within the context of

1
Exploring Parish Coastal Zone Management Capacity
within the context of Local Coastal Programs
2
Following the passage of the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) in 1972
1980 Louisianas 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
2005 9 coastal parishes have an active
local
coastal program approved by LADNR.
1 parish has pending LCP application
3

Louisiana Coastal Zone Parishes
1. Calcasieu

11. Livingston
2. Cameron
12. St. John the Baptist (withdrawn)
3. Vermilion
4. St. Martin
13. Tangipahoa
14
5. Iberia
12
14. St. Charles
6. St. Mary
15. Jefferson
13
17
7. Assumption
11
9
16
4
16. St. Tammany (inactive)
8. Terrebonne
1
7
18
2
9. St. James
17. Orleans
3
6
5
10. Lafourche
10
19
8
18. St. Bernard
19. Plaquemines
15
LCP
No LCP
Pending
CZM boundary
4
How do decision-makers / implementers from
parishes with an LCP compare to decision-makers
/ implementers from parishes without one?
5
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
6
Ideological framing
7
General Linear Model Comparison of Means of
Respondent Frame grouped by LCP status
N 80 Group Statistics
Univariate ANOVA Tested
LCPstatus N Mean SD
Mean Square F Sig. Regulator Frame
No LCP 25 23.68 3.934
Pending 6 26.83 5.529
134.889 4.213 .008 New
lt5yr 19 28.68 4.989 LCP
gt5yr 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.
8
General Linear Model Comparison of Means of
Respondent Frame grouped by Respondent Type
N 80 Group Statistics
Univariate ANOVA Tested RESP
type N Mean SD Mean
Square F Sig. Frame Tally
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.
9
Perceptions of vulnerability
10
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
11
Between group differences in vulnerability
perceptions
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
12
Recall of hazard events
N80 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)
13

• Non-LCP respondents express a lack of urgency
• we think in terms of when the wolfs at the
  door people worry. I dont see the wolf at our
  door yet. (07/20/05)

14

• relative perspective
• We are marginally coastalwe dont 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...theyre losing a lot of
  interior marshes (08/08/05)

15

• myopia
• We have a vast swampso its not like we have
  roads, or subdivisions, or anything down there
  that were really worried about. And we arent
  really worried about the loss of wetlands and
  swamps because its just not a matter of
  concernit doesnt affect any of our
  activities.(08/25/05)

16

• knowledge gaps
• I dont even know where the coastal zone is
  here (08/25/05)
• never heard of a local coastal program
  (05/26/05)

17
Perceptions of LCP development
18
Perceptions of LCP development Non-LCP
respondents rated specific hurdles to LCP
development

N 22
68 parish financial / in-kind input big
problem 73 insufficient state
funding big problem

N 22
Address CZM issues differently
Have a say in state matters
19
Perceptions of cost / benefit of LCP LCP
respondents indicated whether/not specific
measures of benefit were achieved by LCP
N 51 LCP respondents
Smoothed permit process
Public involvement increased
Benefits outweigh costs
Gives parish a say
20

• LCP respondents express synergies
• You pick up a little information here, a little
  from that oneLCP its 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 doorwithout the program
  its much more difficult to get a foot into DNRs
  office
  (05/0605)
• quarterly meeting where we talk and see whats
  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)

21
Emergent issues or themes
22
Comparative Themes/issues
LCP 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-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
23
Summary finding Within the scope of the research
domain and the indicators used, Local Coastal
Programs are associated with enhanced capacity
related to coastal zone management.