Land-use planning tools have been extensively applied in the U.S. to achieve environmental sustainability and disaster resiliency for local communities. An important issue related to land-use planning tools is planners’ beliefs about the ways in which these tools differ from each other and, thus, how planners choose among these tools for environmental hazard mitigation. A web-based survey collected data from planners in counties (or boroughs) in the five U.S. Pacific states (where county land-use planning is limited to unincorporated areas). The results indicate that planners substantially, but not completely, agreed in their perceptions of planning tools, that planners’ perceptions of planning tools are minimally related to their personal characteristics and those of their jurisdictions, and that planners’ perceptions of planning tools are significantly correlated with the capacity of their planning agencies. Planners viewed effectiveness (a desirable attribute) as positively correlated with economic costs and other impediments (which are undesirable attributes) so they must make trade-offs among these attributes and choose the most appropriate tool when formulating a growth management strategy.
AnthonyJ (2004) Do state growth management regulations reduce sprawl?Urban Affairs Review39(3): 376–397.
2.
APA (2014) County Planning, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
3.
BaumHS (1996) Why the rational paradigm persists: Tales from the field. Journal of Planning Education and Research15(2): 127–135.
4.
BeatleyT (2009) Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times, Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
BerkePGodschalkD (2009) Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature23(3): 227–240.
6.
BerkePGodschalkDKaiserE (2006) Urban Land Use Planning, 5th ed. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
7.
BerkePSmithG (2010) Hazard mitigation, planning, and disaster resiliency: Challenges and strategic choices for the 21st century. In: FraU (ed.) Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, pp. 1–23.
8.
BerkePRConroyMM (2000) Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association66(1): 21–33.
9.
BerkePRRoenigkDJKaiserEJ (1996) Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management39(1): 79–96.
10.
BirklandTA (1997) After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy and Focusing Events, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
11.
BrodySD (2003a) Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use planning. Population and Environment24(6): 511–540.
12.
BrodySD (2003b) Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research46(2): 191–201.
13.
BrodySKangJBernhardtS (2010) Identifying factors influencing flood mitigation at the local level in Texas and Florida: The role of organizational capacity. Natural Hazards9(1): 1–18.
14.
BrodySZahranSHighfieldWE (2009) Policy learning for flood mitigation: A longitudinal assessment of the community rating system in Florida. Risk Analysis29(6): 912–929.
15.
BrodySDCarrascoVHighfieldWE (2006) Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research25: 294–310.
16.
BurbyRJBeatleyTBerkePR (1999) Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster-resistant communities. Journal of the American Planning Association65(3): 247–258.
BurbyRJFrenchSP (1981) Coping with floods: The land use management paradox. Journal of the American Planning Association47(3): 289–300.
19.
BurbyRJFrenchSPCiglerBA (1985) Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
20.
BurbyRMayP (1998) Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management41(1): 95–110.
21.
BurbyRJMayPJBerkePR (1997) Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
BurtonIKatesRWWhitesGF (1993) The Environment as Hazard, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
23.
CrossettKMCullitonTJWileyPC (2004) Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008, Silver Spring, MD: NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Management and Budget Office.
24.
CurtinRPresserSSingerE (2000) The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly64: 413–428.
25.
DaltonLC (1986) Why the rational paradigm persists: The resistance of professional education and practice to alternative forms of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research5: 147–153.
26.
DaltonLC (1989) Emerging knowledge about planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research9(1): 29–44.
27.
DaltonLC (2007) Preparing planners for the breadth of practice: What we need to know depends on whom we ask. Journal of the American Planning Association73(1): 35–48.
28.
DaltonLCBurbyRJ (1994) Mandates, plans, and planners: Building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association60(4): 444–461.
29.
DillmanDA (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
30.
DunlapWPBurkeMJSmith-CroweK (2003) Accurate tests of statistical significance for rWG and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology88(2): 356–362.
31.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
FriedmanJ (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
FultonWShigleyP (2005) Guide to California Planning, 3rd ed. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
34.
HealeyP (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
Husein R (2012) Examining local jurisdiction’s capacity and commitment for hazard mitigation policies and strategies along the Texas Coast. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
36.
IngramGKHongY-H (2009) Evaluating Smart Growth: State and Local Policy Outcomes. Policy Focus Report/Code PF020, June 2009, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
37.
InnesJEBooherDE (2010) Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy, London: Routledge.
38.
JamesLGDemareeRGWolfeG (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology69: 85–98.
39.
JohnsonDRYoungR (2011) Toward best practices in analysing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family73: 925–926.
40.
KeeterSMillerCKohutA (2000) Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly64: 125–148.
41.
LeBretonJMSenterJL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods11(4): 815–852.
42.
LevyJM (2009) Contemporary Urban Planning, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
43.
LindellMK (2008) Cross-sectional research. In: LanceCFVandenbergRJ (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 206–213.
44.
LindellMK (2013) North American cities at risk: Household responses to environmental hazards. In: RossettoTJoffeHAdamsJ (eds) Cities at Risk: Living With Perils in the 21st Century, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 109–130.
45.
LindellMKArlikattiSPraterCS (2009) Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis29(8): 1072–1088.
46.
LindellMKBrandtCJWhitneyDJ (1999) A revised index of agreement for multiitem ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement23: 127–135.
47.
LindellMKPerryRW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment and Behaviour32: 590–630.
Mandelker DR (Ed) (2005) Planning Reform in the New Century. Chicago, IL: Planner Press.
53.
MeltsnerAJ (1976) Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
54.
NewmanDA (2009) Missing data techniques and low response rate. In: LanceCEVandenbergRJ (eds) Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends, New York: Routledge, pp. 7–36.
NortonRK (2005) Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(2): 149–171.
57.
NunnallyJBernsteinI (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
58.
OlshanskyRBKartezJD (1998) Managing land use to build resilience. In: BurbyRJ (ed.) Cooperating With Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards With Comprehensive Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities, Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, pp. 167–201.
59.
PerlmanDLMillerJ (2005) Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens, Washington, DC: Island Press.
60.
PeughJLEndersCK (2004) Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research74: 525–556.
61.
PorterDR (1996) Performance Standards for Growth Management, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
62.
PorterDR (2008) Managing Growth in America’s Communities, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Island Press.
63.
PraterCSLindellMK (2000) Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural Hazard Review1(2): 73–82.
64.
StevensM (2010) Implementing natural hazard mitigation provisions: Exploring the role that individual land use planners can play. Journal of Planning Literature24(4): 362–371.
65.
TalenE (1996) Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature10(3): 248–259.
66.
TangZLindellMKPraterCS (2008) Measuring tsunami planning capacity on the U.S. Pacific coast. Natural Hazards Review9: 91–100.
67.
TangZLindellMKPraterCS (2011) Examining local coastal zone land use planning capacity in Pacific coastal counties. Coastal Management39: 105–132.
68.
TerpstraTLindellMK (2013) Citizens’ perceptions of flood hazard adjustments: An application of the protective action decision model. Environment and Behaviour45(8): 993–1018.
