The role of magnetic agents in shaping post-disaster land use

Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The role of magnetic agents in shaping post-disaster land use Elyse Zavar Assistant Professor, Southern Connecticut State University, 501 Crescent St., New Haven, CT 06515, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 July 2015 Received in revised form 18 April 2016 Accepted 29 April 2016 Keywords: Agency Floodplain buyout Land management Resiliency

a b s t r a c t Three neighborhoods in Lexington, Kentucky, share a common flood history, including property acquisitions, as a means to mitigate against flooding; yet, the interactions of residents with the buyout landscapes vary significantly among the neighborhoods. Although the same institutions and structural controls implemented flood buyout programs in all three neighborhoods, semi-structured interviews illustrate that differing perspectives, personalities, and neighborhood politics shaped unique identities and land uses for the acquired properties in each neighborhood. Varying levels of resident engagement with the buyout landscape resulted in a range of attitudes towards hazard preparation, management, and mitigation, thus leaving some neighborhoods more resilient to future flooding than others. This study explores key residents, termed magnetic agents, who drove neighborhood civic action and land uses on the open space created through floodplain property acquisition. This research indicates magnetic agents can serve as important partners for local governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in building community-based projects aimed at reducing vulnerability to flood events and instituting high utility land uses on floodplain buyout open space. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Community engagement is essential for effective disaster preparation and hazard mitigation. With community participation and support, preparedness and mitigation programs can successfully reduce vulnerability to hazards both prior to and following a disaster. The actions of individuals and governments during the recovery phase of a disaster impact how the community will recover and its vulnerability to future events (Geipel 1991; Haas et al., 1977; Hagelman et al., 2012; Pais and Elliott 2008). Therefore, disaster recovery offers an opportunity for governments to implement programs and policies that will increase resiliency (Berke et al., 1993; Zavar et al., 2012). The needs of residents are better represented in planning and mitigation efforts by incorporating a bottom-up approach to these programs. Previous research documents that incorporating projects into disaster preparedness and mitigation plans that reflect the interests and values of local residents reduces vulnerability to environmental and technological hazards (for example: Bajek et al., 2008; Burby 2003; Chen et al., 2006; Cutter 1996; Cutter et al., 2003; Godschalk et al., 1998; Godschalk et al., 2003; Kweit and Kweit 2004; Marfai et al., 2015; Patterson et al., 2010). This study explores how residents influence both formal and informal land uses within their neighborhoods and

E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.037 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

identifies the potential to increase resiliency though sustainable land use practices at the neighborhood scale. To understand the influence of residents on neighborhood land use, this paper focuses on three flood-prone neighborhoods in Lexington, Kentucky, as a case study, but the lessons here are translatable to other communities. The neighborhoods of Port Royal, WGPL,1 and Cardinal Valley are all located within the Wolf Run Watershed and have experienced repeated flooding (Fig. 1). The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) initiated a buyout program with the assistance of federal funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the late 1990s. Floodplain property acquisition prevents the development of highrisk floodplains and can contribute to resilient cities, defined as “a sustainable network of physical systems and human communities” (Godschalk 2003). LFUCG acquired a total of 38 properties dispersed among the three neighborhoods. Homeowners who elected to participate in the buyout program were compensated with the pre-flood value of their property through a cost-sharing approach between LFUCG and FEMA (Zavar, 2015). All of the structures on the buyout properties were demolished per FEMA guidelines following acquisition (FEMA, 1998). The acquired properties are now owned by LFUCG and designated as public open space in perpetuity.

1 The name WGPL is not an acronym but rather comes from the first letter of each street within the neighborhood.

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

Fig. 1. Map of the three study neighborhoods within the Wolf Run Watershed in Lexington, Kentucky: Cardinal Valley, Port Royal, and WGPL. (Data Source: LFUCG GIS Department).

39

40

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

The land uses instituted on these buyout spaces can better reflect the needs and interests of the residents living adjacent to buyout properties by incorporating neighborhood-led initiatives and residential input (Zavar, 2015). High utility land uses on the buyout open spaces can further aid the neighborhoods and community as a whole by improving environmental services and reducing flood risk for the city. For example, the development of wetlands in the open space provides storage for excess water as well as filtering the runoff, thus improving the water quality of the streams. For Lexington, Kentucky, and many other urban areas, these services are needed to improve the resiliency of the community.

