation over two decades, Lyles and Stevens (2014) published a paper reviewing this method. However, the paper was not designed to provide criticism bu t rather to offer reasons to explain the growth of plan evaluation studies and identify knowledge gaps in the field. The fact shows plan quality evaluation using content analysis method has not received significant oppositions which suggests the method is robust enough to deliver reliable results. This study adopts plan quality principles established in Berke et al. (2014). The principles are composed of goals, fact base, policies, inter organizational coordination, participation, implementation and monitor ing. Originally, the principles are grouped into two categories (i.e. Direction setting and Action oriented) but since this study does not intended to explore such differentiation, the classification does not apply here. Evidently, the principle is derived from Berke and Godschalk (2009), but it has been adaptation and flexibility to handle high uncertainty stemming from recovery processes

PAGE 32

32 (Berke et al., 2014). Maintaining the principles for evaluating different objects from prior work supports the idea to develop a reliable and replicable plan quality data which is in line with the recommendation in Lyles and Stevens (2014).

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2 1. Official disaster manageme nt documents in Florida (Florida department of community affairs & Florida division of emergency management, 2010)

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the method employed in the study. It will be organized into three sections. The first secti on describes scoring, the second section discusses case selection and the third section discusses the analysis to pursue. Scoring Scoring determines the method to measure indicators of relevant principles which collectively constitute a model plan of high quality, in this case is a recovery plan. Some studies focus on mitigation plans while some other look at adaptation policy to sea level rise impacts. Different research interests have given rise to varying indicators to measure and certain types of scorin g. Plan evaluation determines content quality based on appearance of indicators associated with the six principles of recovery plan. The score method used here relies on integers of 0, 1 and 2. Assigning value to an indicator must satisfy the following ru mentio 1 represents the scoring method and its associated remarks. Since goal characterizes the type of plan, then a noticeable goal of post disaster redevelopment plan should be reflected in a binary value of scoring, where a score of 1 indicates t he goal is clearly mentioned and a score of 0 indicates that it is not mentioned. For other principles of plan quality evaluation, a stretched score of 0 2 accommodates a wider range interpretation of recovery plan indicators. Nonappearance indicator gains 0, less pronounced and indirectly related policy wording with post

PAGE 35

35 disaster redevelopment receives a score of 1, and the maximum score of 2 is reserved for explicit and directly related connection to post disaster redevelopment. This approach applies to a minor modification preceding recovery planning evaluation study where indicator is denoted with value of either 0 or 1. However, the approach has been principally consistent with past research of related subject (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Berke, Smith, & L yles, 2012; Berke et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2017; Horney et al., 2017). The scoring procedures involves three continuing steps leading to a final score. First, I enumerate scores for individual principles; Second, I normalize scores by the maximum score a principle could reach; Third, the normalized scores are summed up divided by 6 which represents the number of principles. The fraction is then multiplied by 10 to translate into an index of 0 10. This approach allows for comparison of scores between princi ples since every principle is assigned the same weight. The procedure has been developed to acknowledge differing type of recovery plans (i.e. stand alone post disaster redevelopment plan and components of comprehensive plans). Analysis of post disaster in dicators will be carried out to selected to post disaster redevelopment themes contained in the coastal management, future land use, inter governmental coordination, h ousing, and capital improvement sections of the plan. Case Selection The Florida Coastal Management Act, adopted in 1978 and codified as Chapter 380, Part II of the Florida Statutes, designates the entire 67 local governments as coastal zones. However, for this study the population is confined to 35 counties which represent those areas with a direct physical border to the sea. Subsequently, four

PAGE 36

36 counties are chosen from these 35 counties based on a review of several factors including risks to natural hazard s, population size and recovery plan type. The study limits attention to natural hazards regarding to hydro meteorology factors such as floods, tropical cyclones, severe storms and tornadoes. Not only had these hazards caused severe impacts to coastal comm unities, their occurrence was frequent enough to qualify for Federal disaster declarations over the last ten years (see Table 3 2). The relatively intensive presidential declaration to alleviate impacts of hydro meteorology disasters suggests coastal commu nities are notably vulnerable to this type of disaster. The sample represents coastal counties with a population range between 10,000 750,000 to ensure the local government has institutional supports for recovery planning. The study sample excludes the m etropolitan city to gain a comparable local planning capacity (Berke et al., 2014; Lyles et al., 2014). Applying these conditions towards population size gathered by the US Census 2010 results in the selection of 12 counties. Of the 12 counties, three coun ties indicated an experience for developing Post disaster redevelopment plan. These counties include Pasco, Manatee and Sarasota County. Pasco and Manatee County were chosen due to differences in terms of plan format and time the plan was adopted. Manatee was adopted as a stand alone plan in 2009 while Pasco did it in 2016. Meanwhile, the highest three in population size of the remainder 9 counties where the recovery plan format is part of Comprehensive plan comprise Lee (population 618,754), Brevard (543,3 76) and Volusia County (494,593). Brevard and Volusia

PAGE 37

37 comprehensive plan was last updated in 2008 while Volusia last updated the plan in 2016. Differences in adoption ti me allows for comparison of plan quality that takes into account the state mandate effect before and after the enactment of 2011 CPA. Figure 3 1 shows the case study locations. Analysis Analysis encompasses several approaches. The first is comparison of pl an format. The second analysis examines claims of prior study on factors to determine plan quality specifically on the state mandate and plan format. The purpose of comp arison among counties by plan quality principles is to elaborate similarities and differences in selecting choices and defining priorities for planning recovery. Understanding this offers access to identify aspects for plan improvement. Similarly, comparis on of the overall scores do not intend to rank local governments by level of their plan quality but rather it serves as a means to understand the overall quality of recovery plans that have been adopted in many coastal counties. Meanwhile, the second anal ysis is intended to verify claims on recovery plan quality based on finding of content evaluation. It also offers recommendations to enhance plan quality.

