1 / 23

within the context of Local Coastal Programs

Exploring Parish Coastal Zone Management Capacity. within the context of Local Coastal Programs. Following the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972….

elyse
Télécharger la présentation

within the context of Local Coastal Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring Parish Coastal Zone Management Capacity within the context of Local Coastal Programs

  2. Following the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972… 1980 – Louisiana’s CZM Plan federally approved This plan invited parishes to develop local coastal programs to: 1) develop local capacity to manage coastal matters ‘of local concern’ 2) give parishes more ‘voice’ in matters ‘of greater than local concern’ 2005 – 9 coastal parishes have an active local coastal program approved by LADNR. 1 parish has pending LCP application

  3. Louisiana Coastal Zone Parishes 1. Calcasieu 11. Livingston 2. Cameron 3. Vermilion 12. St. John the Baptist* (withdrawn) 4. St.Martin 13. Tangipahoa 14 5. Iberia 12 14. St. Charles * 6. St. Mary 13 17 15. Jefferson 7. Assumption 9 11 16 4 8. Terrebonne 1 16. St.Tammany (inactive) 7 18 2 9. St. James 3 17. Orleans 6 5 10. Lafourche 10 19 8 18. St. Bernard 15 19. Plaquemines LCP Pending No LCP CZM boundary

  4. How do decision-makers / implementers from parishes with an LCP compare to decision-makers / implementers from parishes without one?

  5. Methods, population, sample: Mail-out survey interviews observation Target: 19 coastal zone parishes (N = 254) jury or council members CZM staff advisory panel Data: quantitative and qualitative Mail-out survey: n = 84 (33%) Interviews: n = 12 Observation field notes

  6. Ideological framing

  7. General Linear Model Comparison of Means of Respondent Frame grouped by LCP status N = 80 Group Statistics Univariate ANOVA Tested: LCPstatus N Mean SD Mean Square F Sig. Regulator Frame No LCP 25 23.68 3.934 Pending 6 26.83 5.529 134.889 4.213 .008** New <5yr 19 28.68 4.989 LCP >5yr 30 26.50 4.424 Total 80 26.16 4.801 Post-hoc Bonferonni test of differences in means of respondent frame between grouped pairs of LCP status was performed. Greatest change in means is between No LCP and New LCP. Significant at .005.

  8. General Linear Model Comparison of Means of Respondent Frame grouped by Respondent Type N = 80 Group Statistics Univariate ANOVA Tested: RESP type N Mean SD Mean Square F Sig. Frame Tally Staff 11 26.64 5.464 Council/ Jury 45 24.87 4.372 100.041 5.861 .004** Panel 24 28.38 4.595 Total 80 26.16 4.801 Post-hoc Bonferonni test of differences in means of respondent frame between grouped pairs of respondent type was performed. Greatest change in means is between Council and Panel. Significant at .003.

  9. Perceptions of vulnerability

  10. LCP and non-LCP respondents rated: 1) physical coastal hazards vulnerability 2) economic vulnerability to physical coastal hazards Economic vulnerability from physical hazards was more salient for LCP respondents than non-LCP respondents

  11. Between group differences in vulnerability perceptions Fisher Exact T (1-sided) N Event / vulnerability Chi-square p 80 Hurricanes / tropical storms .658 .302 80 Flooding / storm surge .188 .428 77 Pollution .730 .277 79 Land loss 1.1097 .201 78 Saltwater intrusion 3.693 .050* 78 Property damage 3.625 .051 78 Infrastructure damage 8.496 .004** 78 Business interruption 5.142 .021* 76 Loss of investment capital 2.096 .115 79 Loss of natural resources .8237 .252

  12. Recall of hazard events N=80 Independent samples t-test LCP and non-LCP respondents’ recall of: Frequency of floods over past 5 years p = .021* Frequency of storm surge over past 5 years p = .046* Hurricane / tropical storm over past 5 years p = .089 (Floods and storm surge were not correlated)

  13. Non-LCP respondents express alack of urgency: “…we think in terms of when the wolf’s at the door people worry. I don’t see the wolf at our door yet.” (07/20/05)

  14. …relative perspective: “We are marginally coastal…we don’t suffer with erosion like they do over on some of the southwest” (08/25/05) “We are a little different than the eastern part of the state because...they’re losing a lot of interior marshes” (08/08/05)

  15. …myopia: “We have a vast swamp…so its not like we have roads, or subdivisions, or anything down there that were really worried about. And we aren’t really worried about the loss of wetlands and swamps because its just not a matter of concern…it doesn’t affect any of our activities.”(08/25/05)

  16. …knowledge gaps: “I don’t even know where the coastal zone is here” (08/25/05) “…never heard of a local coastal program” (05/26/05)

  17. Perceptions of LCP development

  18. Perceptions of LCP development • Non-LCP respondents – rated specific hurdles to LCP development N = 22 68% parish financial / in-kind inputbig problem 73% insufficient state fundingbig problem % N = 22 Address CZM issues differently Have ‘a say’ in state matters

  19. Perceptions of cost / benefit of LCP LCP respondents – indicated whether/not specific measures of benefit were achieved by LCP % N = 51 LCP respondents Smoothed permit process Public involvement increased Benefits outweigh costs Gives parish ‘a say’

  20. LCP respondents express synergies… “You pick up a little information here, a little from that one…LCP – it’s a regulatory program. My committee is also a restoration committee” (03/17/05) “The LCP program is great in that it allow you the secret knock on the door…without the program its much more difficult to get a foot into DNRs office” (05/0605) “quarterly meeting where we talk and see what’s going on” … “we work together”… “speak with the agencies all the time” “parishes without LCPs are missing opportunities to work with people (the public)” (03/16/05)

  21. Emergent issues or themes

  22. ComparativeThemes/issues… LCP Coastal management issues – knowledgeable Restoration, mitigation, and regulation– solution seeking for conflicts Parish administration – expansion/contraction (funding, political agenda) Broad and dynamic networks; CZM synergies; resources Cost/benefit test– LCP passes Non-LCP Coastal management issues – knowledge gaps Restoration, mitigation, and regulation – external dependencies laissez faire attitude Parish administration – CZM not understood or supported Localized networks not specific to coastal mgmt Cost/benefit test – LCP fails

  23. Summary finding: Within the scope of the research domain and the indicators used, Local Coastal Programs are associated with enhanced capacity related to coastal zone management.

More Related