2. Theoretical framework The buyout landscape is produced through land use decisions that reflect the actions of structures, agents, and intervening entities. The open space created through property acquisition is guided by structural controls, such as FEMA, which regulates appropriate land uses. Local governance is also a structural control, as local managers interpret FEMA regulations, set budgetary spending, and implement land uses on the open space. Local government, represented by LFUCG in this case study, also intervenes in the production of open space by deciding “which city residents and other urban constituencies are invited, and enabled, to engage in the policy-making process” (Hinchliffe and Whatmore 2006). Local governments, whether overtly or covertly, can enable some residents to participate while discouraging others. FEMA and local governments are not the only forces shaping land use of buyout properties. The agendas of stakeholders in the form of intervening agencies, such as Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), also manifest on the landscape. Unsurprisingly, stakeholders who share similar goals to the government are incorporated into policy-making and redevelopment programs more frequently than those with opposing views; the support of these constituencies can be used to legitimize public policy and urban regeneration programs (Raco 2000). Intervening agencies are not just tools of justification used by the government, however; they can also serve the general public by acting as conduits of information between the government and residents. Intervening agencies and community groups can help empower residents who otherwise are excluded from the decision-making process by providing expert information (Corrigan 2011; Smith and Kurtz 2003). Individual residents also construct the identity of open space just as these acquired properties influence neighborhood or local community culture. Meaning is created on everyday landscapes while these meanings are simultaneously interpreted by the people who interact with the landscape (Cosgrove 1989; Cosgrove and Daniels, 1988; Mitchell 1994). Decoding these meanings reveals the identity of buyout landscapes as well as the values people ascribe to the open space. Because “landscape is both the product of cultural forces and a power agent in the production of culture” (Harris 1999), residents living adjacent to buyout properties are impacted by the open space and in turn also construct the identity of the open space. Although the acquired land results from the same federal funding source, rules, and regulations, each buyout site has its own identity and value that is reflected in how the buyout properties are managed. The meaning of each open space is a negotiation of FEMA regulations, local government, intervening agencies, and residents. This study examines the interaction between all of these groups – structural controls, intervening entities, and agents – in the production of open space and considers their role in building resiliency to hazards (Fig. 2). My analysis engages with the critique that “space in itself may be primordially given, but the organization, and meaning of space is a product of social translation, transformation, and experience” (Soja

Fig. 2. Theoretical framework of the interaction of structural controls, intervening agencies, agents, and the buyout open space. In Lexington, the structures and agents play the primary roles in shaping open space land use decisions and are therefore represented by bolded boxes. LFUCG has taken a more reactionary approach to agents and structures and is therefore represented by a dashed-line box. Intervening agencies mediate between the LFUCG and agents in some neighborhoods while in other neighborhoods, agents and structures directly interact without the assistance of intervening agencies; therefore, there are two possible paths linking structures and agents.

1989). Framing this critique within the buyout context, the open space may be given to the public for use by the government, but how the space is used, valued, and defined reflects social and culture factors. Landscapes are not static; they change in appearance and meaning in direct response to our evolving social interaction with them. By framing landscape as always evolving, the concept transitions beyond an epistemological view and acknowledges landscape as a tangible entity that intervenes in culture and is simultaneously shaped by human intervention (Schein 2009). Therefore, landscape interpretation does not simply describe a place; rather, it considers the broader social, cultural, political, environmental, and economic discourses that create landscape (Boulton 2011). By conforming to, or revolting against, dominant ideals of how the open space should be used, individuals either support or chal-

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

lenge the existing normative expectations. For example, FEMA identifies best practices amongst buyout landscapes and encourages high-utility land uses. Residents who buy into this ideal of how the open space should look actively engage in the land use as prescribed (e.g., park, athletic field, wetland, etc.). Normative expectations do not always align, however, as showcased by differences in public action versus government intended land use. A frequent example of this, particularly in urban areas, is when open spaces revert to wetlands and adjacent property owners mow the riparian grasses because the properties should appear maintained and landscaped in a neighborhood. Municipal government may give the buyout properties back to the public, but public perception defines the value, identity, and use of the post-buyout landscape. Simultaneously, individuals or agents are also negotiating institutional controls as defined by FEMA and the local government. The behaviors, practices, and customs associated with the buyout properties are produced through agents interacting with networks of authority. Residents from the neighborhoods of Cardinal Valley, Port Royal, and WGPL have displayed strong senses of agency as they challenged how the buyout properties should be used. In Port Royal and Cardinal Valley, small groups of residents directly confronted LFUCG authority through engaged civic participation to maintain their ideal of how the buyout landscape should be managed. Yet other residents, primarily in the WGPL neighborhood, rebuked the normative expectations for how Lexingtonians interact with open space and developed their own open space culture. Residents in all three neighborhoods attracted neighbors to their cause and successfully challenged authority. I define these individuals as magnetic agents. Magnetic agents draw supporters to their initiatives and can serve as important allies for building social networks. The concept of a magnetic agent builds upon an extensive body of work on human action across the social sciences (e.g., Dodson 1950; Willhelm 1967; Goldman 1971; Mercer 1972; Simon 1982; Therborn 1991; Corning and Myers 2002; Gergen 2009). Seminal works examining collective action as related to economics include Max Weber’s (1957) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization and Ludwig von Mises’ (1949) Human Action. Action is viewed as a subjective and creative process, and differs from behavior, where external stimuli trigger mechanical responses (Ritzer 2000). Particularly relevant to my construction of the magnetic agent is Weber’s concept of charismatic authority where a leader’s extraordinary personality traits inspire support from their followers (Weber, 1957); similarly, magnetic agents draw supporters to their initiatives because of their distinct personalities. Weber’s work also influenced Talcott Parson’s The Structure of Social Action (1937), which argues that a person’s action is framed within the structure controls of the cultural background. The motivation for action therefore reflects societal norms; however, societal norms are often disrupted to promote social change (Oberschall 1973; Perdue,1986), thus critiquing Parson’s emphasis on structural controls that do not allow for such change. Although the magnetic agent builds on this tradition, the concept of the magnetic agent adds a new dimension to the key agent scholarship as it focuses on human action and land use/landscape change. To build this link between human action and land use/landscape change, the framework for magnetic agents draws from the human-environment interaction literature, which identifies the roles people serve as agents of environmental change (e.g., Marsh 2003; Thomas 1956; Goudie 1981; Turner et al., 1993). Magnetic agents impact the health of the environment through their land use decisions. Much like the keystone species concept in ecology (Paine 1969), the magnetic agent plays a vital role in the function of an ecosystem. Without keystone species the ecosystem would change dramatically, resulting in habitat loss, the extinction of native species, and a rise of invasive species. Through their land