PAGE 38

38 Table 3 1 Score assessment guidance Principle Indicator Score range Remark 1. Goal Transformativ e goals to build back better 0 1 Higher score indicates clearly written goals Restorative goals to return to normalcy 2. Fact base Hazard and vulnerability assessment 0 2 Higher score represents explicitly addressed indicator Impact analysis Cap abili ty review 3. Flexible policy Temporary building moratorium 0 2 Higher score represents explicitly addressed indicator Standards for building acquisition or relocation Post disaster housing siting and supply Term for adjusting capital impr ovement Term for change in land use regulations Damage t h reshold for change in building code 4. Inter organizational coordination Representative of lead recovery committee 0 2 Higher score represents explicitly addressed indicator Disaster ass i s tance network 5. Public participation During pre disaster 0 2 Higher score represents explicitly addressed indicator During post disaster Brief explanation about participation process 6. Implementation and monitoring Criteria towards plan act ivation 0 2 Higher score represents explicitly addressed indicator Pre event to keep people familiar with the plan Determine post event roles

PAGE 39

39 Table 3 2. Federal disaster declaration in Florida 2007 2017 ( Fema.gov) Disaster type Declaration date Hurricane Irma September 10, 2017 Hurricane Matthew October 08, 2016 Hurricane Hermine September 28, 2016 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight line Winds, and Flooding May 06, 2014 Severe Storms and Flooding August 02, 2013 Hurricane Isaac O ctober 18, 2012 Tropical Storm Debby July 03, 2012 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight line Winds May 27, 2009 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight line Winds April 21, 2009 Hurricane Gustav October 27, 2008 Tropical St orm Fay August 24, 2008 Severe Storms and Tornadoes February 03, 2007

PAGE 40

40 Figure 3 1 Case study location

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 4 CONTENT EVALUATION This chapter reports the findings on the content analysis evaluation of local recovery plans developed by and adapted in four Florida coastal counties between 2008 correspondence with officials of the respective county between September and November 2017. Stand alone Post disaster r edevelopment plans were adopted in Manatee county and Pasco county in respectively 2009 and 2016. Comprehensive plan in Brevard county was updated in 2008 and in 2016 in Volusia. The first section of content evaluation will present the results of each prin ciple. Assessment will judge how clear the recovery plan messages were written and how the contents agree with the principles of recovery plan. The analysis is presented in the following order: first, the assessment concerns with goals. Second, it will ass ess the fact base. Third, it will assess participation. Fourth, it will assess inter organizational coordination. Fifth, it will offer an assessment on Policies. And finally, sixth, it will assess implementation and monitoring. Findings from principles are incorporated to develop an understanding about overall plan quality. Comparison of achievements in the six principles across counties will help decipher the strength and weakness sections of a plan. Elaboration of the provided. Goals Goals are a fundamental component of the recovery plan, setting the path towards policies and the implementation strategy. Berke et.al., (2014) defines recovery goals as future desired conditions that reflect breadth and values of affected

PAGE 42

42 communities. The category has one indicator whether a recovery plan contains a goal Table 4 1 lists goals identified in the purpose section of PDRP and the objective in the coastal managem ent element of comprehensive plan goals, objective and policies. Most counties adopt recovery goals of returning to prior disaster condition and reducing future disaster risk. Goals are clearly stated in the three counties comprising Manatee, Pasco and Bre vard county but are absent in Volusia county. Therefore, three counties receive full score and one county receives zero. Two of the three samples articulate goal of transformative vision for the plan. This include Pasco PDRP and Brevard Comprehensive plan Adopted goals in Manatee PDPR is considered as restorative. The goals in Brevard county refers to Florida Statutes specifically before the mandate concerning PDRP was repealed in which it contained the purpose to reduce the vulnerability of private and p ublic property and individuals to natural disasters. Volusia comprehensive plan indicates that the county has identified a policy to prepare PDRP. In addition, the plan suggests that prior to adopting the PDRP, any post disaster actions should be aligned with the recovery annex of Volusia Comprehensive emergency management plan. However, the comprehensive plan suggests that prior to adopting the PDRP, post disaster recovery actions should be consistent with the recovery annex of the Comprehensive e mergency m anagement p lan. Observed in all plans, the goal is described in dedicated section. It can be found as a purpose of PDRP or as an objective in comprehensive plan. The elaboration of goals is relatively brief, but this is not the case for objective since i t was written as legal

PAGE 43

43 document which calls for specific writing style. The goals sometimes get mixed with statements on the purpose of preparing the plan, quoting the benefits in expediting the recovery process. For counties with more than one goal, there is no indication of priorities among goals to be achieved. According to Hopkins (2001), a plan should be able to guide decisions. This argument implies that a plan needs to be explicit in its writing to avoid ambiguous interpretations as to its original m essages. In the hazard planning context, explicit goals of post disaster redevelopment plan represent the leitmotif toward which concerted actions should be directed. Goals illustrate preferences of future post disaster conditions which provide shared visi on for supporting activities to refer The evaluation on goals suggests that the sample communities demonstrate positive association with recovery plan quality. Fact B ase Scholars of disaster planning highlighted that disasters are affected by pre disaster trends (Schwab, 2014). The principle of fact base implies that a good recovery plan offers an estimation of post disaster needs based on certain disaster scenarios upon which policy options are established accordingly. Assessment of the fact base principl e is structured around four indicators involving hazard identification, vulnerability analysis, the disaster scenario, and capacity and resources review. Analysis of hazard and vulnerability reflects community awareness to current threats, while the disast er scenario enables a community to project emerging future threats to address. Together, the assessment represents the risk analysis with which community could project the degree of damage in terms of life casualty and loss of property values incurred by t he disaster. Review of current plans, programs, regulations including capacity of internal

PAGE 44

44 resources could enable community to assess the discrepancy between anticipated threats and the stand by institutional capacity. Fact base assessment characterizes co nditions existing before the disaster and how likely it could change in the wake of disaster which critical to foster redevelopment policy. The post disaster redevelopment plan is not the only plan employing risk analysis. Communities can opt to select res ults from the local mitigation strategy, the comprehensive emergency management plan, a combination of the two, or carry out its own with updated data. Whichever type of risk analysis is carried out, it is imperative to ensure the final results are consist ent across all hazard plans. The score of fact base assessment is displayed in Figure 4.1. Full scores only were achieved in counties with the stand alone PDRP since the plan allocates sections to discuss risk analysis. The comprehensive plan does not inc lude fact base indicators but statements in its goals and objectives indicate the trajectory to risk analysis. The absence of fact base indicators results in low scores for Brevard and Volusia counties. In Brevard and Volusia counties, the comprehensive pl ans are designed with specific objectives and policies addressing coastal high hazard areas which link up to risk analysis in CEMP. However, none of the objectives and policies address the discrepancy between lacking capacity and anticipated threats, resul ting in zero points for the capacity review indicator. This is not the case with Manatee county PDRP, for instance, in which the vulnerability analysis connects the hazard level of risk with existing capacity helping to unravel local capacity gaps in recov ery and redevelopment to indicate possible capacity enhancement programs.

PAGE 45

45 All plans address indicators of risk assessment but only two plans dedicate it in an elaborate discussion. Low scores indicate that the fact base principle is not explicitly shown in the plan while high scores correspond to provision of information such as land use, population and facilities to be exposed to hazards of various severity, the potential loss, and trend of social vulnerability. Counties where indicators associated with ri sk analysis receiving high scores wrote the analysis to address specific hazards, incorporate technical information, analytical by employing the hazard modeling/simulation to obtain projected impacts and enhanced messages delivery with the effective use of tables, maps and graphics. The Florida PDRP handbook (2010) offers vulnerability analysis to include aspects comprising Economic, Financial, Environmental, Historic sites and structures, and storm surge and/or Sea Level Rise impacts. All these recommended topics have been adequately addressed in Pasco PDRP while Manatee PDRP is identified lack discussion on impacts to rising sea level. PDRP prepares for redevelopment measures that address the vulnerability associated to most hazards encountered in a commun ity including Sea level rise. In response to provide reference to address challenges imposed by Sea level rise, the state has published a complimentary manual to supplement the original PDRP handbook for coastal communities seeking to enhance adaptation st rategies to address sea level rise into long term recovery process (Florida department of economic opportunity, Florida division of emergency management, 2015). Content analysis of Manatee PDRP suggests that the plan has not include discussion on adaptati on strategy to address Sea level rise. The finding finds

PAGE 46

46 agreement with one of the recommendations listed in a study about an evaluation of Manatee PDRP (Murphy & Silver, 2017). On capability assessment aspect counties with stand alone PDRP include the as sessment of existing local plans, a list of programs relevant to post disaster redevelopment, identifying areas for plan integration, assessment of existing capability to manage recovery from a major disaster, identifying gaps in capability to address post disaster needs, and prioritizing actions to enhance capability. On the other hand, the comprehensive plan does not equip with discussions on capability assessment. In addition, it reviews the goal, objective and policy over elements critical to post disas ter such as coastal management, future land use, housing, intergovernmental coordination and capital improvement suggests no linkage to capability assessment. At this point, fact base is an essential feature to obtain a pre disaster profile to inform comm unity structuring redevelopment policy. However, once disaster hits, the assessment will be orienting to calculate damage and loss including accessible resources to develop post disaster redevelopment policy that answer actual impacts patterns. Participat ion Assessment of the participation principle structured into three indicators representing level of engagement between public officials and community to inform recovery actions, including actions undertaken during pre disaster period. Overall, recovery pl ans have different approaches to address participation. Public participation within the stand alone PDRP is discussed in a dedicated section with adequate depth of analysis therefore it receives the highest score in all indicators being observed. Only one county comprehensive plan suggests participation efforts for the pre disaster time

PAGE 47

47 although no clear messages were found at other indicators. However, a message of participation was entirely missing in one county. Assessment scores for this principle are s et forth in Figure 4 2. In counties with a stand alone PDRP, public participation is classified before and after disaster strikes. Direction of specific action is elaborated in a single chapter such istributed along several participation and raising awareness to disaster risk. However, many of the policies are intended to prepare for mitigation and emergency operations such as working with the Red Cross to develop public outreach program to reduce evacuation time during a hurricane emergency. In addition, selection of participation tools is typical. The participation approach for post disaster is relatively traditional in which strategies for gathering information from impacted area mainly rely on community meetings. Narratives describing participants involved in planning process tend to be a list of functional description without further explanation about expected post disaster roles to play. Lack of description about who was involved, to what extend the public can participate, and how much influence the public has in shaping a plan could aff ect public ownership in using the recovery plan (Baer, 1997). Inter O rganizational C oordination Assessment of the principle of inter organizational coordination seeks to determine coordination measures to identify and distribute resources in such a way to respond to dynamic post disaster needs. Corresponding indicators include coordination

PAGE 48

48 in preparing the local recovery task force and to recognize key counterparts in disaster assistance networks. Most plans contained statements that accounted for two ind icators of the coordination principle. Counties developing PDRP maintains contact agencies at all government level and had assigned one agency to assume leadership to command redevelopment efforts, yielding the highest score on the assessment. On the other hand, the comprehensive plan rarely addresses coordination associated with rebuilding policy although most goal, objective, and policy about coordination are written in a dedicated chapter of inter governmental coordination. Less pronounced appearance of indicators in the comprehensive plan results in its low score. Readers are advised to refer to Figure 4 3 for the score recapitulation. The evaluation uncovered weak coordination statements exist in the coastal management element in which it stated that po licies related to post disaster redevelopment are expected to be consistent with directions provided in the CEMP. The Brevard and Volusia CEMPs suggest that in the aftermath of a disaster, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will assume central position to enable executing policies and actions related of short and long term recovery in which coordination to establish local recovery committee and survey of disaster assistance network are part of the job. However, it is necessary to assign low scores to the coordination principle in the comprehensive plan. Policies The policy principle corresponds to flexible guidance to respond to impacts and meeting ever changing needs in different recovery stages. Assessment seeks to determine if recovery plans have accou nted for the six indicators of recovery plan

