Inclusionary Emergency Management Planning: Floridian Emergency Management Planners’ Orientations and Perceptions

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X231171731
• Author: Claire Connolly Knox,Jason D. Rivera
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Original Research General Interest Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X231171731

State and Local Government Review

2023, Vol. 55(3) 192 –212

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X231171731

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg

Original Research General Interest Article

Introduction

Emergency management planning is vital for

community resilience and is a core capability in

all five core mission areas of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA 2020)

National Preparedness Goal. Planning is “a sys-

tematic process engaging the whole community

as appropriate in the development of execut-

able strategic, operational, and/or tactical-level

approaches to meet defined objectives” (p. ¶9).

As defined in Presidential Policy Directive 8, a

whole community approach acknowledges the

contributions of everyone from the individual to

the community-level within and across all sectors

and levels of government. (U.S. Department of

Homeland Security 2011). However, the common

lack of local government capacities, especially for

long-term planning, has led to repeated failures,

policy, and organizational recommendations dur-

ing and after disasters (Birkland 2009; Hu, Knox

and Kapucu 2014; Knox 2013, 2017). Compared

to other types of planning in government (e.g.,

1171731SLGXXX10.1177/0160323X231171731State and Local Government ReviewKnox and Rivera

research-article2023

1School of Public Administration, Joint Appointment,

National Center for Integrated Coastal Research,

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

2Department of Public Management, John Jay College of

Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Claire Connolly Knox, School of Public Administration,

Joint Appointment, National Center for Integrated

Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, 528 W.

Livingston Street, Orlando, FL 32816-8005, USA.

Email: Claire.Knox@ucf.edu

Inclusionary Emergency

Management Planning:

Floridian Emergency

Management Planners’

Orientations and Perceptions

Claire Connolly Knox1 and Jason D. Rivera2

Abstract

The need for effective inclusionary planning practices is paramount in the whole community approach

within emergency management. However, accountability, legitimacy, bureaucratic discretion, and

a planner’s perspective on public involvement can limit the ability to effectively include the public

in emergency management planning processes. Through survey and focus group analysis of county-

level emergency management planners in Florida, this preliminary study explores the implications

of these factors for effectively engaging in democratic policy and planning development within the

realm of emergency management. We provide recommendations for practitioners attempting to

engage the public and suggestions for future research.

Keywords

emergency planning, governance, accountability, planning orientations, bureaucratic discretion,

public participation, Florida

Knox and Rivera 193

urban and regional, financial, strategic, environ-

mental, etc.), there is a lack of theory specific to

emergency management planning (Lindell 2020;

McEntire 2004; Peek and Guikema 2021).

Developing emergency management plans

without the whole community, or authentic pub-

lic participation, typically results in unjust and

socially inequitable practices and outcomes

(e.g., hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Maria

(2017)) that can detrimentally affect the com-

munity’s resilience to natural and human-

induced hazards in the built environment

(Bullard and Wright 2009; Col 2007; Gori et al.

2019; Hemmati, Ellingwood and Mahmoud

2020; Jurkiewicz 2007; Knox 2017; Sievers

2015; Waugh 2006; Yeo and Knox 2019). This

results in the public questioning plans’ legiti-

macy, thereby reducing buy-in (e.g., COVID-19

pandemic), and the level of support the plans

garner from various actors (Jerolleman 2019;

Knox and Haupt 2020; Miller and Rivera 2011;

Rivera and Nickels 2018). This is important

because the public’s belief in the legitimacy of

plans and/or local policy positively relates to

the plan or policy’s sustainable implementation

and effectiveness (Knox 2016; Rivera and

Nickels 2018).

However, unique to emergency management

field is the large number of plans created,

updated, and exercised throughout a typical

year—approximately 20 plans per local juris-

diction (e.g., city, county, parish). However, the

Stafford Act (Public Law 93-288) encourages,

not mandates, local governments to develop

“comprehensive disaster preparedness and

assistance plans, programs, and organizations”

(FEMA 2021, 1) and to include socially vulner-

able populations in plans (Knox et al. 2022).

The reason for this inclusion is due to socially

vulnerable populations being at greater risk to

natural hazards because they are exposed at

higher rates, have fewer resources to prepare for

and recover from disasters, and face greater

economic, physical, political, and sociocultural

obstacles (Cutter et al. 2013; Finucane et al.

2020; Gooden et al. 2009; Jerolleman 2019;

Knox and Haupt 2020). However, plans do not

typically define who qualifies as “socially vul-

nerable” and whether the plans consider the

unique barriers that these populations face

during emergencies. Moreover, there is often a

lack of understanding on how the implementa-

tion of recovery plans affect the communities in

which vulnerable populations reside (Pescaroli

and Alexander 2018). As a result, emergency

management offices are responsible for con-

tinuously engaging in policy development

initiatives, in the form of planning, that has a

direct impact on constituent communities. This

continuous policy development process pro-

vides ample opportunity to integrate the public

in policy processes; however, there must be an

interest in doing so.

Because of the importance of planning, a

lack of planning theories indicative to emer-

gency management, and an expressed interest in

more inclusionary policy development practices

by FEMA, this exploratory study of county-

level emergency managers/planners in Florida

aims to better understand practices and limita-

tions in engaging and enhancing public partici-

pation in planning processes. In the field of

emergency management, emergency managers

and emergency management planners are typi-

cally one and the same person. Only in large,

well resourced, communities or cities do offices

of emergency management have one or more

individuals specifically dedicated to planning

activities. In this context, emergency managers

operate as both public administrators and plan-

ners simultaneously. As such, this study

addresses the gap in the literature and contrib-

utes to emergency management planning theory

by understanding what inclines county-level

emergency managers to fully implement the

“whole community approach” by engaging the

public in more participatory ways. With this

baseline information, we can develop an inven-

tory of participatory strategies that could be

analyzed for their effectiveness for the future of

this challenging and dynamic profession.

Planning in Emergency

Management

Planning is an essential component of emergency

management, one of five functional areas in the

Incident Command System, and linked to the

preparedness phase, in which local governments

should lead the planning process with multiple