An article in the Natural Hazards Review by Sara Hamideh, “Opportunities and Challenges of Public Participation in Post-Disaster Recovery Planning: Lessons from Galveston, TX,” explores public participation in post-disaster recovery planning after Hurricane Ike using qualitative interviews and analysis of historical documents. The article identifies six themes around opportunities and challenges for participatory recovery planning. Including marginalized groups and displaced households is among the most significant challenges. The author concludes with recommendations for how pre-disaster planning for public engagement can improve outcomes in future post-disaster recovery planning efforts.
The City of Galveston created the Galveston Community Recovery Committee (GCRC) to solicit broad public participation in recovery planning following Hurricane Ike. Hamideh chose the GCRC as a case study because little is known about public participation in post-disaster recovery planning in the U.S. context. She conducted qualitative analysis of GCRC’s efforts using over 300 historical documents and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 18 stakeholders representing 21 organizations.
Hamideh identified six major themes characterizing the challenges and successes of public participation in the GCRC’s post-disaster recovery planning process. Four themes pertained to the GCRC’s challenges with public engagement: inclusion of marginalized groups, disagreements over forming the committee, handling conflicting ideas, and ensuring implementation of the projects. The GCRC failed to include sufficient participation from marginalized groups, while white, older, professionals were overrepresented. Displaced residents were not adequately represented, particularly Public Housing tenants who were displaced from Galveston after their homes were destroyed and not rebuilt.
Some participants took issue with how the city initially formed the GCRC and with its size. Communication about the initial formation of the GCRC was poor and 248 people were allowed to participate in the group, creating significant challenges for reaching consensus about priorities in a short amount of time. The GCRC was also averse to resolving conflicting recovery priorities advocated by participants and failed to consider the feasibility of many priorities it ultimately adopted.
The two other themes, generating diverse new ideas and the effectiveness of project champions in developing projects, relate to the successes of GCRC’s public engagement. Stakeholders broadly felt enthusiastic about the opportunity for input in the process and contributed a diverse range of ideas for recovery planning. Project champions, especially those whose project ideas pre-dated Hurricane Ike, were particularly successful in utilizing the GCRC process to gain support for and implement community projects.
Hamideh offers several recommendations for improving future participatory recovery planning. Most of the recommendations center on better pre-disaster planning. Among the key recommendations are having a pre-existing plan for including communities in recovery planning, building long-term relationships with trusted groups in marginalized communities, planning for how to include displaced residents across a wide geographic range, and ensuring adequate staffing and resources for city planning departments to handle both recovery-related planning and day-to-day obligations in a post-disaster context.
“Opportunities and Challenges of Public Participation in Post-Disaster Recovery Planning: Lessons from Galveston, TX” is at: https://bit.ly/3fBkqMq