PAGE 49

49 policy, including temporary building moratorium, standards for building acquisition or relocation, policy on housing siting and supply for damaged areas, requirements for adjusting capital improvements, conditio ns leading to changes in land use regulations, and a possible damage cap for changing building codes. As pictured in Figure 4 4 ., among the six indicators only four were addressed with strong clarity in the plans, yielding a full score, while the two other s suggest a light articulation. The four indicators include change in land use regulations, adjustment for capital improvement related to public facilities investments, post disaster housing policy, and standard for building relocation or acquisition. This may reflect pressures within community for returning to pre disaster conditions, but it may also denote a lack of trust in systematic post disaster planning efforts prior laying the ground with brick and mortar. High score goes to counties with PDRPs wher eas counties with the comprehensive plan tend to obtain a minimum score. Despite the score diversity, all plans include the six indicators in their writing. The Pasco county PDRP is the only plan achieving score to two indicators involving threshold to cha nge building code and temporary building moratorium. Although relatively noticeable, the proposed actions received partial value since they do not match to indicators in the question. For instance, Action C1.1.13 of Pasco PDRP maintains a policy to promote flexibility in codes to encourage innovation to post disaster solutions. This statement aligns with the indicator related to building code, but it does not specifically mention about damage threshold which resulting in its half score. Florida PDRP guidanc e (Florida department of community affairs & Florida division of emergency management, 2010) offers a broader area of policy concerns with

PAGE 50

50 Land Use, Housing, Economic Redevelopment, Infrastructure and Public Facilities, Health and Social Services, and Envi ronment. All recovery plans have tackled these subjects with various levels of depth since they are a typical planning aspect, but careful examination to measure how far has the policies served recovery agenda is not part of this evaluation. Implementation and M onitoring This principle integrates two areas in planning process subsequent to adopting policies, notably implementation of proposed actions and monitor plan execution. The assessment seeks to identify whether statements in recovery plans agree with four indicators involving post disaster roles, plan maintenance, procedure of activation, monitor policy adaptation, fund, and register outcomes. The assessment suggests that four indicators are on display in the plans, as shown in Figure 4 5. Three indic ators obtain the maximum score which include post disaster roles, plan maintenance, and procedure of activation, leaving monitoring receive half score. Low scores for monitoring reflect a weak incentive for the community to correlate proposed activities in plan making and outputs of plan implementation. Without a mechanism to incorporate feedback, plan implementation could suffer from a lack of sensibility to capture dynamics of post disaster needs including emerging innovative solutions even if the plans h ave been scheduled for regular update and revisions. A ssessment Summary Plan evaluation measures the score of principles constituting a recovery plan. Scores are broken down by principles to allow for comparison by county. To answer the first question, th e evaluation indicates that content quality of post disaster

PAGE 51

51 redevelopment plans varies. Some principles are clearly written and explicit in delivering the messages whereas some other are weakly expressed or did not mentioned them at all. In result, it is found that some counties have recovery plans of high quality but some other only does well in several principles, resulting in the overall poor quality. It also suggests a connection may prevail between plan quality and plan format although to prove such a hypothesis necessitates a larger sample which is not covered in this study. Counties with the stand alone PDRP registers a high score in most indicators in contrast with the recovery plan within comprehensive plan which receives a lower score. In addition to monitoring, comprehensive plans do not show endorsement to post disaster roles. The Brevard county comprehensive plan displays weak connection with procedure of activation and plan maintenance. However, none of the indicators detected in the Volusia co mprehensive plan. Local governments can always consult Florida PDRP guidance (Florida Department of Community Affairs & Florida Division of Emergency Management, 2010) for selected components to discuss when undertaking regular monitoring. Strength and W ea kness Berke et al. (2014) alludes to a recovery plan compose of six principles of equal weight in which the result of assessment of corresponding indicators has been demonstrated in the prior section. This section intends to highlight composite score in ea ch principle organized in the county to which the recovery plan belongs. Comparing counties by the score will help discern which categories require attention for quality improvement. A county assigned with a low score could take the notion as a starting po int to work on a strategy of preparing a program to advance overall quality of recovery plan.

PAGE 52

52 F igure 4 6. summarizes the average scores of principles assessment by county. Clearly, this helps to identify which recovery plans secured a high score at certain categories, which plans comes out a bit short, and which plans tend to underperform. Recovery plans developed by two counties display domination in all categories and only slightly fell short in two others. The other two recovery plans exhibit low accompl ishments throughout the assessment which resulted in underachievement in most categories. For Manatee and Pasco counties, selecting the stand alone format has helped them to articulate in structuring messages and organizing thoughts into a recovery plan. T his finding is consistent with Berke et al., (2014) who claims plan format significantly impacting recovery plan quality. The PDRPs quality is identically strong (average score = 2) in four principles comprising Goals, Fact base, Participation, and Coordin ation. Some gaps are found in Policies (Manatee = 1.33, Pasco = 1.67) and Implementation and monitoring (Manatee and Pasco = 1.75). The gaps are associated with the absent absence or weak policy statement in temporary building moratorium and no indications to establish monitoring system accounted for registering outcomes, tracking fund disbursement and policy adoption. Incorporating these issues into the PDRP would reward the community with broader policy alternatives and a sharper focus to address post dis aster redevelopment issues. The evaluation found that the recovery plan in Brevard County is weak in all categories except for Goals, whereas in Volusia low scores are present in three categories and non existent or zero in three others. Although the asses sment of the Brevard comprehensive plan predominantly returns with half score or less, it turns out

PAGE 53

53 the goal itself serves well in providing reasons to address all subjects necessitated in a recovery plan. The assessment confirms research of Berke and Fren ch (1994) claiming that a clear message provides impetus to address related elements for a recovery plan. Except for goals, Brevard has several weak sides associated with implementation and monitoring (average score of 0.5), policies (0.67), participation (0.67), fact base (0.75), and coordination (1). While it is worthwhile to figure score variation, it does not instantly associate with setting up the priority for recovery plan quality enhancement. For instance, creating fact based analysis through resear ch has been repeatedly advised for its significance in creating a solid ground of threats and anticipated damages essential to inform formulation of policies and strategy of implementation (Godschalk, Beatley, Berke, Brower, & Kaiser, 1999; Schwab, Topping Eadie, Deyle, & Smith, 1998; Schwab, 2014). Brevard may want to consider that when creating its recovery plan improvement program. discusses several principles such as policies (average score of 0.67), fact base (0.75) and coordination (1) and completely fails to address goals, participation, and implementation and monitoring. Underperformance in writing the plan concern with several factors. It hypothetically denotes that the p lan authors do not consider the comprehensive plan to be an effective format to undertake recovery plans or simply represents a genuine lack of public support to post disaster redevelopment plan. Should Volusia wish to reinforce the recovery plan, a prior ity should be given to enhance the quality concerns with goals and fact base. This will ensure the plan has an explicit future condition, points out hazards to consider and examines institutional

