Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California



4.3 Evaluation of mitigation policies in OC and LAC

4.3.1 Evaluation framework

The natural hazard mitigation elements of the general plans will be judged based on the
findings of chapters 2 and 3. As demands for plan contents were mentioned:

a strong factual basis,

a clear goal definition,

a description of the interaction and balancing between different interests, and

strong mitigation policies in a clear implementation framework

These are the conceptual aspects the plans will be evaluated on (the last aspect will be split into
two separate aspects: the concepts of the mitigation policies in itself, and the proposed
implementation efforts). Another goal of this study is to find out to what extent local
governments include elements that are mandated by state government. The State of California
mandates that the safety element must address:

evacuation routes,

clearances around structures, and

peak load water requirements.

Furthermore, hazard maps must be included for seismic and other geologic hazards. These are
the aspects that form the basis of the plan evaluation. For every aspect, a plan can receive a ‘0’,
a ‘+’ or a ‘+ +’. A ‘0’ indicates that that aspect is not covered by the plan at all. An aspect rated
‘+’ is mentioned, but not in detail. A ‘+ +’ indicates that the aspect has been extensively
covered in the plan. This distinction between ‘+’ and ‘+ +’ is important, because research
suggests that the more detail is provided in a plan, the higher chances are that the policies will
be actually implemented (Beatley & Berke 1992).

It is important to realize that from a plan element, it is impossible to review the planning
procedure that has preceded the adoption of the plan. The evaluation is therefore only based on
plan contents, not on the planning process. Furthermore, only natural hazard mitigation will be
considered. Mitigation of man-made hazards as well as disaster preparedness, response and
recovery are not included.

4.3.2 Natural hazard mitigation in Orange County

On the following pages, the evaluation of the safety elements in Orange County is provided.
Table 4.5 shows in what general plan elements natural hazard mitigation is discussed, and the
year of adoption, or the last updating, of the element. Table 4.6 shows what hazards the

27



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. Human Development and Regional Disparities in Iran:A Policy Model
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. A Classical Probabilistic Computer Model of Consciousness
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. LIMITS OF PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
10. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
11. Crime as a Social Cost of Poverty and Inequality: A Review Focusing on Developing Countries
12. The name is absent
13. The Making of Cultural Policy: A European Perspective
14. The name is absent
15. Thresholds for Employment and Unemployment - a Spatial Analysis of German Regional Labour Markets 1992-2000
16. The name is absent
17. Licensing Schemes in Endogenous Entry
18. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Wage Inequality and Employment in the Formal and Informal Sector in Costa Rica
19. The Employment Impact of Differences in Dmand and Production
20. The name is absent