The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was one for the record books. In particular, Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria left their unforgiving mark on numerous Caribbean and Gulf Coast communities. Storms of these magnitudes have paved the way for more critical evaluations of the infrastructure and development patterns here in the United States in the face of a climatically uncertain future. Moving forward, there will be increasing opportunities for planning professionals to be leaders in climate-conscious citymaking practices.
In order for planning professionals to best address concerns of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events, a stronger dialogue must be made between planning and hazard mitigation strategies, especially for flood hazards. The conscientious management of land uses (through land acquisitions) in relation to flood hazards has been recognized as an effective form of mitigation since the early twentieth century1, yet is hardly taken advantage of in practice even today.
The flood mitigation strategies available are not perfect on their own. Just like other interventions within the built environment, they should be embedded within other citymaking processes that contribute to a larger, comprehensive vision. This research argues for more active engagement from the local planning community in incorporating non-structural2 flood mitigation strategies into the existing comprehensive planning framework, not only to assist vulnerable communities foster healthy lives in areas of less risk but to also enhance the existing flood mitigation strategies so that they are utilized to their fullest potential.
1 Gilbert F. White, “Human Adjustments to Floods: a Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States” (dissertation, University of Chicago, 1945), 190.
2 Dennis Mileti, Disasters by Design (Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 1999), 23. Mileti defines non-structural mitigation as “measures attempt to distribute the population and the constructed environment such that their exposure to disaster losses is limited.” These measures include warning systems, restrictive zoning, acquisitions and more. This is opposite to the approach of structural mitigation which “keep hazards aways from people” through structural and infrastructural project such as dam, levees, seawalls, etc. (in the case for flood hazards).