PAGE 54

54 strength to embark on necessary measures in all phases of re covery involving pre disaster, both the short term, and long term stage. To address the second question, recovery plans display strength in writing their goals except for Volusia County Figure 4 7 summarizes achievement of the six principles by county. Ma natee PDRP goals in considered restorative in which post disaster actions and resources are directed to reach conditions prior to disaster. The desire of a community for returning to pre disaster conditions is natural since disaster impacts had disrupted t he underlying natural and social orders which leading many to face uncertainty about their future, therefore resorting to what they are familiar with the old condition seems to be a safe thing to do. However, selecting the restorative mode may not be an optimum choice. Rebuilding based on the old structure has potential to repeat the same failure done in the past in terms of creating vulnerability. Berke and Campanella (2006) assert that post the community to address their past mistakes and replace them with a new form of rebuilding that aligns knowledge of the present threats and awareness about future hazards and integrates them into the existing plans. Two spots of weakness present in all plans include policies and implementation and monitoring. While addressing the spots with content improvement is necessary they are likely more appropriate to apply in counties that had established fundamental elements of recovery plans suc h as goals and fact base. Improvement to goals and fact base will likely create a plan of sensible goals and reliable facts to devise

PAGE 55

55 consequential policies and foster an action oriented implementation and accountable monitoring system.

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 1. Statem ent of recovery goals County Plan Format Recovery goals Manatee Stand alone Facilitate the return of citizens and business Pasco Stand alone Mitigate disaster, Recover the economy and community life, Reducing future hazard risk Volusia Comprehensive pla n Not Mentioned Brevard Comprehensive plan Reduce or eliminate future risk from natural hazards

PAGE 57

57 Figure 4 1 Score on fact base Figure 4 2 Score on participation Figure 4 3 Score on inter organizational organization 0 1 2 Hazard Identification Vulnerability assessment Impacts scenario Capability review Brevard Volusia Pasco Manatee 0 1 2 Pre-disaster approach Post-disaster approach Include Narrative Brevard Volusia Pasco Manatee 0 1 2 Local recovery task force External organization Brevard Volusia Pasco Manatee

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 4 Score on po licies Figure 4 5 Score on i mplementation and monitoring 0 1 2 Temporary building moratorium Standard for building acquisition/relocation Housing supply Adjusting capital improvement Change in land use regulations Damage treshold for changing building code Brevard Volusia Pasco Manatee 0 1 2 Post-disaster roles Plan maintenance Procedure of activation Monitor policy adaptation, use of funds, tracking outcomes Brevard Volusia Pasco Manatee

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 6 Average score by principle

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4 7 Summary of score by county 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Goals Fact-base Participation Coordination Policies Implementaton Manatee Pasco Volusia Brevard

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Th is chapter will examine factors associated with variation in plan quality based on c ontent evaluation of the recovery plans and review of prior studies. Highlights will be given to factors related to state mandate and plan format. Many attempts have been made to determine factors to explain plan quality. Assorted findings to explain a re lationship between plan quality and some independent variables indicates the debates are on going, and that a consensus has yet to be reached. Some factors which are present and have received attention from scholars include the state mandate and plan forma t. Table 5.1 captures these factors and its claims The evaluation suggests the overall quality of the four recovery plans examined in this study is above moderate, scoring 6.25 in the scale of 10. Table 5 2 summarizes the score of content evaluation based on plan format with regard to the date signifying the change in state mandate. Due to limited number of recovery plans involved, the outputs should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the exercise demonstrates plan content evaluation is one of the viable approaches of systematic plan evaluations. It shows that quantifying key principles of a good plan make it possible to uncover content quality that would otherwise be overlooked with other approaches, such as focus group discussion. Similarly, utili zing the method allows local policy makers gain in depth views about performance to other jurisdictions. This notion suggests that content analysis provides

PAGE 62

62 ways to improve dis aster recovery practices for coastal communities in Florida and perhaps elsewhere as well. State Mandate State mandate has been attributed not only as a driving force for a community to prepare a plan but also corresponds to the quality of a plan (Berke & French, 1994; Berke, 1996). However, when it comes to plan quality, it takes more than compliance to high plan quality because there are other factors to determine a goo d plan (Berke, Godschalk, Kaiser, & Rodriguez, 2006). for local communities preparing PDRP. One of the reasons because samples were not drawn to represent population of stand alone PDRP created after the guidance issued in 2010. Manatee PDRP was created precede the Florida PDRP guidance I n fact it was one of the counties in which the lessons of developing stand alone PDRP have contributed to establish foundation of the guidance. A comparison between Pasco PDRP components composed of six topics encompasses Land use, Housing, Economic redevelopment, Infrastructure and public facilities, Health and social services and Environment. Pasco PDPR acknowledges all topics and include one topic on Government functions in which Government operations and administration. Bas ed on Florida PDRP guidance (2010), local governments is required to establish PDRP as part of their comprehensive plan pursuant to the Florida Statutes. However, as have elaborated in the literature review, the requirement has been

PAGE 63

63 repealed following the enactment of the Community planning act. Therefore, decision to establish PDRP relies on the assessment of local governments to which they deemed necessary while its inclusion to comprehensive plan based on the judgment of effective structure for the plan within local development planning system. The evaluation identifies Manatee and Pasco county incorporate PDRP measures both as specific policies within Coastal management element of comprehensive plan or streamlined into different plans such as the recover y annex of Comprehensive emergency management plan and Local mitigation strategy. The fact that PDRP less popular among other hazard plans could be resulted from the lack of documentation, regular dissemination, or combination of both. A communication with one of the official at the respective departments indicate that the state does not monitor the adoption of PDPR guidance at the local level. That said, the state does not hold a record of jurisdictions and its corresponding information such as High variance of recovery plan quality in Florida, as demonstrated in the content evaluation, implies that the presence of state mandate alone does not guarantee identical output. In fact, recove ry plans of high quality are achieved when the mandate was in place, the way it was shown in Manatee PDRP as well as when the mandate was repealed which take an example of Pasco PDRP. This finding suggests that the state mandate did not display adequate en dorsement to facilitate local governments get the most of their recovery plan. A follow up investigation to examine the quality of recovery plans before the enactment of the 2011 CPA could be utilized to verify this point.