41

use decisions, the magnetic agents can alter the environment as well. Just as beavers engineer the landscape by modifying the geomorphology (Butler 1995), magnetic agents make decisions that impact the entire ecosystem and the human-environment relationship. By examining the relationship between magnetic agents and land use/landscape change, this framework contributes a new dimension to the social sciences conceptualization of key agents. Using grounded fieldwork to investigate the three neighborhoods in Lexington, Kentucky, my case study explores the role of magnetic agents in land-use decision making at the neighborhood scale and questions how these agents can increase local resiliency to hazards as well as sustainable land use practices.

3. Research design To critically examine how residents interact with buyout lands, I conducted a case study consisting of participant observation (Spradley 1980) as well as semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Rubin and Rubin, 1995). The case study approach allows for a holistic and in-depth exploration of social interaction; a variety of viewpoints and perspectives can be represented in a reallife context. Case study analysis captures these complexities, which may be missed through other modes of research (Zainal, 2007). My case study focused on the experience and discourse of three neighborhoods in Lexington, KY. I purposely selected these sites because of the repetitive flood history of the neighborhoods as well as the fact that the property acquisitions removed less than 12 percent of the residences in each neighborhood. Given that these neighborhoods are still populated, they provided a robust sample for data collection. The narratives reveal how residents, LFUCG employees, and various stakeholders interact with the open space and construct the buyout landscape that is both influenced and shaped by social life in Lexington, KY. To understand the subjective experience of those impacted by the acquired properties and to “reach areas of reality that would otherwise remain inaccessible” (Peräkylä 2008, 351), I interviewed residents of buyout neighborhoods and local government officials for their narratives on the buyout open space over a six week field study in Lexington. Three interviews were conducted with preidentified government officials, and through a snowball-approach I gained narratives from additional participants. The results consist of 22 in-depth narratives on how participants engage with the buyout open space. Through discourse analysis, I explored how networks of authority have manifested in the floodplain and influenced the development of the open space. Additionally, I learned how residents understand the process and outcome of establishing post-flood open space in their neighborhoods. I interrogated themes of floodplain utility, open space land management, and post-flood community rebuilding using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of the in-depth interviews (Carspecken 1996; Fairclough 1995). The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim (McLellan et al., 2003), except for three interview participants who requested that I not audio record; in those cases I took detailed notes. Following transcription and as part of the CDA, I developed a coding structure that identified common beliefs, thoughts, and emotions regarding the open space. Using an inductive coding structure and the software program NVivo 9 (NVivo, 2012), I coded the transcripts and sorted them by themes for final analysis and synthesis (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). For key informants, including the magnetic agents, I also conducted a power analysis of discourse (Carspecken 1996). Carspecken (2001) argued that semantic structures “provide views of the world, interpretative schema, value orientations and identity repertoires.” Close examination of word choice and sentence construction, particularly pronouns and passive versus active voice,

42

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

government that took a reactive position to open space development. Analysis of interviews with residents of Port Royal revealed how neighborhood association members negotiated with various power structures to develop the labyrinth. The Port Royal Neighborhood Association received a donation of $10,000 from a private land owner. For the Neighborhood Association, identifying how to spend the donation was not straightforward. At the outset, the Neighborhood Association discussed building a playground in the open space, but that raised several logistical and social concerns, namely compliance with the American Disability Act (ADA). The cost associated with reducing the incline of the properties to meet accessibility requirements made this project unrealistic for their budget. For these financial reasons, the Port Royal Neighborhood Association determined that a playground was not a viable option, leaving the members to identify other potential uses for the donation. One long-term resident, a magnetic agent in Port Royal, described how the idea for the labyrinth evolved: Fig. 3. The labyrinth and surrounding open space in Port Royal, photo taken 29 June 2013 by author.

