Land Use Planning for Climate Adaptation

Abstract

Rising risk and increasing prospects of catastrophic events are the new normal that communities face in the twenty-first century. The combined forces of climate change, globalization, and urbanization are predicted to cause more frequent major disruptions and greater loss of life and property throughout the world. At the same time, communities face growing levels of poverty, declining health of ecosystems that threatens the well-being of human and nonhuman species, and deteriorating infrastructure that degrades their ability to adaptively respond.

While there is heightened uncertainty of where and when disruptive events will occur, communities that effectively employ land use planning can be more resilient. Rather than waiting for an event to strike and incurring the costs afterward, better planning helps communities to anticipate and adaptively respond to extreme events, to rapidly recover, and to reduce future risk (National Research Council 2012). Communities can use land use planning to guide new growth outside of current and forecasted hazard areas, to assist residents to relocate existing dwellings to safer sites, and to manage postevent redevelopment in ways that reduce future vulnerability.

Planners have a unique combination of skills to foster development of forward-thinking plans and policies designed to guide adaptation in an uncertain and risky future. Communities need to engage a broad range of interest groups, especially historically marginalized groups, to support deliberation in decisions that affect them and to decide where, when, and how to apply policies that protect, accommodate, and avoid hazards. Planners can work with and empower at-risk people to act at geographic scales from rural towns to urban neighborhoods, from cities to regions.

Planners can also serve as holistic integrators with skills that allow them to see how climate mitigation (aimed at reduction of greenhouse gases) and climate adaptation (aimed at preparation and adjustment to inevitable impacts) are interdependent. Without mitigation, adaptation will be more difficult and more expensive, and more people are likely to suffer. Planning actions can support both goals, such as by restoring urban forests, which sequester carbon (mitigation) and act to reduce urban heat buildup (adaptation). Planners can also generate additional benefits through integrated strategies such as making investments to improve adaptation that at the same time improve opportunities for economic development, increase availability to transportation and health care services, or improve parks for residents. In other words, they can achieve “resilience dividends” that can make communities safer, healthier, more equitable, and economically viable (Rodin 2014).

Our goal for this focus issue is to assemble articles that can improve knowledge of the exposure to future hazards and potential risks from such exposure, and to gain insight into the role of planners in motivating climate adaptive behaviors through land use planning in settings dominated by public indifference or, worse, complete denial of risk. The articles begin to answer several critical questions: What types of scientific and technical information on social and biophysical risks are most credible and comprehensible to communities facing substantial uncertainty? What types of policies are most successful for climate adaptive planning initiatives? How can planners ensure procedural justice that includes meaningful participation among marginalized communities? How can they ensure distributive justice to maximize benefits of planning and investment to the most disadvantaged?

The issue builds on the landmark series of climate assessment reports spanning from 1990 to 2014 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2016), a pioneering collection of articles focused on integration of land use planning and hazard mitigation (Burby 1998), a recent groundbreaking global survey of urban climate adaptation planning (Carmin, Nadkarni, and Rhie 2012), and others in the planning field. In this introduction to the focus issue, we examine the articles through the lens of rational and participatory theories of planning to determine how they contribute to climate adaptation planning.

Rational and Participatory Theories of Planning

We use planning theory to interpret the implications of the articles in this focus issue. Far too often, studies in planning are developed and viewed separately from planning theory. As a result, research findings and theory do not reflect on each other and there is a disconnection. Our aim is to make a connection to address this problem at least for this focus issue.

Whittemore (2014) provides a useful review of eight different procedural theories of planning that differ in part with respect to the respective roles envisioned for planners and the general public. The rational-comprehensive theory of planning—the first to emerge during the early days of the planning profession—envisioned planning as a highly technical process conducted primarily by expert planners who were uniquely trained and qualified to define problems and select optimal means for addressing them (Davidoff and Reiner 1962). These “technician” planners were generally inattentive to the political aspects of planning (including public participation) and relied heavily upon technical information to solve problems (Forester 1982). The rational theory downplayed the problem of uncertainty and implicitly assumed that both the ends and (optimal) means of the planning process were known and agreed upon by the entire community (Christensen 1985).

