within the context of

Local Coastal Programs

1980 – Louisiana’s CZM Plan federally approved This plan invited parishes to develop local

coastal programs to:

1) develop local capacity to manage coastal matters ‘of local concern’

2) give parishes more ‘voice’ in matters ‘of greater than local concern’

Following the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Following the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972…Management Act (CZMA) in 1972…

2005 – 9 coastal parishes have an active local coastal program approved by LADNR. 1 parish has pending LCP application

7. Assumption

1. Calcasieu

2. Cameron

5. Iberia

15. Jefferson

10. Lafourche

11. Livingston

17. Orleans

19. Plaquemines

18. St. Bernard

14. St. Charles *

9. St. James

12. St. John the Baptist*(withdrawn)

4. St. Martin

6. St. Mary

16. St. Tammany (inactive)

13. Tangipahoa

8. Terrebonne

3. Vermilion

Louisiana Coastal Zone ParishesLouisiana Coastal Zone Parishes

1

23

5

4

6

7

1113

16

12

8 10

14

17

15

9

18

19

LCP No LCPPending CZM boundaryCZM boundary

How do decision-makers / implementers from How do decision-makers / implementers from parishes parishes with an LCPwith an LCP compare compare

to decision-makers / implementers from to decision-makers / implementers from parishes parishes without onewithout one??

Methods, population, sample:Methods, population, sample:

Mail-out survey interviews observation

Target: 19 coastal zone parishes (N = 254) jury or council members CZM staff advisory panel

Data: quantitative and qualitative Mail-out survey: n = 84 (33%)

Interviews: n = 12 Observation field notes

Ideological framingIdeological framing

General Linear Model Comparison of Means General Linear Model Comparison of Means of Respondent Frame grouped by LCP statusof Respondent Frame grouped by LCP status

N = 80 Group Statistics Univariate ANOVA

Tested: LCPstatus N Mean SD Mean Square F Sig.RegulatorFrame No LCP 25 23.68 3.934 Pending 6 26.83 5.529 134.889 4.213 .008** New <5yr 19 28.68 4.989 LCP >5yr 30 26.50 4.424

Total 80 26.16 4.801

Post-hoc Bonferonni test of differences in means of respondent frame between grouped pairs of LCP status was performed. Greatest change in means is between No LCP and New LCP. Significant at .005.

General Linear Model Comparison of Means of General Linear Model Comparison of Means of Respondent Frame grouped by Respondent TypeRespondent Frame grouped by Respondent Type

N = 80 Group Statistics Univariate ANOVA

Tested: RESP type N Mean SD Mean Square F Sig.FrameTally Staff 11 26.64 5.464

Council/ Jury 45 24.87 4.372 100.041 5.861 .004**

Panel 24 28.38 4.595

Total 80 26.16 4.801

Post-hoc Bonferonni test of differences in means of respondent frame between grouped pairs of respondent type was performed. Greatest change in means is between Council and Panel. Significant at .003.

Perceptions of vulnerability Perceptions of vulnerability

LCP and non-LCP respondents rated:LCP and non-LCP respondents rated:

1) physical coastal hazards vulnerability 2) economic vulnerability to physical coastal hazards

Economic vulnerability from physical hazards was more salient for LCP respondents than non-LCP respondents

Photo: Plaquemines Parish Govt Venice - facing West

AFTER

Fisher Exact T (1-sided)

N Event / vulnerability Chi-square p

80 Hurricanes / tropical storms .658 .302

80 Flooding / storm surge .188 .428

77 Pollution .730 .277

79 Land loss 1.1097 .201

78 Saltwater intrusion 3.693.050*

78 Property damage 3.625 .051

78 Infrastructure damage 8.496.004**

78 Business interruption 5.142.021*

76 Loss of investment capital 2.096 .115

79 Loss of natural resources .8237 .252

Between group differences in Between group differences in vulnerability perceptionsvulnerability perceptions

Recall of hazard eventsRecall of hazard events

N=80 Independent samples t-test

LCP and non-LCP respondents’ recall of:

Frequency of floods over past 5 years p = .021*

Frequency of storm surge over past 5 years p = .046*

Hurricane / tropical storm over past 5 years p = .089

(Floods and storm surge were not correlated)

Non-LCP respondents express aNon-LCP respondents express a lack of urgencylack of urgency::

“…we think in terms of when the wolf’s at the door people worry. I don’t see the wolf at our door yet.” (07/20/05)

……relative perspective:relative perspective:

“We are marginally coastal…we don’t suffer with erosion like they do over on some of the southwest” (08/25/05)

“We are a little different than the eastern part of the state because...they’re losing a lot of interior marshes” (08/08/05)

……myopia: myopia:

““We have a vast swamp…so its not like we We have a vast swamp…so its not like we have roads, or subdivisions, or anything have roads, or subdivisions, or anything down there that were really worried about. down there that were really worried about. And we aren’t really worried about the loss of And we aren’t really worried about the loss of wetlands and swamps because its just not a wetlands and swamps because its just not a matter of concern…it doesn’t affect any of matter of concern…it doesn’t affect any of our activities.”our activities.”(08/25/05)(08/25/05)

……knowledge gapsknowledge gaps::

“I don’t even know where the coastal zone is here” (08/25/05)

“…never heard of a local coastal program” (05/26/05)

Perceptions of LCP developmentPerceptions of LCP development

N = 22

68% parish financial / in-kind input big problem

73% insufficient state funding big problem

Perceptions of LCP developmentNon-LCP respondentsNon-LCP respondents – rated specific hurdles to LCP development

0

10

20

30

40

50

No

Yes

Don't know

Address CZM issues differently

Have ‘a say’ in state matters

% N = 22

% N = 51 LCP respondents

Smoothed permit

process

Public involveme

nt increased

Benefits outweigh

costs

Gives parish ‘a say’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No

Yes

Don't know

Perceptions of cost / benefit of LCPLCP respondentsLCP respondents – indicated whether/not specific measures of

benefit were achieved by LCP

LCP respondents express synergies…synergies…“You pick up a little information here, a little from that

one…LCP – it’s a regulatory program. My committee is also a restoration committee” (03/17/05)

“The LCP program is great in that it allow you the secret knock on the door…without the program its much more difficult to get a foot into DNRs office” (05/0605)

“quarterly meeting where we talk and see what’s going on” … “we work together”… “speak with the agencies all the time”

“parishes without LCPs are missing opportunities to work with people (the public)” (03/16/05)

Emergent issues or themesEmergent issues or themes

ComparativeComparative Themes/issuesThemes/issues……LCPLCP

Coastal management issues – knowledgeable

Restoration, mitigation, and regulation – solution seeking for conflicts Parish administration – expansion/contraction (funding, political agenda)

Broad and dynamic networks; CZM synergies; resources

Cost/benefit test – LCP passes

Non-LCPNon-LCP

Coastal management issues – knowledge gaps

Restoration, mitigation, and regulation – external dependencies laissez faire attitude

Parish administration – CZM not understood or supported

Localized networks not specific to coastal mgmt

Cost/benefit test – LCP fails

Summary finding:Summary finding:

Within the scope of the research domain Within the scope of the research domain and the indicators used, Local Coastal and the indicators used, Local Coastal Programs are associated with enhanced Programs are associated with enhanced capacity related to coastal zone capacity related to coastal zone management.management.