A more appropriate use of money as a way to discourage development in high-risk areas, local
property taxes may be used. Berke (1994) identifies two possibilities: increasing taxes in high-
risk areas to discourage development and to cover additional mitigation costs in case the area
will be developed, or reducing taxes in hazardous areas if they are used for a low-risk land use,
for example parklands. A combination of both is also possible. The increased tax revenues in
high-risk areas can be used for hazard mitigation or reserved for recovery in case of an hazard
event (Berke 1994, Freeman 2003). The emphasis should always be on rewarding citizens for
following risk reducing strategies (Cutter 2005).
Sometimes, encouraging citizens to purchase earthquake insurance or flood insurance is
promoted as a mitigation measure. Disaster insurance, however, faces the same problem as
disaster relief: instead of truly mitigating disaster risks, people are encouraged to inhabit high-
risk areas. On an individual and short-term basis disaster insurance may seem a good idea, but
when seen from a long-term perspective it is evident that it does not solve the natural hazard
problem. With ever more people in hazardous areas and increasing numbers of weather related
hazard events, the insurances are bound to become unpayable during the next decades.
Encouraging disaster insurance should therefore only be used as a secondary form of
mitigation, the need for structural and/or non-structural mitigation measures does not disappear
with purchase of disaster insurance (Burby e.a. 1999).
2.3 Mitigation and the planning process
From the preceding discussion of mitigation measures it can be concluded that planning can
affect natural hazard risks. Some planning decisions may increase risks by encouraging people
to settle in hazardous areas, other decisions decrease risks by diverting development away from
hazard zones or by hazard-proofing the built environment. However, Berke (1994), Briechle
(1999) and Burby & May (1998) all indicate that being exposed to a hazard does not
automatically mean that the local government will establish hazard mitigation programs.
Natural hazard mitigation is often not placed high on the political agenda. Briechle found that
previous disaster experience is a strong indicator for hazard mitigation efforts. In other words:
localities that have experienced a natural disaster in the last decades are more likely to develop
proficient hazard mitigation programs (Briechle 1999). Berke (1994) indicates that the
prevalent planning approach influences the quality of hazard mitigation plans. The results of
his research of many local mitigation plans and planning approaches show that for natural
11