Assessing the Relationship Between Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality and Rural Status in a Cohort of 57 Counties from 3 States in the Southeastern U.S

Jennifer A. Horney, Ashley I. Naimi, Ward Lyles, Matt Simon, David Salvesen and Philip Berke
Additional contact information
Jennifer A. Horney: Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB # 7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Ashley I. Naimi: Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB # 7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Ward Lyles: Department of City and Regional Planning, CB # 3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Matt Simon: North Carolina Institute for Public Health, University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB # 8165, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
David Salvesen: Institute for the Environment, CB # 1105, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Philip Berke: Department of City and Regional Planning, CB # 3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

Challenges, 2012, vol. 3, issue 2, 1-11

Abstract: Rural counties face unique challenges with regard to disaster vulnerability and resilience. We compared the quality of hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) completed in accordance with provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 from 21 urban and 36 rural counties in three southeastern states. HMPs were content analyzed to calculate a score for six principles of plan quality. Generalized linear models were used to assess how the mean number of items within each of the six principles was related to urban status, adjusting for total county population and state-level differences. Adjusted mean ratios were higher in urban areas for goals, fact base, policies and participation. Rural areas performed better than urban counterparts in both implementation and monitoring and inter-organizational coordination. Our results suggest that there are important differences in hazard mitigation plan quality between urban and rural counties. Future research should explore characteristics of urban and rural counties that explain the observed differences, and whether such differences can help explain the inequalities in response and recovery to disasters between urban and rural counties.

Keywords: rural; resiliency; hazard mitigation plan quality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A00 C00 Z00 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/3/2/183/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/3/2/183/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jchals:v:3:y:2012:i:2:p:183-193:d:19431

Access Statistics for this article

Challenges is currently edited by Ms. Karen Sun

More articles in Challenges from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().