reveal how participants identified and engaged with underlying power structures. When speaking in active voice, the agent performs the action, as opposed to passive voice, which denotes the recipient of an action. The use of “I” and “we” in active voice suggests a strong sense of agency by the communicator. Passive voice places action, control and responsibility in the hands of institutions and structures. Power analysis shows how word choices reflect structural controls prevalent in society (Carspecken 1996). The semantic structures of residents’ interviews revealed differing degrees of agency amongst the study neighborhoods and this is reflected in how residents interact with the open space in their neighborhood. I framed the discussion to include elements of the power analysis in an attempt to make the “data and explanatory schemes as public and replicable as possible” (Denzin 1978). To promote rigor of the study design, I took steps to ensure validity and reliability during the data collection process, analysis, and reporting (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). I conducted validation checks at each stage of the interview process and followed the model of Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), who argue that validity in the design of the interview should highlight beneficence. During the interviews, I performed meaning checks to ensure I understood the participant’s words and experiences. I supplemented the transcriptions with my interview notes and reflections to help provide an accurate linguistic style for the written account. To check the reliability of the transcripts, a second person transcribed various passages of each interview for comparison purposes. This comparison ensured consistency and accuracy from the audio recording to the written document. I was the only researcher coding the transcriptions, thus increasing the reliability of the coding structure. As part of the data analysis and reporting, I conducted member checks with interview participants and I triangulated narratives for increased validity. 4. Residential interaction with open space 4.1. The Port Royal experience The neighborhood of Port Royal is the only neighborhood to develop a formal open space land use, a labyrinth. The labyrinth, a cement pad imprinted with a Roman maze design, is the product of residential agency and an ardent commitment to the development of a project on the open space (Fig. 3). The development of the labyrinth was not accidental; instead, it was the result of individual residents who were eager for civic engagement and a local

“So [members of the neighborhood association and I] were thinking and thinking what we were going to do and I love labyrinths. . . So I said, ‘why don’t we put a labyrinth down there?’· · ·It’s something that. . .they’ll be able to mow around; it’s. . .easy maintenance· · ·If we have it, put it concrete and it’ll last forever; it’s not going to float away if. . .it floods.” In their narrative, the magnetic agent transitions from firstperson plural (we) to first-person (I), demonstrating their agency as the individual who solved the problem of how to spend the donation and use the open space. The magnetic agent assumes the hero role as the single person who identified the appropriate land use for the Port Royal neighborhood and successfully generated support for the labyrinth project amongst the other Neighborhood Association members and LFUCG officials. The magnetic agent characterizes the appropriate land use as immovable; the labyrinth cannot “float away” in a flood. The strong emphasis on establishing a permanent structure in the open space counters the residents’ experience of friends flooded out of their homes, the structures that used to occupy that land. The magnetic agent also reinforces the power of LFUCG by identifying that “they will be able to mow around” the labyrinth; they, the city, as the owner and caretaker of the land. The permanency of the labyrinth also reflects the FEMA directive that any structures on acquired properties must be able to withstand repetitive flood events without damage. During the process of building the labyrinth the Neighborhood Association repeatedly acted within the controls of the LFUCG authority. The magnetic agent negotiated the bureaucratic process of obtaining permits to construct the labyrinth. By adhering to these rules and policies, the Neighborhood Association went through official channels to identify formal land use on the open space. The magnetic agent explained that “because the city owns the property, we had to go through [the permitting process] and. . .they have all these weird construction things.” A former member of the Neighborhood Association leadership elaborated on this process by listing the various departments that approved the labyrinth, “the law department had to approve, the engineering department had to approve it, Parks [and Recreation] had to approve it because they maintain it.” This emphasis of all of the procedures and structural controls that the Neighborhood Association endured to obtain permission for the labyrinth in open space attested to the resolve of the magnetic agent and Port Royal Neighborhood Association leadership; a less determined individual or group might have given up because of the lengthy process. During their interviews, Neighborhood Association members expressed that the labyrinth is a community produced product, but the influence and drive of the magnetic agent is evident in

