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 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 St. John the Baptist* (withdrawn) 4.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 Parishes LCPNo LCPPending CZM boundary

How do decision-makers / implementers from parishes with an LCP compare to decision-makers / implementers from parishes without one?

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 framing

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 Pending ** New <5yr LCP >5yr Total 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 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 Council/ Jury ** Panel Total 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

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

Fisher Exact T (1-sided) N Event / vulnerabilityChi-square p 80Hurricanes / tropical storms Flooding / storm surge Pollution Land loss Saltwater intrusion * 78 Property damage Infrastructure damage ** 78 Business interruption * 76 Loss of investment capital Loss of natural resources Between group differences in vulnerability perceptions

Recall 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 a lack 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: “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: “We have a vast swamp…so its not like we have roads, or subdivisions, or anything down there that were really worried about. And we aren’t really worried about the loss of wetlands and swamps because its just not a matter of concern…it doesn’t affect any of our activities.” (08/25/05)

…knowledge 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 development

N = 22 68% parish financial / in-kind input big problem 73% insufficient state funding big problem Perceptions of LCP development Non-LCP respondents Non-LCP respondents – rated specific hurdles to LCP development Address CZM issues differently Have ‘a say’ in state matters % N = 22

% N = 51 LCP respondents Smoothed permit process Public involvement increased Benefits outweigh costs Gives parish ‘a say’ Perceptions of cost / benefit of LCP LCP respondents LCP respondents – indicated whether/not specific measures of benefit were achieved by LCP

synergies… LCP respondents express 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 themes

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 passesNon-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: Within the scope of the research domain and the indicators used, Local Coastal Programs are associated with enhanced capacity related to coastal zone management.