Since its inception in the mid-1980s, New Urbanist developments have been rapidly expanding. In this article, we examine the extent to which New Urbanist developments are exposed to flood hazards, demonstrate the hazard mitigation measures taken by New Urbanist developments, and compare New Urbanist and conventional developments in incorporating hazard mitigation measures. We find that New Urbanist developments are vulnerable to floods throughout the U.S. and a substantial number (36%) of New Urbanist developments are exposed to hazards. Furthermore, we show that New Urbanist projects use more mitigation measures overall than conventional developments, but these additional techniques focus on reducing structural vulnerability, which offers less security than site designs that avoid development in floodplains. Finally, we offer our suggestions on how New Urbanism movement can lead the efforts in building communities that are resilient to natural hazards.
BerkeP., and CampanellaT.. 2006. “Planning Post-disaster Resiliency.” The Annals of American Academy: 192–207.
2.
BerkeP., and BeatleyT.. 1992. Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics and Policy.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
BerkeP., BackhurstM., EricksenN., CrawfordJ., DixonJ.. 2006. “Implementation Success of Plans: Do Plans and Implementation Efforts Make a Difference?” Environment and Planning B33: 581–600.
4.
BerkeP., MacDonaldJ., WhiteN., HolmesM., LineD., OuryK., RyznarR.. 2003. “Greening Development to Protect Watersheds: Does New Urbanism Make a Difference?” Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4): 397–413.
5.
BrodyS.2003. “Examining the Effects of Biodiversity on the Ability of Local Plans to Manage Ecological Systems.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(6): 817–37.
6.
BurbyR. J., MayP. J., BerkeP., DaltonL. C., FrenchS. P., KaiserE. J.. 1997. Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use.Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
BurbyR.2006. “Hurricane Katrina and the Paradoxes of Government Disaster Policy: Bringing about Wise Governmental Decisions for Hazardous Areas.” The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 171–191.
8.
BurbyR., and FrenchS. P.. 1985. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9.
BurbyR., MayP., PattersonR.. 1998. “Improving Compliance with Regulations: Choices and Outcomes for Local Government.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3): 324–334.
10.
BurbyR., NelsonA. C., ParkerD., HandmerJ.. 2001. “Urban Containment Policy and Exposure to Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection?” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(4): 475–490.
11.
CalthorpeP.1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream.New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
12.
ClarkT. N.2003. “Urban Amenities: Lakes, Opera, and Juice Bars: Do They Drive Development?” Research in Urban Policy9: 103–140.
13.
Congress of New Urbanism.2002a. New Urban Projects on a Neighborhood Scale in the United States.Ithaca, NY: New Urban News.
CorbettJ., and CorbettM.. 2000. Designing Sustainable Communities: Learning from Village Homes.Washington DC: Island Press.
16.
DaltonL., and BurbyR.. 1994. “Mandates, Plans, and Planners: Building Local Commitment to Development Management.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4): 444–461.
17.
DuanyP. Z., and Company. 2001. SmartCode.Miami: Author. Also available on-line from http:://www.smartgrowth.org
18.
EwingR.1996. Best Development Practices.Chicago: American Planning Association.
19.
Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. 1994. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management 1994. FEMA No. 248. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
20.
GodschalkD.2000. “Smart Growth Around the Nation.” Popular Government, 66(1): 12–20.
21.
GodschalkD., BrodyS., BurbyR.. 2003. “Public Participation in Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management46, 733–770.
22.
LarsenL., and PlasenciaD.. 2001. “No Adverse Impact: A New Direction in Floodplain Management Policy.” Natural Hazards Review, November, 2(4): 167–181.
23.
LindellM.K., PraterC.S., PerryR. W.. 2006. Fundamentals of Emergency Management.Emmitsburg, MD: Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Institute.
24.
McDonaldJ., and HolmesM.. 2003. Birkdale Village, Hunterville, NC: A Case Study of Watershed Protection and New Urbanism.Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, UNC-CH, 16.
25.
MorrisM.1997. Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas.Chicago: American Planning and Publications Office.
26.
NelsonA., and FrenchS.. 2002. “Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage from Natural Disasters: A Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake with Planning Policy Considerations.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2): 194–207.
27.
NelsonA.2006. “Leadership in a New Era.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4): 393–407.
28.
New Urbanism.2002. Creating Livable Neighborhoods. Retrieved from www.newurbanism.org
29.
O'SheaH., and BerkeP.. 2003. An Assessment of Exposure of New Urbanist Developments to Natural Hazards.Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina.
30.
SteutevilleR. (ed) 2001. New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide, 2nd Ed.Ithaca: New Urban Publications.
