ArticleEnvironmental management2022
Collaboration in Hazard Mitigation Planning: Case Studies in Washington State, USA.
Article in Environmental management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hazard mitigation plans can support communities' resilience in the context of natural hazards and climate change. The quality of these plans can be evaluated using established indicators; however, research is also needed regarding the perceptions of participants in planning processes, to understand aspects of the planning processes that may not be evident in the plan documents. This study builds on previously reported plan quality scores and survey data, to investigate whether selected collaboration dynamics (principled engagement and capacity for joint action) occurred during counties' hazard planning processes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 hazard planning professionals who were involved in preparing county-level hazard mitigation plans in Washington State, USA. Findings (for cases with both high- and low-scoring plans) include evidence of collaboration dynamics, although important participants (e.g., members of the local community) were reportedly missing from some planning processes, raising concerns about the extent to which the plans reflect local needs. These results are consistent with previous literature, which has demonstrated that members of the public often view hazard mitigation as inaccessible and disconnected from their daily lives. The paper concludes with recommendations for how practitioners might go about bolstering participation from important participants, potentially leading to higher-quality plans and helping to protect communities from hazards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35556162What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.