Timing Analysis of Interrupt-Driven Programs under Context ...
within the context of Local Coastal Programs
description
Transcript of within the context of Local Coastal Programs
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 St. John the Baptist*(withdrawn)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.