This assumption and the rational theory of planning itself became subject to increasing criticism over time, as scholars developed new theories that acknowledged greater diversity of citizen preferences and envisioned more interaction between planners and non-expert citizens in the planning process. Beginning with Arnstein’s landmark article on public participation (Arnstein 1969), participatory theories of planning were developed that made a distinction between the type of knowledge held by planners and that held by citizens. Friedmann’s transactive planning theory (Friedmann 1973) called for a continuous exchange of knowledge between planners (who contribute “analytic know-how”) and citizens (who contribute “everyday knowledge”) (Whittemore 2014, 78). Forester (1980, 1982) extended this idea into a communicative theory of planning, under which communicative planners promote clear communication with citizens and the “democratic sharing of ideas” in order to arrive at agreed-upon solutions to planning problems (Whittemore 2014, 78). These types of participatory planning theories are based in large part upon a belief that planning processes that are informed by diverse sources of knowledge will produce solutions that are superior to those that are informed by only one source (i.e., technical planning knowledge) (Clavel 1986).

Land Use Planning for Climate Adaptation from the Perspective of Rational and Participatory Theories

Land use planning for climate adaptation builds on the tradition of land use planning for natural hazard mitigation, both of which share a future orientation aimed at anticipating and adapting to tomorrow’s needs rather than simply responding to yesterday’s problems (Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke 1998). Just as the goal of hazard mitigation is to anticipate and prepare for future natural hazard events so that losses are reduced if not completely avoided, so, too, is the goal of climate adaptation to anticipate the likely effects of climate change so that associated harmful impacts are minimized. Land use planning can help communities to achieve these goals by directing human settlements away from areas that are subject to natural hazards, including areas exposed to sea level rise, wildfires, drought, and other hazards effected by climate change.

The land use planning process for addressing natural hazards is based on the integration of the rational planning model and participatory planning theories. The process consists of four steps: (1) generating planning intelligence regarding hazard risks and vulnerability of the local population; (2) setting goals and objectives for reducing risk and vulnerability; (3) adopting policies and programs to achieve the goals and objectives; and (4) monitoring and evaluating the results, making revisions to policies and programs over time as necessary (Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke 1998). Within the context of climate adaptation, the land use planning process requires planners to first develop a fact base of information regarding the nature, location, and severity of local climate-related hazards and how those hazards are likely to affect local residents. This information should shape the development of a community’s goals and policies for placing appropriate constraints on the use of land such that local residents are protected from harm. In order for this process to be effective, the planning intelligence that is gathered in the first step must be “at least as credible as that for the host of other issues that go into determining appropriate land use including real estate feasibility, economic development, transportation, service cost, environmental impact, and impacts on neighboring properties” (Deyle et al. 1998, 164). Land use planning for climate adaptation requires that planners collect and disseminate accurate information regarding such issues as how many people are subject to injury, how many structures can be damaged, and how much infrastructure can be lost, as well as the likelihood that such impacts will occur (ibid., 120).

The fourth step in the process, monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the policies for helping to achieve the goals, helps to account for the large degree of uncertainty that accompanies planning for climate change. While climate scientists have reached near consensus on the expectation that climate change is occurring and will have widespread negative impacts on human settlements, projections of those impacts are based on sets of assumptions about current and future conditions that might not be completely accurate. Land use planning decisions for climate adaptation should be based on the best information currently available, though planners should nevertheless anticipate a need for making adjustments to goals and policies over time in order to account for unexpected events and outcomes.

As noted, this four-step land use planning process for addressing climate change and other environmental hazards is informed by both rational and participatory planning theories that blend technical analysis with public engagement and consultation (Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke 1998). The generation of planning intelligence regarding risk and vulnerability is likely to require significant technical expertise, including the ability to generate extensive quantitative data such as the probabilities of hazard events occurring at different locations within a community and the number and dollar value of properties at risk. In addition, analysts need to be skilled at reporting such information with the appropriate expression of uncertainty to account for inevitable limitations in our ability to predict future events.

At the same time, land use policies for addressing environmental hazards should be formulated through a process that involves a broad representation of community residents, stakeholders, and officials, including those residents that are considered to be most vulnerable to local hazard risks. Community engagement is essential for ensuring that local concerns are addressed and for building support for the successful implementation of policies that are developed during the planning process (Burby 2003; Stevens, Berke, and Song 2010). While community engagement is sometimes viewed as a distinct activity within the land use planning process, whether conducted at the beginning or the end and segregated from the other steps, planning scholars argue that it should be viewed as a “parallel, integrated and continuous part of the planning process” (Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke 1998, 94).