PAGE 64

64 To address the weak mandate with creating and implementing hazard planning, advice will be sought from research by Berke & French (1994) in which they argue the improvement in the mandate component related to facilitation could influence implement ation of mandates at the local level. These features include local capacity building, local commitment building, bureaucracy implementation style, and expenditure for plan making. Should the state consider updating the mandate to promote high quality plan, this study recommends the state Plan Format Another conjecture concerns recovery plan format. As demonstrated in plan evaluation content, there is strong indication that the stand alone recovery plan format achieves higher content quality than scattering post disaster recovery messages across chapters in a comprehensive plan. This study is in favor of promoting the stand alone format when creating post disaster redevelopment plans to help achieve the highest potential of plan content quality. Assessment to comprehensive plans in counties prepared stand alone PDRP indicates a tangible advantage resulted from developing the plan to overall disaster management capacity at the local level. One of the advantage of developing stand alone PDRP is that the plan provides alternative policy options to guide counties undertake transition from short term emergency to long term recovery and redevelopment. Manatee and Pasco have successfully integrated t he contents of PDRP into their comprehensive plan thus enable a coordinated practice of disaster management that refer to its respective hazard plan. Inclusion of multiple hazard plans into a comprehensive plan not only reflect an effort to seek fundamenta l compatibility of

PAGE 65

65 individual hazard plan but also a resolution of potential conflicts that may rise upon the implementation of the plans. This evaluation suggests that counties with stand alone PDRP demonstrated a holistic perspective to equip their compr ehensive plan with individual hazard plans of complimentary scope thus potentially enhance the capacity to build back better, stronger and more resilient The study also recommends coastal counties which had advantage of developing PDRP in stand alone form at to implement suggested policies and programs provided in the plan. On the other hand, local governments which have not developed the PDRP or had included recovery agenda as an added goal, objective, and policy of a comprehensive plan to consider creatin g a PDRP in a stand alone format. It may be notable to point out differences within the same plan format. This relates to Manatee and Pasco PDRP considering supports received respectively as pilot project and as an independent study. Pasco exemplifies the need driven for establishing a stand alone PDRP. While Manatee administered the preparation of PDRP because of its voluntary participation in the Federal and State sponsored program, Pasco is more proactive since it received less supports to achieve the sa me deliverable. Decision to disaster and motivated by the intention to exercise post disaster recovery in more sustainable, stronger, and resilient way. Referring to the over all score, the content of Pasco PDRP ranks the highest of all samples. This indicates that the content was built upon PDRP guidance and potentially took advantage of lessons from jurisdictions undertook the exercise before, although a confirmation to PDRP authors might be needed to make this claim justified.

PAGE 66

66 Up to this point, the thesis has addressed challenges relate to writing a plan. The next challenges may be associated with defining strategy to utilize PDRPs once they were made. Therefore, further inve stigation to identify how effective post disaster redevelopment plan contributes to recovery processes in the field could present as a follow up study that would help understand PDRP impacts to the recovery process in Florida coastal counties.

PAGE 67

67 Table 5 1. State mandate and plan format relationship with plan quality ( Berke & French, 1994; Berke, 1996; Burby & Dalton, 1994; Burby & May, 1998 ; Berke et al., 2014 ) Factor Claim State mandate State mandate contributes to better plan quality Plan format Plan format has impact to the final plan quality Table 5 2 Post disaster redevelopment plan quality (index of 10) Date adopted Plan Format Before 2011 After 2011 Stand alone 9.16 9.47 Comprehensive plan 4.17 2.2

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION This study attempts to offer contributions in the practice of recovery planning in coastal areas. As have been shown in the preceding chapters, numerous efforts have been attempted to study content evaluation of mitigation plans as well as comprehensive plan across t he nation. Additionally, several studies have paid attention to comparative analysis of plan content leading to investigation of variables that play a role to determine plan quality. However, quality evaluation of the recovery plan, also known as the post disaster redevelopment plan, and involving coastal jurisdictions in Florida, is relatively limited. The study explores distinctions of several variables associated with a recovery plan based on the plan content evaluation method. It was developed upon prec eding work of Berke et al., (2014) and has been updated to include analysis about the As far as case selection is concerned, the coastal counties with differing plan format are chosen to represent the practice of typical ad opted formats comprising the stand alone PDRP (Manatee County and Pasco County) and elements of comprehensive plan (Brevard County and Volusia County). By focusing on cases drawn from the effort of local governments, the study demonstrates the scalable app lication of plan content evaluation method that can be used to inform a program which seeking to advance recovery plan quality. Scholars of disaster planning believe that developing a focused and high quality post disaster redevelopment plan can position local governments in a better way to deal with highly uncertain circumstances that arise during the recovery process. In addition,

PAGE 69

69 the capacity to manage recovery is indispensable given the intensifying vulnerability of coastal regions to hydro meteorologi cal hazards, considering the fact where many disasters have occurring over the past ten years do not qualify for federal supports. Plan Content Evaluation This exercise makes evident that plan content evaluation is a viable approach of systematic plan eval uations. The study found that assessment to the content of recovery plan quality is vary. Some counties have recovery plans of high quality while some others were found below the average. Plans receiving low score either fail to discuss recovery plan princ iples or do not clearly articulated the intended messages. Counties which develop stand alone PDRP such as Manatee and Pasco county registered high scores in most indicators which are in contrast with counties developing recovery plan as elements of compre hensive plan. Some results from content evaluation are detailed below. Half of the sample define recovery goals of transformative vison to build back better W ritten goals are sometimes mixed with the purpose of preparing the plan. Full scores for fact bas e are only given to counties with a stand alone PDRP while partial score is assigned to counties which develop recovery plan as elements of the comprehensive plan. The absence of fact base indicators results in low scores for Brevard and Volusia and althou gh their comprehensive plan addressed coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), it did not tackle the discrepancy between lacking capacity and anticipated threats which is fundamental to a post disaster redevelopment plan. Strength and Weakness Recovery plans disp lay strengths in writing goals except for one. Two spots of weakness present in all plans including are policies and implementation and monitoring.

