Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Disaster and Development pp 111–127Cite as

Disaster Events and Policy Change in Florida

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Environmental Hazards ((ENHA))

Abstract

After Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the Florida Governor’s Disaster Planning and Response Review Committee published the Lewis Report containing recommendations for state agencies, local governments, and nonprofit and private organizations. Practical and policy recommendations from this focusing event included issues with communications, shelter, evacuation, response and recovery operations, medical care, and coordination of volunteers, donations, and supplies. Twelve years later, Central Florida experienced three major hurricanes within 6 weeks: hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. This chapter compares the Lewis Report recommendations with the results of after action reports from three Central Florida counties. This chapter concludes with a discussion of how focusing events provide the context for policy learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A second form of policy learning “entails lessons from the social construction of policy problems, the scope of the policy, or policy goals” (May 1992, p. 350), and includes changes in the scope, goals, and/or objectives of the policy; paradigm shifts; and “new or reaffirmed social construction of a policy by the policy elites in a given policy domain” (May 1992, pp. 350–337).

  2. 2.

    While three hurricanes affecting one area are unusual, it is also important to note there were only four hurricanes affecting central Florida since 1950: King in 1950, Donna in 1960, David in 1979, and Erin in 1995. Although four hurricanes affected Florida during the 2004 hurricane season, this study focuses on the three directly affecting central Florida: Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. These three storms “necessitated the full emergency response and disaster recovery operations from the local jurisdictions” (Volusia County 2005, p. 2). Hurricane Wilma in 2005 is excluded from this analysis because the focus of this chapter is the 2004 hurricane season, which was the first test of the policy and institutional changes created after the implementation of the Lewis Report recommendations.

References

  • Abell, R. A. (2000). Freshwater ecoregions of North America: A conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T., & Waterman, S. (2008). Is federalism the reason for policy failure in Hurricane Katina? Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38, 692–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A., Burby, R. J., Conrad, D., Cortner, H., & Michener, W. K. (2003). River ecology and flood hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 4(1), 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. D., & Gunn, J. R. (2012). Examining environmental factors contributing to community resilience along the Gulf of Mexico coast. In N. Kapucu, H. Hawkins, & F. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. D., Kang, J. E., & Bernhardt, S. (2010). Identifying factors influencing flood mitigation at the local level in Texas and Florida: The role of organizational capacity. Natural Hazards, 52, 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burby, R. J. (2005). Have state comprehensive planning mandates reduced insured losses from natural disasters? Natural Hazards Review, 6(2), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise Governmental decisions for hazardous areas. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1998). Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(1), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burby, R. J., Berke, P. R., Doyle, R. E., French, S. F., Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E. J., Kartez, J. D., May, P. J., Olshansky, R., Paterson, R. G., & Platt, R. H. (1999). Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster-resistant communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burby, R. J., Deyle, R. E., Godschalk, D. R., & Olshansky, R. B. (2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demiroz, F., Kapucu, N., & Dodson, R. (2012). Community capacity and interorganiozational networks for disaster resiliency: Comparison of rural and urban counties. In N. Kapucu, H. Hawkins, & F. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public interest, 28(1), 38–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P., Brower, D. J., & Kaiser, E. J. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, N. K. (1996). Emergency management training and education for public administration. In R. T. Sylves & W. L. Waugh, Jr. (Eds.), Disaster management in the U.S. and Canada: The politics, policymaking, administration and analysis of emergency management (pp. 313–326). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C. V. (2012). Networks, collaborative planning, and perceived quality of comprehensive plans. In N. Kapucu, C. Hawkins, & F. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social policies in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu, N., Berman, E. M., & Wang, X. H. (2008). Emergency information management and public disaster preparedness: Lessons from the 2004 Florida hurricane season. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 26(3), 169–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapucu, N., Hawkins, C. V., & Rivera, F. (2012). Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. In N. Kapucu, C. Hawkins, & F. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kartez, J. D., & Kelley, W. J. (1988). Research-based disaster planning: Conditions and implications. In L. K. Comfort (Ed.), Managing disasters: Strategies and policy perspectives (pp. 126–146). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies: Second edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox, C. C. (2013). Analyzing after action reports from Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina: Repeated, modified, and newly created recommendations. Journal of Emergency Management, 11(2), 160–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kory, D. N. (1998). Coordinating intergovernmental policies on emergency management in a multi-centered metropolis. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 16(1), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L., & Plasencia, D. (2001). No adverse impact: A new direction in floodplain management policy. Natural Hazard Review, 2(A), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, M. B., & Cobb, H. D. (2005). Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Jeanne. National Hurricane Center. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004jeanne.shtml. Accessed 1 Aug 2013.

  • Maher, S. T. (1992). Emergency decision making during the state of Florida’s response to Hurricane Andrew. Nova Law Review, 17, 1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mang, D. A., & Santurri, R. J. (2009). The winds of change: How wind storms changed the course of regulation in Florida. Federation of Regulatory Counsel Journal, 20(4), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, P. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12, 331–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, P. (2012). Public risks and disaster resilience: Rethinking public and private sector roles. In N. Kapucu, C. Hawkins, & F. Rivera (Eds.), Disaster resiliency: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittler, E. (1997). A case study of Florida’s emergency management since Hurricane Andrew. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavior Science, University of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A., & French, S. (2002). Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural disasters: A case study of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. W. (January 2006). Law and ordinance coverage. Government Report: Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 1(2), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orange County. (2005). After action report. Orange County Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasch, R. J., Brown, D. P., & Blake, E. S. (2011). Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Charley. National Hurricane Center. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCRAL032004_Charley.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2013.

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin, M. (1992). Paradigm shift. Speech to the Conference of the National Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD). www.nvoad.org/articles/paradigm.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, J. (1996). The crucial role of the mayor in Canadian emergency management. In R. T. Sylves & W. L. Waugh, Jr. (Eds.), Disaster management in the U.S. and Canada: The politics, policymaking, administration and analysis of emergency management (pp. 294–310). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J., Topping, K. C., Eadie, C. C., Deyle, R. E., & Smith, R. A. (1998). Planning for post disaster recovery and reconstruction. Chicago: American Planning Association Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seminole County. (2005). After action report. Seminole County Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers, S., & Svara, J. H. (2009). Assessing and managing environmental risk: Connecting local government management with emergency management. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J., Moreno, P., Conrad, D., & Ellis, S. (2000). Troubled waters: Congress, corps of engineers, and wasteful water projects. Washington, DC: Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Wildlife Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Governor’s Disaster. (1993). Planning and Response Review Committee Final Report. Tallahassee, FL. http://www.floridadisaster.org/documents/Lewis%20Report%201992.pdf.

  • Volusia County. (2005). After action report. Volusia County Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, W. L., Jr., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(Special Issue), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Oyola-Yemaiel, A. (2001). The evolution of emergency management and the advancement towards a profession in the United States and Florida. Safety Science, 39(1–2), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

    Christopher Hawkins & Claire Connolly Knox

Authors
  1. Christopher Hawkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Connolly Knox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Hawkins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

    Naim Kapucu

  2. School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

    Kuotsai Tom Liou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hawkins, C., Knox, C. (2014). Disaster Events and Policy Change in Florida. In: Kapucu, N., Liou, K. (eds) Disaster and Development. Environmental Hazards. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04468-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation