Introduction

Although disaster planning, response and recovery have long been the purview of emergency management professionals, the role of spatial planning vis-à-vis disasters has been increasing in recent years in the United States (US) as we better understand the importance of planning to both help reduce risk from future disasters and to rebuild and recover afterwards. Superstorm Sandy, which struck the east coast of the US in late 2012, illustrates this dynamic clearly. The storm has been the catalyst for an unprecedented amount of spatial planning in a compressed time frame as communities have attempted to rebuild and recover from, as well as mitigate against, the effect of future events. These efforts also clearly illustrate how planners have engaged federal disaster funding policies that, more than ever, prioritise local decision-making and long-term resilience in the recovery process.

Increasingly, disasters trigger a flurry of spatial planning efforts that emerge to guide decision-making once immediate response needs have been met. A vivid example of this growing connection between spatial planning and disaster recovery comes from Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans, Louisiana, in 2005 and decimated the city. Katrina prompted a dizzying array of often overlapping and competing spatial planning processes, which are well documented by Olshansky and Johnson (2010) in their book Clear as mud: Planning for the rebuilding of New Orleans. There are multiple reasons for this convergence of spatial planning with disaster planning. One reason is the increasing recognition that the core concerns of spatial planners are the same issues that must be dealt with in the aftermath of a disaster, such as supplying adequate housing, protecting open space from capricious development, operating a functioning transportation network and assuring vibrant economic activity. Meanwhile, money flows into disaster sites in the form of insurance payments, government aid and humanitarian aid, thus facilitating spending, which, in turn, requires planning. Finally, disasters can also act as a trigger not just for rebuilding (Berke et al, 1993), but for, in the oft-used parlance, ‘building back better’ because old and often outdated or inadequate systems and assets are destroyed (Olshansky et al, 2006). All of this activity requires planning so that funding can be acquired and allotted strategically and communities can be engaged in sometimes-contentious deliberations about how it should be spent.