Participatory theories of planning that emphasize the critical importance of community engagement assume that community residents are sufficiently familiar with and interested in planning issues that they will naturally choose to participate in the planning process. Within the context of planning for natural hazards, however, it is common for both government officials and citizens alike to consider the process of planning for environmental hazards (such as climate change) to involve only technical issues that are most effectively addressed by trained, professional planning staff (Godschalk, Brody, and Burby 2003). Natural hazard mitigation has proven to be an issue that lacks “publics” (Burby 2003), which are identifiable groups that are interested in particular policy issues and actively involved in efforts to deal with them (Cobb and Elder 1972). When issues lack publics, the planning process to address those issues tends to be dominated by planners and other technical experts who respond to a lack of citizen interest by “picking up the slack” and acting on the public’s behalf (Stevens, Berke, and Song 2010, 331). While the technical knowledge that planners possess has value, a lack of community engagement in planning can mean that the process is not adequately informed by “ordinary knowledge” that is possessed by local citizens (Lindblom and Cohen 1979; Schon 1983; Innes 1990, 1998). This can result in the creation of policies that are largely irrelevant to those that they are supposed to benefit (Burby 2003, 34).

Building on Established Wisdom

The six articles in this focus issue implicitly explore these theories of rational and participatory planning within the context of contemporary efforts to employ land use planning for supporting climate change adaptation. In the first article, Spirandelli, Anderson, Porro, and Fletcher provide a detailed example of how technical planning intelligence can be generated regarding the likely extent of SLR in a particular location. Using a stretch of coastline in Maui as an illustrative case, they present a probabilistic shoreline model that explicitly incorporates uncertainty to project local SLR over time. They communicate uncertainty in part by expressing a range of possible SLR outcomes, which helps to account for randomness in the processes that determine SLR and contributes to the credibility of the planning intelligence by acknowledging the inherent inability of modeling to perfectly predict climate change outcomes. While their methodology aligns with rational planning theory in the sense that it is highly technical in nature and is likely to be utilized only by experts, their expression of uncertainty in the model results helps to guard against potential criticism that their rational approach is overly deterministic.

Kashem, Wilson, and Van Zandt contribute to the discourse on adaptation planning by examining whether and how the spatial distribution of social vulnerability has changed over time. They calculate a social vulnerability index for neighborhoods in three coastal cities (Houston, New Orleans, and Tampa) decennially from 1980 to 2010 and integrate neighborhood change and social vulnerability theories to help identify and explain patterns in how the distribution of vulnerability changed over that time period. They use their analysis to highlight spatial and temporal dynamics of social vulnerability that planners should pay attention to when planning for adaptation in their communities. In particular, their finding that vulnerability is a dynamic (as opposed to static) characteristic of local communities highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating policy implementation and associated impacts, which is step four of the rational model. Even if planners were to design and implement land use policies that were perfectly suited to existing patterns of local vulnerability, planners might very well need to adjust those policies over time as patterns of vulnerability shift in nature and spatial distribution.

Butler, Deyle, and Mutnansky use the Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke (1998) four-step land use planning model for addressing natural hazards (discussed above) as a normative framework for assessing the status of climate adaptation planning in forty-two of Florida’s coastal communities, in order to better understand the factors that help to explain why some municipalities are making larger commitments to adaptation than others. They found that municipalities are generally adopting a “wait and see” approach to climate adaptation that errs on the side of underadapting, in large part because municipalities don’t know what the local impacts of climate change will be and are unwilling to forego growth and economic development. Their findings highlight the influence that fact base information can have on municipal behavior: municipalities that are seeking to implement the most progressive adaptation policies are those that have access to the most credible and compelling planning intelligence, and those that have already experienced SLR impacts that the local community attributes to climate change.

