Natural hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans: The case of flood, wildfire and drought planning in Arizona

Natural hazards such as floods, wildfires and droughts disrupt communities, their economies and environments, and cost millions every year. The existing literature on hazard mitigation shows that community resilience is best achieved when mitigation strategies are integrated with land use and comprehensive planning. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of hazard mitigation in local comprehensive plans.

The analysis uses a new plan evaluation protocol that integrates flood, wildfire and drought mitigation to evaluate the plans of the six largest and fastest growing counties in Arizona.

The study finds that counties do not plan equally well for all hazards, that they tend to plan better for droughts than wildfires and floods, and indicates the need to improve hazard information in plans to support the adoption of mitigation goals, objectives and strategies.

The research is based on a small sample of comprehensive plans. It focuses on the content of plans rather than the causes that may explain this content or the implementation of the strategies included in the plans. Future research will thus need to analyze larger numbers of plans to identify the determinants of the degree to which comprehensive plans integrate hazard mitigation; and evaluate whether strategies advanced in plans are integrated with other planning documents and implemented.

The paper makes recommendations to improve the plans evaluated and to guide planners as they develop or revise comprehensive plans in other jurisdictions subject to natural hazards.

The key methodological contribution of the paper is the new plan evaluation protocol designed to assess the wildfire, drought and flood mitigation provisions in comprehensive plans.