Headwinds in the heartland? Hazard planning lessons from six inland jurisdictions in the southern plains

Abstract

The recent 20th anniversary of the adoption of the United States’ Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) offers an occasion to reflect on the performance of the intergovernmental policy framework it created to incentivize local hazard mitigation planning. Researchers know little about the status of local hazard mitigation planning in oft-overlooked inland communities and they know little about high-quality mitigation planning in the middle of the country. This study helps fill these gaps with a multistate, six-county comparative case study approach in the Southern Plains using data collected from the evaluation of plan documents and interviews with key informants. Our three core findings are: (1) the hazard mitigation plans tend to be of low to mediocre quality; (2) the networks of hazard mitigation stakeholders vary widely in composition and leadership, some replicating emergency management networks suited to preparedness and response and some much better suited to the quite different demands of long-term mitigation work; and (3) the types of consultants and their roles also varied across the six cases, bringing expertise characteristic of narrow emergency management perspectives to more integrated expertise in long-range land use and infrastructure planning perspectives. Without the requirements of the DMA, it is difficult to imagine that thousands of communities would have dedicated millions of dollars and untold hours to develop mitigation plans. Yet, as our findings show, the DMA is likely in need of a major overhaul, in spite of recent efforts like the new Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.