Anguelovski, Shi, Chu, Gallagher, Goh, Lamb, Reeve, and Teicher study the implementation of climate adaptation plans in eight global cities (Boston, Dhaka, Jakarta, Manila, Medellin, New Orleans, Santiago, and Surat) and the associated implications for the vulnerability of the urban poor. Building on comparative urbanism theory and its inquiry into what cities have in common and how they differ, their study exposes potential limitations of rational planning approaches. The results of their case studies suggest that when land use planning for climate adaptation is primarily a technical exercise conducted by experts and elites without broad participation by vulnerable groups, the planning process can exacerbate sociospatial inequalities through both acts of commission (such as when land use interventions harm or displace poor communities) and acts of omission (such as when interventions prioritize elite groups at the expense of the urban poor). They propose that their theoretical approach can serve as a critical framework for evaluating ongoing adaptation activities around the world, and they provide recommendations for how planners can better serve and engage with vulnerable populations when developing adaptation strategies. In particular, they suggest that planners can help to counteract inequality by ensuring that marginalized urban residents are meaningfully engaged in the adaptation planning process and that their “everyday, ordinary” knowledge is incorporated into decision making.

Whereas the previous articles draw on both rational and participatory planning theories to highlight the importance of technical planning intelligence, a rigorous assessment of local vulnerability, and the engagement of vulnerable populations in the planning process, the article by Ellen, Yager, Hanson, and Bosher evaluates the effectiveness of a particular decision-making tool (i.e., multicriteria analysis) for addressing the limitations of rational and participatory planning processes. Drawing on various sources from planning theory and practice, they develop a set of five “principles of good planning” (participatory, transparent, comprehensive, rigorous, and scenario-driven) and evaluate the extent to which those principles were reflected in a particular adaptation planning process (i.e., the Louisiana 2012 Coastal Master Plan Update) that employed multicriteria analysis (MCA). They found that MCA has the potential to outperform cost–benefit analysis (a rational planning approach) and working groups (a participatory planning approach) with respect to supporting decision-making processes that are more participatory, transparent, comprehensive, and rigorous. They caution, however, that the potential of MCA to promote principles of good planning will depend in large part upon the extent to which planners are committed to fostering inclusive planning processes and have access to sufficient resources for designing and carrying out the MCA procedures. If planners are not committed to fostering inclusivity, the MCA process can become overly technical and might not fulfill its potential for improving upon cost-benefit analysis and other more “rational” approaches to decision making.

In the final article, Vella, Butler, Sipe, Chapin, and Murley evaluate the experience to date of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (SFRCCC), a voluntary regional partnership composed of four counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach) in Florida that was initiated in 2009 to foster collaboration in spatial planning for climate adaptation. They evaluate the success of the SFRCCC in addressing challenges associated with “adaptive governance,” which concerns the evolution of new governance institutions seeking long-term policy solutions by involving users, experts, authorities, and other critical stakeholders in negotiated decision-making processes. Their evaluation provides evidence that this type of voluntary regional collaboration can be effective at influencing local land use planning for climate change, by providing a forum for cross-jurisdictional sharing of resources, technical expertise, data, and policy learning. At the same time, however, the SFRCCC is dominated by local government staff with little involvement of the public and other stakeholders, and the voluntary nature of the organization prevents it from exercising direct influence over local climate adaptation policy and decision-making.

Improving Planning Practice in Climate Change Adaptation

Climate change adaptation is a relatively new addition to the ever-growing list of issues that compete for planners’ attention. Given that planners probably never have enough time or resources to adequately address all of the environmental, economic, and social problems that their communities face, there is a need for planners to be both effective and efficient in their work. The articles in this focus issue provide planners with several insights that can help to support efficacious climate adaptation planning in the face of time and resource constraints.

Planners should draw upon 40+ years’ worth of knowledge regarding land use planning for natural hazard mitigation. Whereas natural hazard mitigation was once very much a “niche” subfield in planning, the events surrounding the 2006 Hurricane Katrina and 2012 Hurricane Sandy and their aftermath catalyzed a dramatic shift in the attention of planning researchers and practitioners to the threat of natural hazards, issues of vulnerability and equity, and the role that planners can play in helping to protect people and property from harm. While it is true that climate adaptation is a new issue for planners, it is also true that land use planning researchers have been studying natural hazards for several decades, and much of the knowledge that they have created is directly relevant for many aspects of climate adaptation planning. Butler et al. note in their article, for example, that SLR is amenable to adaptation planning because the impacts of SLR are “familiar” to society and can be addressed in part by land use planning models and tools that have already been developed. Planners can use the existing body of knowledge on land use planning for natural hazard mitigation as a useful starting point for climate adaption planning in their communities.

