Appropriation of Disaster Risk Reduction in Brazil …
13
(response and recovery) and post-disaster initiatives. On this municipalities, the influence on land use regulation is not relevant. MCDP actions are limited to independent
initiatives from local governments responsible for urban planning. Usually in such
scenario, the concept of prevention in the MCDP is still restricted to warn the community. There is no integration with land use decisions. Civil defense actions are limited
to emergencies.
In the intermediate level of consolidation, in which the majority of cities were
classified, MCDP presented a better participation in the spatial planning management. MCDP was integrated into local urban planning decisions, especially helping
to identify dangerous sites. Information is shared, thus local city urban planning
authorities may use the data provided. Although there is still a better dependency
relation between the institutions, persists a lack of collaboration from both sides and
each sector is still individualized. This is confirmed by one of the interviews: the
one responsible for actions related to land use is urban planning department, civil
defense participates only in site interventions (Interview 10, 2017, translated by the
authors).
These cases demonstrate municipalities that developed a faster way to manage
adversities. Communication flows more freely and they show an openness for integration. Among the systems implemented, they presented an internal communication
software between urban planning departments and civil defense, including phone
numbers lists necessary for disaster management (usually departments composing
a dedicated commission). Although, this does not guarantee the effectiveness of the
actions needed. The time response and coordination of all stakeholders involved are
sometimes still slow for the urgency of some disasters.
In the third case, high level of consolidation, it was possible to identify a more
robust influence of MCDPs in spatial planning management. City administration
presented a well structured organization (interinstitutional commissions and regular
meetings) that integrates civil defense in the decision making process. This allows
to manage city growth, propose solutions, monitor dangerous areas and identify new
potentially risky sites. Especially concerning this research, it is possible to identify
a clear set of proposed land use regulations influenced by civil defense issues. The
social and environmental conflicts in the city are better managed when different
entities work integrated.
On these cases, municipalities created spatial planning strategies to include the
MCDP interpretation in the planning and growth of cities. In one of the cities, the
issuance of building permits in more dangerous areas is confirmed only after an
authorization report from civil defense authorities. In addition to that, it can be
confirmed that MCDP is regularly invited to contribute in municipal urban planning
departments meetings, creating integrated solutions to the complex problems of cities
and minimizing possible conflicts.
13
(response and recovery) and post-disaster initiatives. On this municipalities, the influence on land use regulation is not relevant. MCDP actions are limited to independent
initiatives from local governments responsible for urban planning. Usually in such
scenario, the concept of prevention in the MCDP is still restricted to warn the community. There is no integration with land use decisions. Civil defense actions are limited
to emergencies.
In the intermediate level of consolidation, in which the majority of cities were
classified, MCDP presented a better participation in the spatial planning management. MCDP was integrated into local urban planning decisions, especially helping
to identify dangerous sites. Information is shared, thus local city urban planning
authorities may use the data provided. Although there is still a better dependency
relation between the institutions, persists a lack of collaboration from both sides and
each sector is still individualized. This is confirmed by one of the interviews: the
one responsible for actions related to land use is urban planning department, civil
defense participates only in site interventions (Interview 10, 2017, translated by the
authors).
These cases demonstrate municipalities that developed a faster way to manage
adversities. Communication flows more freely and they show an openness for integration. Among the systems implemented, they presented an internal communication
software between urban planning departments and civil defense, including phone
numbers lists necessary for disaster management (usually departments composing
a dedicated commission). Although, this does not guarantee the effectiveness of the
actions needed. The time response and coordination of all stakeholders involved are
sometimes still slow for the urgency of some disasters.
In the third case, high level of consolidation, it was possible to identify a more
robust influence of MCDPs in spatial planning management. City administration
presented a well structured organization (interinstitutional commissions and regular
meetings) that integrates civil defense in the decision making process. This allows
to manage city growth, propose solutions, monitor dangerous areas and identify new
potentially risky sites. Especially concerning this research, it is possible to identify
a clear set of proposed land use regulations influenced by civil defense issues. The
social and environmental conflicts in the city are better managed when different
entities work integrated.
On these cases, municipalities created spatial planning strategies to include the
MCDP interpretation in the planning and growth of cities. In one of the cities, the
issuance of building permits in more dangerous areas is confirmed only after an
authorization report from civil defense authorities. In addition to that, it can be
confirmed that MCDP is regularly invited to contribute in municipal urban planning
departments meetings, creating integrated solutions to the complex problems of cities
and minimizing possible conflicts.