Values From the Frontlines: Planners and Other Local Public Officials on Loss of Life and Equity in Flood Risk Mitigation

Problem, research strategy, and findingsFlooding generates the highest level of economic impacts and the second most deaths among U.S. disasters. Multiple actors mitigate flood risks, with local planners and emergency managers (EMs) essential public actors in urban settings. Previous studies have not examined whether these players’ professional values shape their preferences for flood risk outcomes. Our work here asked whether values regarding the costs of protection and the effects of protection on the loss of life and the distribution of flood damages differ between county-level urban planners and EMs. We surveyed more than 600 urban planners and EMs from 47 states, presenting hypothetical scenarios of flood mitigation with different mitigation outcomes among which respondents chose. Employing a mixed logit model, we found that both planners and EMs chose scenarios with lower mitigation costs, less loss of life, and fewer damages. However, compared with planners, EMs chose scenarios with fewer fatalities and overall damages. In contrast, planners chose scenarios that limit damages in lower-income areas. We use these findings to argue that planning researchers and practitioners and others in the hazards community should more explicitly, deliberately, and transparently address different values in local decision making.Takeaway for practiceWe urge planners and other local officials involved in hazard mitigation planning to articulate and discuss their values about the benefits and cost of flood risk mitigation. Making these explicit can support a common understanding of these values with other practitioners engaged in mitigation and elected officials. Their open discussion in public decision-making forums also can help make those values more visible and better understood by the public.