Planners should learn to generate relevant planning intelligence regarding risk and vulnerability. It is common to conceive of the planning process as a concerted effort to move from “where we are” to “where we want to be,” a move that requires an accurate and factual assessment of existing and projected conditions at the beginning of the process (Stevens 2013). Along these lines, adaptation planning processes should be informed by rigorous, technical planning intelligence regarding local risks and vulnerability. In order for such information to effectively inform planning and decision making, it must not only be comprehensive and accurate but also credible and comprehensible to nonexperts, helping them to clearly appreciate the risks that climate change poses to the local population and how vulnerability is distributed across the community. Butler et al. show that municipalities are more likely to pursue progressive adaptation strategies when they are provided with information regarding local risks and vulnerability that is presented in such a way that they can understand and accept it as valid. Spirandelli et al. demonstrate how planning models can be used to better account for and communicate uncertainty in planning intelligence, which helps to support more informed and realistic decision making. The Kashem et al. article reveals local patterns of vulnerability to be dynamic and changing over time and space, with different factors (e.g., age, race, gender) taking on different levels of importance at different times. As a result, planners need to be aware of and responsive to these shifting patterns of vulnerability, and they need to recognize that an assessment of vulnerability is both an input into and an output of the planning process in the sense that the decisions planners make regarding how to address vulnerability in the present help to shape patterns of vulnerability in the future.

Planners should foster inclusive planning processes. While it is critical for adaptation planning processes to be informed by technical expertise and planning intelligence, the articles in this focus issue raise a cautionary warning regarding the importance of inclusive planning processes. In particular, Anguelovski et al. provide evidence that land use planning processes for climate adaptation that are dominated by elites and technical experts (however well-intentioned) may be more likely to exacerbate inequalities and to either ignore the most vulnerable residents of a community or to make their condition even worse. Land use planning has been referred to as “a high-stakes game of competition over a community’s or region’s future land use pattern” (Berke et al. 2006, 3), in which different interest groups and individuals compete to achieve favorable outcomes for themselves. Land use planners are central players in the game, acting as “game managers” and “stewards of the public interest” (ibid.). The case studies presented by Anguelovski et al. show that when the game is run by wealthy and powerful interests (such as those that benefit from real estate development) to the exclusion of poor and vulnerable residents, the rich get safer and the poor get more exposed. Planners can possibly help to reduce such inequities by making sure that planning processes include the poor and most vulnerable, though it has generally been a challenge for planners to inspire public attention and participation for natural hazard mitigation planning. To help stimulate more participation in adaptation planning, planners might need to adopt a “mobilizer” role (Stevens, Berke, and Song 2008, 2010) that involves actively notifying and mobilizing citizen groups to become engaged in the planning process, particularly those groups that are known to be most vulnerable to local climate change impacts.

Planners should experiment with innovative governance structures and decision-making tools. The combination of technical planning intelligence, a comprehensive vulnerability assessment, and the participation of a broad spectrum of stakeholders (including vulnerable populations) in the planning process helps to ensure that the process is well informed and that all interests are represented. However, the greater the amount of information that is considered and the greater the diversity of participants, the more complex the decision-making process is likely to become. Planners that are successful in promoting inclusive planning processes will need access to effective tools for synthesizing disparate information and balancing competing interests. The Ellen et al. article assesses the potential for MCA to help achieve these objectives and finds that MCA appears to be more effective at producing “good” planning outcomes than either technical processes that rely only on cost-benefit analysis or participatory processes that rely only on working groups of stakeholders. However, planners once again must ensure that the MCA process is inclusive or it can produce the same types of inequitable results that come from processes dominated by technical experts and elites. Last, planners and decision-makers should explore innovative governance structures to support better adaptation planning. While it is common for natural hazard issues to be addressed at federal, state, and municipal levels of government, a strong case can be made that the regional level is the most appropriate hazard planning scale (May and Deyle 1998). The Vella et al. article highlights the many advantages of voluntary regional collaboration in climate adaptation planning, while also acknowledging the limitations that stem in large part from the fact that voluntary planning organizations have little power for directly influencing policy and practice. While the SFRCCC in Florida has been referred to as “one of the nation’s leading examples of regional-scale climate action” (Office of the Press Secretary 2014) and as “a model not just for the country, but for the world” (Office of the Press Secretary 2015), there remains room for additional experimentation with regional planning governance structures that can promote more effective climate adaptation policy implementation at the regional scale.