PAGE 70

70 The quality of content in stand alone PDRP is identically strong (average score = 2) across four principles comprising goals, fact base, participation, and coordination. Some gaps are found in policies (Manatee = 1.33, Pasco = 1.67) and implementation and monitoring (Manatee and Pasco = 1.75). Content evaluation found the recovery plan of Brevard as weak in all categories except goals whereas Volusia has low score in three categories and no score in three others. Brevard could consider the idea about creating a solid ground of fact based analysis to inform formulation of post disaster redevelopment policy and str ategy. hypothetically reasoned that the authors do not consider comprehensive plan as an effective format to undertake the recovery plan agenda or the authors simply had inadequate support to develop a stand alone post disaster redevelopment plan. Overall Quality Based on the average of score of the four counties, an overall quality of the four recovery plans is above moderate, scoring 6.25 on the scale of 10. The finding indicates t hat in general coastal counties in Florida are knowledgeable to establish a plan of medium quality. It also indicates sufficient public support and commitment to allow local governments prepare a systematic, well written, analytical and communicative recov ery plan is available in place. Factors R elated to Plan Quality Prior studies indicate that plan quality has positive correlation with plan format and a state mandate. With a limited sample of four counties, the evaluation suggests positive association are present between plan format and recovery plan quality. Since coastal counties have a moderate commitment to develop a recovery plan and given

PAGE 71

71 only half of the sample indicates goal of transformative vision this study recommends capacity building with emp hasis on creating transformative goals. The presence of a state mandate does not guarantee identical output. In fact, recovery plans of high quality are achieved when the mandate was in place as well as when the mandate was repealed. This finding suggests that the state mandate did not display adequate endorsement to facilitate local governments get the most of their recovery plan. Another conjecture concerns recovery plan format. The study promotes coastal counties to develop post disaster redevelopment plans in the stand alone format. Coastal counties with a stand alone PDRP should consider the suggested policies and programs provided in the plan while local governments which have not developed the PDRP in a stand alone format are encouraged to proceed d eveloping the plan in this format.

PAGE 72

72 LIST OF REFERENCES Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post disaster recovery Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alexander, E. R. (1981). If planning isn't everything, maybe it's something. Town Planning Review, 52 (2), 131. Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16 (2), 127 140. Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria : An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63 (3), 329 344. Berke, P. R. (1996). Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Plannin g and Management, 39 (1), 79 96. Berke, P. R., & Campanella, T. J. (2006). Planning for post disaster resiliency. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604 (1), 192 207. Berke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The influence of s tate planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13 (4), 237 250. Berke, P., Cooper, J., Aminto, M., Grabich, S., & Horney, J. (2014). Adaptive planning for disaster recovery and resiliency: An evaluation of 87 local recovery plans in eight states. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80 (4), 310 323 Berke, P., & Godschalk, D. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23 (3), 227 240. Berke, P., Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E. J., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2006). Urban land use planning (5th ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Berke, P., Smith, G., & Lyles, W. (2012). Planning for resiliency: Evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans under th e disaster mitigation act. Natural Hazards Review, 13 (2), 139 149. Brevard county planning and development. (2008). The 1988 B revard county comprehensive plan (). Viera: Brevard county planning and development. Brody, S. D. (2003). Are we learning to mak e better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23 (2), 191 201.

PAGE 73

73 Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the A merican Planning Association, 69 (1), 33 49. Burby, R. J., Beatley, T., Berke, P. R., Deyle, R. E., French, S. P., Godschalk, D. R., . Olshansky, R. (1999). Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster resistant communities. Journal of the Ameri can Planning Association, 65 (3), 247 258. Burby, R. J., & Dalton, L. C. (1994). Plans can matter! the role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas. Public Administration Review, 229 238. Burby, R. J. & May, P. J. (1998). Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41 (1), 95 110. Campanella, T. J. (2006). Urban resilience and the recovery of N ew Orleans. Journal of t he American Planning Association, 72 (2), 141 146. Chang, S. E. (2010). Urban disaster recovery: A measurement framework and its application to the 1995 kobe earthquake. Disasters, 34 (2) Chapin, T. S., Deyle, R. E., & Baker, E. J. (2008). A parcel based GI S method for evaluating conformance of local land use planning with a state mandate to reduce exposure to hurricane flooding. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35 (2), 261 279. Church, J. A., Clark, P. U., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J. M., Jevre jeva, S., Levermann, A., . Nunn, P. (2013). Sea level change. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 1137 1216) Cambridge Univer sity Press. Clarke, L. (1999). Mission improbable: Using fantasy documents to tame disaster Chicago: University of Chicago Press. C ommunity planning act, chapter 163.3178 F lorida S tatutes, (2011). Conroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good s ustainable development plan? an analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment and Planning A, 36 (8), 1381 1396. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). National disaster recovery framework Washington, DC: FEMA US Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency of the US Department of Homeland Security. (2017). Total number of declared disasters. Retrieved September 2017 from https://www.fema.gov/disasters

