Fundamentación Conceptual

According to Porter (1997, 13) “successful approaches to growth management depend as much on administrative and consensus building leadership as on specific policy or regulatory techniques and provisions”. Scholars in several disciplines have noted the need for collaborative efforts among agencies dealing with aspects of hazards as a means of improving mitigation and response (Britton 2002, 44; Godschalk 2003, 142; Haimes 1999, 157). Collaboration between specific groups can create effective connections that improve planning outcomes. According to Pearce (2003, 214-215), collaboration between emergency managers and planners can leverage community skills to increase resilience and long-term sustainability. Within the literature on collaborative planning, there is little focus on technical collaboration, yet these collaborations happen at both local and regional levels and can have an effect on local growth management.

While some claim that without full stakeholder participation building a consensus will likely fail (Innes 2004, 7), others suggest that a full range of stakeholders may be only part of the solution. Pearce (2003, 220) argued that “although a consensus-based approach to sustainable hazard mitigation is always desirable, it may not always be possible”. Godschalk and others (1998) saw a role for both technicians and collaborative stakeholder groups. These authors envisioned technicians leading information generation and technical policy

39

creation. These practices would then be followed with citizen participation for adoption of appropriate policies and for policy evaluation (Godschalk et al. 1998, 93-94).

Technical collaboration can build capacity for addressing pipeline hazards through sharing of knowledge, effective practices, and strategies to overcome implementation hurdles. Pearce (2003, 226) argued integration of emergency management and community planning groups can lead to sustainable hazard mitigation. This conclusion is supported by McGuire’s (2006) review of recent literature on collaboration among governmental agencies; the review suggests that traditional bureaucracy is unprepared to address many of the

challenges facing local governments. Boin et al. (2003, 103) suggest learning from

organizations and networks within the same region provides the opportunity for increasing resiliency. Likewise, Lindell and Perry (1996), in a study of earthquake induced hazardous material releases (including transmission pipeline spills) after the Northridge, California earthquake, suggest that hazardous material spills in general could be better mitigated through increasing coordination among governments, emergency managers, community agencies, and public health officials. In a related study on hazardous material spills after the Northridge earthquake, Lindell and Perry (1997, 151) found, “Two of the three most

significant petroleum spills were in urban areas where crude oil combined with water from ruptured mains, a highly mobile mixture that significantly increased the environmental threat,” illustrating the importance of coordination with industry and other regional groups.

Recent planning literature has drawn attention to the effectiveness of communities of practice for improving awareness and communicating about specific planning issues

(Goldstein & Butler 2010; Schweitzer et al. 2008). Wenger and Snyder (2000, 142) define communities of practice as voluntary, self-selecting groups formed to share information and

40

best practices. In contrast to the full participation models, Wenger and Snyder (2000, 140- 141) highlight the flexibility of size, membership, and diversity of communities of practice. Research on the types of informal collaborations could provide guidelines for improving these types of collaborations for use by planners.

Hazard researchers have illustrated the salience of building administrative and organizational capacity to address mitigation. Burton and others (1993, 160) observed that a profession staff with an interest in enhancing hazard mitigation can improve adoption of hazard mitigation. Gerber and colleagues (2005, 201) found that differences in local administrative capacity can be tied to homeland security policy improvements. Brody and others (2010) observe that organizational capacity correlated with improved structural and non-structural hazard mitigation in Texas and Florida. Much of this technical capacity can be improved through collaboration with counterparts in nearby jurisdictions that face similar mitigation challenges.

Growth management can benefit from techincal collaboration due to the influence of staff. Rosener (1982, 341) observed that planning commission decisions to deny

development permits were more likely if there was a planning staff recommendation to reject the permit. Likewise, Fleischmann and Pierannunzi (1990, 847) found that the single

strongest predictor of a rezoning request was the recommendation by planning staff. Koontz (2005, 475) noted that jurisdictions with high growth pressures were especially likely to rely on recommendations of planning staff. An informed administrative staff can provide better suggestions.

Prater and Lindell (2000) highlight the importance of agenda-setting and how technical experts such as planners and emergency managers have the ability to keep hazard

41

mitigation on the agenda. Both planners and emergency managers can improve hazard mitigation through what Boin et al. (2003, 103) call “prevention learning,” or knowledge sharing through networks that generate information on how to reduce the likelihood of an accident. Fischhoff and colleagues (2000, 135) suggest that the problems of hazard management are too broad for one discipline alone. Emergency managers have specific skills that could provide collaborative knowledge to improve planning decisions about development near transmission pipelines, yet the role of emergency managers is often overlooked (Petak 1985, 3). For both emergency managers and planners knowing the

potential hazard risk can improve decisions about new development near pipelines. Given the potential impact that planners and emergency managers can have on hazard mitigation, using collaboration to generate capacity to address technological hazards may improve overall community safety and security.