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

each step of the process. The magnetic agent sought out fellow residents to help research the labyrinth, calculate the dimensions of the Roman maze design, and found the work crew to pour the concrete. The magnetic agent also maneuvered around the bureaucratic construction procedures by directly requesting a favor from an elected official: “The city helped. . .to get our construction permit. We were supposed to make a. . .temporary road going down [the hill]. [The builders] were supposed to put that barrier fence up and so I said, ‘this is ridiculous,’ so I went and talked to the mayor and I said. . .‘look this is only going to take a week. . .he’s far enough [from the road].’ So [the mayor] got all those requirements waived for us. . .everybody helped all the way around.” LFUCG eased the permitting process for the Neighborhood Association to reduce the paperwork and cost associated with constructing the labyrinth. The magnetic agent’s role within the Neighborhood Association enabled their access to high-level decisions makers within the LFUCG. Ultimately, the mayor pushed through the labyrinth project when it stalled because of the cost of building the required road and barrier fence. LFUCG, via the mayor, made an allowance for the construction of the project, resulting in the only formal development of open space in Lexington. This access to authority and the perseverance of a magnetic agent allowed the Neighborhood Association to build the labyrinth. The magnetic agent’s word choice of “our,” “we,” and “us” indicates that they view the labyrinth as a use produced by and for the community. Despite this view and the repeated reference to the utility of the maze, the magnetic agent shied away from explaining how they themselves or neighbors interact with the labyrinth. Instead, the magnetic agent recounted an instance when health professionals from a local Veterans Association hospital visited the Port Royal labyrinth to conduct a workshop and discuss plans to construct a labyrinth of their own. The magnetic agent highlighted this and emphasized that the Neighborhood Association and labyrinth helped the veterans. In our conversations, the magnetic agent constructed an identity for the labyrinth centering on its utility, yet their narrative does not include a realized function. Additionally, their narrative is external to the Port Royal neighborhood; the magnetic agent defined how the labyrinth is used in terms of non-residents. Even proponents of the labyrinth could not define the function of the labyrinth for the Port Royal neighborhood. The magnetic agent was able to attract both residents and governmental officials to help with the planning and construction phases of the project, yet the land use has minimal utility today. During my repeated site visits and fieldwork, I observed children playing in the open space adjacent to the labyrinth, but never saw anyone using the labyrinth for the intended purpose of reflection. Informal recreation seems more prevalent than the prescribed labyrinth land use. As a land use, the labyrinth is consistent with the official FEMA rules, yet outside the scope of high-utility land management practices that benefit both the environment and local community as evidenced by the lack of use and function. Had the enthusiasm of the magnetic agent been met with technical support from an intervening agency or more strict enforcement of LFUCG floodplain management policies, a higher-utility land use may have been implemented on the buyout properties. This example highlights how a magnetic agent can direct land use development based on their own interests and desires to do something on the buyout landscape. By incorporating the interests of the magnetic agent, the needs of their fellow residents, and the technical expertise from NGOs with support from local government officials, a high-utility land use project could have been developed that serves the needs and values of all stakeholders.

43

4.2. The Cardinal Valley experience Port Royal was not the only neighborhood where the actions of the Neighborhood Association were propelled by a strong-willed individual who influenced land use in the open space, although in this case it took a different form. Cardinal Valley homeowners banded together under the direction of a magnetic agent to stop the development of a Frisbee disc golf course in the open space. Not all of the homeowners in this neighborhood accepted buyout offers, resulting in clumps of public open space interrupted by private homes. In an attempt to implement a land use that accommodated dispersed open spaces, the city council tried to do what the magnetic agent called “sneak[ing] a Frisbee golf course through.” LFUCG ultimately abandoned this plan because of complaints from the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association and residents. The magnetic agent appreciates the quiet open space and was concerned that the Frisbee disc golf course would bring people and garbage to the neighborhood. To protest this change from passive open space to recreational land use,2 a couple of concerned residents led by the magnetic agent went to the city council. Interestingly, their primary argument centered on what FEMA regulations allowed to be constructed in buyout open space. Residents challenged that “FEMA will not allow [the construction of a Frisbee disc golf course]” in the open space. During our conversations, the magnetic agent described placing a call to FEMA to gain the agency’s support in preventing the development of the disc golf course. The magnetic agent and their fellow neighbors were very aware that FEMA guidelines control LFUCG open space management and in the magnetic agent’s account, residents successfully went above LFUCG authority to prevent an open space land use that residents did not want in their neighborhood. Despite this awareness that FEMA guidelines exist, many of the participants in this study are not familiar with approved land uses in open spaces. Frisbee disc golf courses are actually within the FEMA guidelines and are frequently implemented on buyout properties, particularly those spaced out in a patchwork pattern. In addition to attending city council meetings, the magnetic agent started a petition against the development of the Frisbee disc golf course and generated nearly 200 signatures of support from neighbors. The magnetic agent attributed the civic engagement of a couple of key individuals as the force that blocked LFUCG from spoiling the quiet of their neighborhood. These individuals directly challenged LFUCG authority by speaking out at city council meetings and documenting neighborhood attitudes towards the Frisbee disc golf course via the petition. Because of the magnetic agent and the residents they drew to their cause, the city abandoned the development plans in the open space. This public outcry against land use development has likely shaped the attitudes of LFUCG employees, resulting in little effort for formal activities in the open space. The city is unwilling to engage with residents who challenge LFUCG plans, even when residents are misinformed, epitomizing the hands-off approach to open space management. LFUCG employees exasperatedly described stories of individual activism that resulted in false information spreading through neighborhoods via petitions. “We’ve had greenways where trails were gonna go in and you get one person that doesn’t like it. That person will start a petition, they’ll put all this erroneous stuff on there that none of its true, but there’s horrible rumors and they’ll go door-to-door. The next thing you know there’s like 400 names on this thing;