PAGE 74

74 Florida administrative code, secti on 9J 5.012, (1994). Florida administrative code, section 9J 5.012 (repealed), (2011). Florida Coastal Office. (2017). Florida Coastal Management Program Guide Tallahassee: Retrieved from https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/FCMP Program Guide 201 7_0.pdf Florida department of community affairs, & Florida division of emergency management. (2010). Post disaster redevelopment planning: A guide for F lorida communities
Tallahassee, FL: Florida division of emergency management, Florida department o f community affairs. Florida department of economic opportunity, Florida division of emergency management. (2015). Post disaster redevelopment planning: Addressing adaptation during long term recovery
Talahasse, Florida: Florida department of economic opportunity, Florida division of emergency management. Florida Division of Emergency Management. (2013). The state of F lorida enhanced hazard mitigation plan; Tallahassee, FL: Florida Division of Emergency Management. Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. (2010). Climate change and sea level rise in F lorida: An update of "the effects of climate change on F coastal resources." [2009 report]  Tallahassee, FL: Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. Fu, X., Gomaa, M., Deng, Y., & Peng, Z. ( 2017). Adaptation planning for sea level rise: A study of US coastal cities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60 (2), 249 265. Godschalk, D., Beatley, T., Berke, P., Brower, D., & Kaiser, E. J. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning Washington, DC; Cavello, California: Island Press. Haas, J. E., Kates, R. W., & Bowden, M. J. (Eds.). (1977). Reconstruction following disaster Cambridge, MA and London, England: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hin e, A. C. a., Chambers, D. P. a., Clayton, T. D. a., Hafen, M. R. a., & Mitchum, G. T. a. (2016). Sea level rise in F lorida: Science, impacts, and options Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of maki ng plans Washington, DC: Island Press. Hopkins, L. D., Johnson, L. A., & Olshansky, R. B. (2012). Disaster and recovery: Processes compressed in time. Natural Hazards Review, 13 (3)

PAGE 75

75 Horney, J., Nguyen, M., Salvesen, D., Dwyer, C., Cooper, J., & Berke, P. ( 2017). Assessing the quality of rural hazard mitigation plans in the southeastern united states. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37 (1), 56 65 Horney, J., Nguyen, M., Salvesen, D., Tomasco, O., & Berke, P. (2016). Engaging the public in planning for disaster recovery. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17 33 37 Inam, A. (2013). Planning for the unplanned: Recovering from crises in megacities Routledge. Johnson, L. A., & Hayashi, H. (2012). Synthesis efforts in disaster recovery re search. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 30 (2), 212 234. Kim, K., & Olshansky, R. B. (2014). The theory and practice of building back better. Journal of the American Planning Association, L ocal government comprehensive planning and land development regulation act, chapter 163.3178 F lorida statutes, (1985). Lyles, L. W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). Do planners matter? examining factors driving incorporation of land use approaches into hazard mitigation plans. Journal of Environmen tal Planning and Management, 57 (5) Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). A comparison of local hazard mitigation plan quality in six states, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122 89 99 Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994 20 12: Growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34 (4), 433 450. Manatee county planning department. (2009). Manatee county post disaster redevelopment plan
. (). Bradenton, Florida: Manatee cou nty planning department. Manatee county planning department. (2014). Manatee county comprehensive plan 2020. (). Bradenton, Florida: Manatee county planning department. Murphy, G., & Silver, C. (2017). Manatee county post disaster redevelopment plan audi t with update recommendation. (). Gainesville and Sarasota, Florida: University of Florida Resilient Communities Initiative. Office of Emergency Management, & Office of Planning and Development. (2016). Pasco county post disaster redevelopment plan. (). D ade city: Pasco county board of commissioners.

PAGE 76

76 Olshansky, R. B. (2009). The challenges of planning for post disaster recovery. Building Safer Communities. Risk Governance, Spatial Planning, and Responses to Natural Hazards, 58 175 181. Olshansky, R. B., & Johnson, L. A. (2010). Clear as mud : Planning for the rebuilding of N ew O rleans (1st ed.). Chicago: American Planning Association. Quay, R. (2010). Anticipatory governance: A tool for climate change adaptation. Journal of the American Planning Associat ion, 76 (4), 496 511. Rubin, C. B. (1985). The community recovery process in the united states after a major natural disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 3 (2), 9 28. Rubin, C. B., Saperstein, M. D., & Barbee, D. G. (1985). Co mmunity recovery from a major natural disaster. (). Schwab, J. C. (Ed.). (2014). Planning for post disaster recovery: Next generation Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Schwab, J., Topping, K. C., Eadie, C. C., Deyle, R. E., & Smith, R. A. (1998) Planning for post disaster recovery and reconstruction American Planning Association Chicago. Smith, G. (2011). Planning for post disaster recovery: A review of the united states disaster assistance framework Fairfax, Va: Public Entity Risk Institute. S mith, G. P., & Wenger, D. (2007). Sustainable disaster recovery: Operationalizing an existing agenda. Handbook of disaster research (pp. 234 257). Boston, MA: Springer Stevens, M. R., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. R. (2014). Measuring and reporting intercoder re liability in plan quality evaluation research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34 (1), 77 93. Talen, E. (1996). Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. CPL Bibliography, 10 (3), 248 259. Vale, L. J., & Campanella, T. J. (2 005). The resilient city: How modern cities recover from disaster Oxford University Press. Valle Levinson, A., Dutton, A., & Martin, J. B. (2017). Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern united states. Geophysical Rese arch Letters, 44 (15), 7876 7882. Volusia planning and development services. (2016). Volusia county comprehensive plan. (). DeLand: Volusia planning and development services.

PAGE 77

77 Woodruff, S. C., & Stults, M. (2016). Numerous strategies but limited implementa tion guidance in US local adaptation plans. Nature Climate Change, 6 (8), 796 802.

PAGE 78

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Hoferdy Zawani degree in city and regional planning from Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesi a. Prior to pursuing graduate study at the University of Florida, Hoferdy had professional career at home as development consultant in a government affiliated working group lead by the Ministry of National Development Planning to implement water, sanitatio n and hygiene Bank financed project with a local university in Jakarta to reinforce institutional accountability among national agencies through innovative approach in pro viding public various projects encompass slum alleviation, low income housing and settlements, and mainstreaming disaster risks to city planning He co authored a paper in a n Indonesian journal on city and regional planning and co written report s listed under the World Hoferdy is an awardee of the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education of the Ministry of Finance. He anticipates leveraging his ed ucation at the University of Florida in development community that allows him to full y utiliz e his expertise in the work of improv ing welfare to urban community at home and abroad.