We foresee that the insightful inquiries presented by the articles in this focus issue will help planners to build on—and to depart from—established wisdom. We anticipate that the new thinking presented here will guide planners in engaging the whole community and in exploring uncertainty and its implications for current and future decision making. We also hope that the focus issue will help planners speak with authority and clarity to their constituencies about the possibilities for creating a sustainable future.

Footnotes

Author Note

Authors are listed alphabetically as they are equal coauthors for this article and equal coeditors for the focus issue.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Philip R. Berke is a professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture & Urban Planning at Texas A&M University. His research interests include land use and environmental planning, climate adaptation, and community resilience.

Mark R. Stevens is an associate professor in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on the effectiveness of municipal land use and environmental planning.

References

Arnstein

Sherry R.

1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–24.

Berke

Philip

Godschalk

David

Kaiser

Edward

Rodriguez

Daniel

. 2006. Urban Land Use Planning, 5th ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Burby

Raymond

, ed. 1998. Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

Burby

Raymond

. 2003. “Making Plans That Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (1): 33–49.

Carmin

JoAnn

Nadkarni

Nikhil

Rhie

Christopher

. 2012. Progress and Challenges in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Christensen

Karen S.

1985. “Coping with Uncertainty in Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 51 (1): 63–73.

Clavel

Pierre

. 1986. The Progressive City: Planning and Participation 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cobb

Roger

Elder

Charles

. 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-building. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Davidoff

Paul

Reiner

Thomas

. 1962. “A Choice Theory of Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28 (2): 103–15.

10.

Deyle

Robert

French

Steven

Olshansky

Robert

Paterson

Robert

. 1998. “Hazard Assessment: The Factual Basis for Planning and Mitigation.” In Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities, edited by Burby

Raymond

, 119–66. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

11.

Forester

John

. 1980. “Critical Theory and Planning Practice.” Journal of the American Planning Association 46 (3): 175–286.

12.

Forester

John

. 1982. “Planning in the Face of Power.” Journal of the American Planning Association 48 (1): 67–80.

13.

Friedmann

John

. 1973. Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. New York: Anchor Press.

14.

Godschalk

David

Brody

Samuel

Burby

Raymond

. 2003. “Public Participation in Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy Formation: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning.” Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 46 (5): 733–54.

15.

Godschalk

David

Kaiser

Edward

Berke

Philip

. 1998. “Integrating Hazard Mitigation and Local Land Use Planning.” In Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities, edited by Burby

Raymond

, 85–118. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

16.

Innes

Judith

. 1990. Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators, 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

17.

Innes

Judith

. 1998. “Information in Communicative Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (1): 52–63.

18.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Assessment Reports. 2016. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1.

19.

Lindblom

Charles

Cohen

David

. 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

20.

May

Peter

Deyle

Robert

. 1998. “Governing Land Use in Hazardous Areas with a Patchwork System.” In Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-use Planning for Sustainable Communities, edited by Burby

Raymond

, 57–84. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

21.

National Research Council. 2012. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

22.

Office of the Press Secretary. 2014. “The Briefing Room Statements and Releases.” http://m.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2014/12/03/fact-sheet-16-us-communities-recognized-climate-action-champions-leaders (accessed December 22, 2014).

23.

Office of the Press Secretary. 2015. “Remarks by the President on the Impacts of Climate Change.” http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/03/fact-sheet-16-us-communities-recognized-climate-action-champions-leaders (accessed December 22, 2014).

24.

Rodin

Judith

. 2014. The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. New York: Public Affairs.

25.

Schon

Donald

. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

26.

Stevens

Mark

. 2013. “Evaluating the Quality of Official Community Plans in Southern British Columbia.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (4): 471–90.

27.

Stevens

Mark

Berke

Philip

Song

Yan

. 2008. “Protecting People and Property: The Influence of Land-Use Planners on Flood Hazard Mitigation in New Urbanist Developments.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (6): 737–57.

28.

Stevens

Mark

Berke

Philip

Song

Yan

. 2010. “Public Participation in Local Government Review of Development Proposals in Hazardous Locations: Does It Matter, and What Do Local Government Planners Have to Do With It?” Environmental Management 45 (2): 320–35.

29.

Whittemore

Andrew

. 2014. “Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory in a Survey of Practitioners’ Theories” Journal of Planning Education and Research 35 (1): 76–85.