Hazard mitigation plans and comprehensive plans are not always updated regularly. For hazard
mitigation, updating of plans is usually triggered by a natural hazard event that affects the
concerning community. As seen before, mitigation should be applied as early as possible and
the same holds true for reviewing, monitoring, implementing, evaluating and updating hazard
mitigation plans. The updating process should be precisely described and authorities should
ensure the execution of this process (Godschalk e.a. 2003). Brody (2003) in this context
mentions adaptive management: planners should constantly react to changing conditions and
new information. Plans and policies need to be flexible to ensure the possibility of changing
plans to new developments. He measured the quality of natural hazard mitigation plans during
several years and concluded that the quality of a plan indeed does increase over time if is
regularly adapted to new knowledge.
Pearce (2003), Godschalk e.a. (2003) and Weichselgartner (2001) all show that natural hazard
mitigation should be included as an element of a comprehensive plan instead of being a stand-
alone mitigation plan. The main reason for this is the fact that natural hazard mitigation affects
many other disciplines such as land use planning, building design and land improvement. To
ensure an active consideration of hazard risks and mitigation possibilities by officials of all
those disciplines, mitigation should be included in regular planning practice. This will cause a
spread of hazard knowledge, increase cooperation between different levels of governments
and/or local institutions and will increase the willingness of the public to be involved in the
planning process. Goals of different disciplines can then be balanced on a joint basis.
(Godschalk e.a. 2003). To balance opposite goals, evaluation of alternatives through for
example a cost-benefit-analysis can clarify under which measures the total benefit is optimal.
To ensure maximum cooperation by all actors, it is important to explain clearly how
alternatives where balanced (Briechle 1999, Olsnahsky 2001).
2.4 Conclusion
This chapter focused on characteristics of natural hazard mitigation and its implementation in
the planning process. It is important to remember that despite its specific characteristics,
mitigation planning is still a type of planning. That means that for hazard mitigation, planners
need to observe some basic planning principles. Kaiser, Godschalk en Chapin (1995) name a
strong factual basis, clearly defined goals and objectives, and appropriately directed policies as
the basic characteristics of any good plan. These characteristics are also necessary in a good
hazard mitigation plan.
13