2 Government officials and stakeholders often term grassy buyout properties as “passive open space” to avoid the negative connotations associated with the phrase “vacant lot.”

44

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

they’ve signed against this thing that is erroneous. Because we don’t like controversy, we just drop it.” In this passage, the employee identified as a member of LFUCG and through their use of the first-personal plural established the normative behavior for the city, avoiding confrontation with residents. The employee also detailed the strong individual agency that is present in the neighborhoods, the type that can initiate a nonfactual petition and successfully generate residential support. This individualistic agency is magnetic and attracts other residents to join the cause against a common opponent, LFUCG. The magnetic agent establishes their own subjective viewpoint and by generating neighborhood support, transitions their perspective to the normative behavior for a group of residents. An elected LFUCG government employee familiar with the Frisbee disc golf plan clarified that the Frisbee disc golf course was not a city council idea, but was initiated by the Parks and Recreation Department. The official justified that the real goal of the development project was to keep neighborhood kids active and out of trouble, not to invade or disrupt the quiet of the neighborhood. The slumping body language and softening of the official’s voice hinted at a disappointment that LFUCG was not able to increase youth activities in the neighborhood, a neighborhood where some residents perceive unoccupied youth as a threat to safety and security. These narratives of land development of open space in Lexington indicate the important role magnetic agents take in shaping land use on the acquired properties. In Cardinal Valley, just as in Port Royal, LFUCG reacted to the desires of the magnetic agent. In the case of Port Royal, the magnetic agent drove the development of a labyrinth, a land use most residents seem ambivalent about at best. For Cardinal Valley, it was the initiative of the magnetic agent to prevent a land use deemed undesirable by residents. In both instances, the goals of an individual, and eventually a small group, determined land use outcomes for the whole community. These magnetic agents successfully worked within the established procedures of the bureaucracy to realize their objectives and in the end the LFUCG institution subscribed to the vision of these individuals. 4.3. The WGPL experience At first glance, the buyout open space in WGPL appears very similar to the properties in Cardinal Valley; in-depth inspection however, reveals an environmentally-focused narrative shaping the WGPL post-buyout landscape. As with all three study neighborhoods, the open space in the WGPL neighborhood primarily consists of a vacant grassy lot with riparian vegetation along the creek; however, the riparian buffer in WGPL is the largest of any of the study neighborhoods and residents, the Neighborhood Association, and Friends of Wolf Run, all work together to maintain this wetland system. Signs throughout the space identify “no-mow” zones to protect the tall grasses of the riparian buffer along the stream (Fig. 4). Young trees, planted by the Neighborhood Association and funded by a $7000 LFUCG grant, are spaced throughout the grassy lot. Residents water the trees and protect them from the lawnmower blade by placing plastic rings with stakes around the immature trees. More than any other study neighborhood, the buyout lots in WGPL offer an informal space for recreation and socialization. Both my observations of the open space and interviews with participants revealed that residents regularly gather and play in the open space in WGPL. Also unique to the WGPL, the magnetic agents are developing riparian vegetation beyond the public open space lots and into the adjacent residential properties through the technical expertise of Friends of Wolf Run. By allowing riparian vegetation in their private backyards, residents of WGPL are moving backyard activities from private residential space into the public buyout open

Fig. 4. The riparian boundary along the open space in the WGPL consisting of riparian grasses and wetland species, newly planted tree in the foreground, photo taken 20 June 2013 by author.

