The Use of Land-Use Planning and State Planning Mandates in Hazard Mitigation: A Comparative Evaluation of State and Local Experience

土地利用规划被广泛倡导为应对地震和其他自然灾害威胁的一种方法，但是，规划的预期效益尚未被记录在案，除了有规划授权的州之外，很少有地方政府在其全面(一般)计划中纳入危险因素。国家授权提供了一种很有希望的手段，可以提高易受自然灾害地区的地方规划的利用率和有效性，但人们对其有效性知之甚少。这是一项对三个州的比较研究，旨在通过回答四个关键研究问题来促进改善自然灾害的管理：1.国家全面(一般)规划指令是否制定了针对重要减灾问题的地方政府土地利用计划问题，例如为易受自然灾害地区指定适当的土地用途，保护生命线，以及确定翻新的机会？2.在实践中，土地利用规划在多大程度上实现了易受自然灾害地区的潜在效益？3.危险区域的计划和相关政策在多大程度上通过通过开发管理条例和其他措施，并在开发审查期间施加适当的减灾条件允许吗？4.什么因素(包括国家规划任务的存在和形式)与地方政府之间在计划编制和实施方面的差异有关？如何利用对这些因素的了解来制定和执行更有效的任务？

Land use planning has been advocated widely as an approach to coping with threats posed by earthquakes and other natural hazards, but the benefits expected of planning have yet to be documented and few local governments outside of states with planning mandates have included hazards elements in their comprehensive (general) plans. State mandates provide a promising means of increasing the use and effectiveness of local planning for areas subject to natural hazards, but not much is known about their effectiveness. This is a comparative study of three states designed to contribute to improved management of natural hazards by providing answers to four critical research questions: 1. Are state comprehensive (general) planning mandates producing local government land use plans which address important hazard mitigation issues, such as specification of appropriate land uses for areas subject to natural hazards, protection of lifelines, and identification of opportunities for retrofitting? 2. To what extent are the potential benefits of land use planning for areas subject to natural hazards being realized in practice? 3. To what extent have plans and associated policies for hazardous areas been implemented through the adoption of development management regulations and other measures and the imposition of appropriate hazard mitigation conditions during development review and permitting? 4. What factors (including the presence and form of state planning mandates) are associated with variation in plan preparation and implementation among local governments? How can knowledge of those factors be used to devise and implement more effective mandates?