Challenges 2012, 3(2), 183-193; doi:10.3390/challe3020183
Article

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 1,4,* email, Ashley I. Naimi 1 email, Ward Lyles 2 email, Matt Simon 3 email, David Salvesen 4 email and Philip Berke 2,4 email
1 Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB # 7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 2 Department of City and Regional Planning, CB # 3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 3 North Carolina Institute for Public Health, University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, CB # 8165, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 4 Institute for the Environment, CB # 1105, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 13 April 2012; in revised form: 27 July 2012 / Accepted: 28 July 2012 / Published: 13 August 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Risk Management Challenges: Mitigate the Risk from Natural Hazards)
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [897 KB, Updated Version, uploaded 15 August 2012 08:32 CEST]
The original version is still available [897 KB, uploaded 13 August 2012 16:58 CEST]
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

Article Statistics

Click here to load and display the download statistics.

Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Horney, J.A.; Naimi, A.I.; Lyles, W.; Simon, M.; Salvesen, D.; Berke, P. 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.. Challenges 2012, 3, 183-193.

AMA Style

Horney JA, Naimi AI, Lyles W, Simon M, Salvesen D, Berke P. 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.. Challenges. 2012; 3(2):183-193.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Horney, Jennifer A.; Naimi, Ashley I.; Lyles, Ward; Simon, Matt; Salvesen, David; Berke, Philip. 2012. "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.." Challenges 3, no. 2: 183-193.

Challenges EISSN 2078-1547 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert