A plan evaluation framework for examining stakeholder policy preferences in resilience planning and management of urban systems. Issue 124 (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Qingchun; Roy, Malini; Mostafavi, Ali; Berke, Philip
• Is Part Of: Environmental science & policy. Issue 124(2021)
• Page Start: 125
• Page End: 134
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Plan-evaluation framework -- Resilience planning -- Urban systems -- Stakeholder policy preferences; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Sciences de l'environnement -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Environmental sciences; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 363.70561
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.015
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-9011

Abstract

Highlights: A quantitative approach to examine policy preference conflicts among diverse stakeholders across multiple plans. Hazard mitigation plan incorporated the most overall stakeholder policy preferences among the four examined plans. The regional transportation plan incorporated the fewest overall stakeholder policy preferences. The hazard mitigation plan and the regional conservation plan had the highest level of policy consistency. The hazard mitigation plan and regional transportation plan had the lowest level of policy consistency. Abstract: The objective of this paper was to create and test a methodological framework for examining the extent to which various plans captured diverse stakeholder policy preferences related to resilience planning and management of interdependent urban systems. Policy preferences represent what were important for stakeholders and determine the priorities of stakeholders in resilience planning of urban systems. Stakeholders in different urban sectors may have conflicts of policy preferences in the resilience planning process. A comprehensive understanding of the extent to which plans incorporated and reflected policy preferences of different stakeholders would greatly improve the quality of resilience planning. Hence, we proposed a plan evaluation framework to examine the extent to which various plans captured diverse stakeholder policy preferences in resilience planning of interdependent infrastructure systems. We showed the application of the proposed framework in the evaluation of four plans affecting flood resilience planning in the Houston area. The proposed tool could help identify conflicted stakeholder policy preferences in planning and enable evaluation of policy consistency in networks of plans.