space. This shifts the function of suburban backyards from only serving the owners as an area for recreation and socialization to a site that serves the entire watershed by improving water quality. One magnetic agent described: “Having that open space there allowed us to treat our back yard a little differently and what we’ve allowed, a whole corner of it to do, is to be in a sense be overrun by Honeysuckle. And the reason we can do that, if you want to throw a ball or kick a ball we just go right into. . .the park as we call it. So that allowed us to build up some cover that sort of protects us in terms of noise, and in terms of line of sight from the commercial property behind there” (Zavar, 2015, 89). The open space is an important resource, not only for the magnetic agent, but also for the entire Wolf Run Watershed. The open space provides the recreational opportunities associated with suburban backyards; therefore, access to this public resource enabled the magnetic agent to convert their backyard landscape from a manicured lawn to a riparian ecosystem. This change in landscape alters the function and land use of this private property resulting in an ecosystem that improves water quality, supplies floodwater storage, and provides habitat (Constanza et al., 1997). The magnetic agent identifies the collective flood experience of the neighborhood through their use of “we,” the first person plural: “We do get a lot of floods, you know, as well as the field [open space], and that’s another reason we have Honeysuckles. I knew I’m getting this runoff all up the street. So I figure, if I’m going to be filtering this land with every seed, for every weed, for an entire block, I’d rather have it get filtered through a batch of honeysuckle than sitting on some lawn I’m trying to maintain like a suburban house” (Zavar 2015, 90). This magnetic agent is taking responsibility for the health of their family, neighborhood, and the Wolf Run Watershed by planting trees and shrubs that prefer wet soil conditions and remediate stormwater for the whole neighborhood. The word choices of the magnetic agent highlights this personal responsibility as the magnetic agent transitions from first person plural, we, to first person singular, I, and identifies them self as playing a key role in water quality improvement. The magnetic agent also highlights the dual role of the open space, which serves as a place for recreation during non-flood periods, but emphasized that, “it’s a flood basin that we use as a park.”

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

In addition to helping define the open space land use in their neighborhood as a recreation site with flood storage capabilities, the magnetic agent worked with fellow neighbors to take an active role in increasing water quality in the Wolf Run Watershed. Water quality is an issue for this community as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sued LFUCG in 2011 due to the leakage of sewage into several waterways, including the Wolf Run Watershed (Fortune 2011). LFUCG has begun to address the sewage contamination issue through technocratic approaches, such as improved pipe lines; however, residents of WGPL, including the magnetic agent, initiated their own contributions to improving the water quality of Wolf Run. A homeowner adjacent to the open space worked with the Friends of Wolf Run and the Neighborhood Association to plant native riparian grasses in their side-yard to restore floodplain processes. This contribution of private property increases the no-mow zones along the stream, which in turn, increases the number of wetland plants that filter the stream and generates more storage for periods of excess precipitation. WGPL residents actively protect the floodplains and improve water quality for the entire watershed because of the actions of a magnetic agent and their fellow neighbors. This example highlights the best case practices where magnetic agents have access to information and technical support to implement land use projects that benefit both the environment and community.

5. Conclusions Residents of the three buyout neighborhoods in this study interacted with the open spaces differently, resulting in contrasting land uses at each site. These interactions manifested in a variety of formal and informal land uses, each of which was driven by the ideas and values of the magnetic agents in each neighborhood. This variance in land use was also enabled by the hands-off approach taken by the LFUCG in terms of managing open space. Rather than take a proactive land management style, LFUCG reacted to individual citizens and the Neighborhood Association groups led by magnetic agents. The WGPL was the only neighborhood to enact land uses in which both residents and the environment benefit. Residents of WGPL actively participated in their community as environmental stewards and were led by a magnetic agent who donated their lawn to the community for ecological services. They were willing to give over the function of their private land to public services because they had access to the open space for recreation and socialization. The neighborhood association in the WGPL and the Friends of Wolf Run provided assistance and expertise in the form of planting riparian vegetation and reinforcing “no-mow” boundaries in the open space. LFUCG supported these activities through grants and also by enabling the intervening entity, Friends of Wolf Run, access and legitimacy to LFUCG policy. Not all of the activity in the open space was mutually beneficial to both the environment and residents however. Residents in Port Royal built a labyrinth in the open space that provides no real benefit to either the neighborhood at large or the environment. In fact, the concrete slab serving as the base for the labyrinth curtails the function of the floodplain. The labyrinth is the result of a magnetic agent imposing their ideas on the buyout open space and a lack of resistance by the LFUCG. The agent was able to push the institution of LFUCG to relax the construction regulations, thus allowing the land use in the open space. Volunteers from Friends of Wolf Run regularly assisted with river clean-up and native plantings in this neighborhood, but this entity is missing in all conversations pertaining to the development of the labyrinth. The magnetic agent circumvented Friends of Wolf Run by going to the head of city gov-

45

ernment, thus eliminating Friends of Wolf Run authority and a more environmentally focused land use in the open space. Strong agency was also present in Cardinal Valley, but in this case, the individuals acted to prevent open space development that could have served the greater neighborhood in terms of recreation and given a formal land use to the buyout site. This example highlights the importance of involving community members, particularly magnetic agents, in the land use planning process. By incorporating magnetic agents as allies instead of adversaries, municipal leaders can develop community projects that not only are supported by residents and stakeholders but also serve the needs of the greater community. Magnetic agents are invested citizens who are concerned with the wellbeing of their neighborhoods and communities. At times, their actions are misguided due to lack of information, resources, or support from institutions or other agencies. LFUCG has missed several opportunities to work with these civic leaders and instead has only responded in a reactionary role. The experiences identified in this case study can be applied to other communities experiencing disaster recovery, reconstruction, and/or mitigation, as this example from Lexington is situated in a larger discussion of how land use decisions are made and who participates in the decision-making process. Given that the majority of U.S. buyout open space is vacant with no formal land use, we might assume that vacant buyout open space has little to no value to the community beyond the initial removal of people and structures from the floodplain (and by no means am I minimizing the value of this removal); however this in-depth case study identifies that some residents in Lexington, Kentucky, informally construct value and use to the vacant buyout lots. This is important for city planners and government officials both in Lexington and elsewhere. Without engaging with residents and intervening agencies, government officials may not really know how the land is used or valued. This case study adds an additional example of how community involvement is needed for successful land management and ultimately building community resiliency. This point is further underscored through the example of Cardinal Valley, where magnetic agents developed a formal land use that has little to no identified value to the community. Simply instituting some land use without full community engagement can be ineffective. This example highlights the needed relationship between governing bodies and residents to achieve high value land uses on buyout open space that reflect community needs and values. Following property acquisitions, municipalities have the opportunity to work directly with magnetic agents to develop plans that best serve the neighborhood by increasing resiliency to future hazards. We can contribute to the development of high-utility buyout properties that meet community needs and are of value to the residents of buyout neighborhoods by increasing our understanding of how buyout open spaces are perceived, managed, and used in relation to social systems. Regardless of the land use, however, it is imperative that city leaders work with residents and neighborhood associations, particularly magnetic agents, instead of handing down a land use plan without community involvement. This increased government presence and involvement with residents could reduce buyout management strategies that only reflect the desires of a couple of individuals and instead reflect the greater community. More research that examines the social process of rebuilding following disasters and the implementation of long-term hazard mitigation plans is needed. This is significant as we cannot build more resilient communities without an in-depth understanding of how power influences and perpetuates social vulnerability to disaster.

46

E. Zavar / Land Use Policy 56 (2016) 38–46

Acknowledgements Funding from the Association of American Geographers (AAG) Dissertation Research Grant and a Doctoral Research Stipend from the Graduate College at Texas State University supported this research. I am grateful for the people who participated in this research project as well as the support and guidance of Ronald Hagelman, David Butler, Sarah Blue, and Emily Summers. Additionally, I am thankful for the constructive comments provided by Deborah Hann and the anonymous reviewers. References Bajek, R., Matsuda, Y., Okada, N., 2008. Japan’s Jishu-bosai-soshiki community activities: analysis of its role in participatory community disaster risk management. Nat. Hazards 44, 281–292. Berke, P.R., Kartez, I., Wenger, D., 1993. Recovery after disasters Achieving sustainable development, mitigation, and equity. Disasters 17, 93–109. Boulton, A., 2011. Property and aesthetics in an ordinary American landscape. Geogr. Rev. 101, 224–242. Burby, R.J., 2003. Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 69, 33–49. Butler, D.R., 1995. Zoogeomorphology—Animals as Geomorphic Agents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 231. Carspecken, P.F., 1996. Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Routledge, New York, pp. 240. Carspecken, P.F., 2001. Critical ethnographies from Houston: distinctive features and directions. In: Carspecken, P.F., Walford, G. (Eds.), Critical Ethnography and Education. JAI Press, Amsterdam, pp. 1–26. Chen, L.C., Liu, Y.C., Chan, K.C., 2006. Integrated community-based disaster management program in Taiwan: a case study of Shang-An village. Nat. Hazards 37, 209–223. Constanza, R.R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van der Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Corning, A.F., Myers, D.J., 2002. Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Polit. Psychol. 23 (4), 703–729. Corrigan, M.P., 2011. Growing what you eat Developing community gardens in Baltimore, Maryland. Appl. Geogr. 31, 1232–1241. Cosgrove, D., Daniels, S., 1988. 330pp. In: The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge University Press, New York. Cosgrove, D., 1989. Geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism in human landscapes. In: Gregory, D., Walford, R. (Eds.), Horizons in Human Geography. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 118–135. Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Quart. 84, 242–261. Cutter, S.L., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog. Hum. Geog. 20, 529–539. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2005. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln,Y, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. , 3rd ed. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–32. Denzin, N.K., 1978. Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 434. Dodson, D.W., 1950. Social action and education. J. Educ. Sociol. 23 (6), 345–351. FEMA, 1998. Property Acquisition Handbook for Communities: Phase IV Open Space Management. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. Addison Wesley, Boston, pp. 608. Fortune, B., 2011. Judge finalizes agreement between Lexington and EPA to overhaul sewers. Lexington Herald (2011, January 5) available from http://www.kentucky.com/2011/01/05/1586884/judge-finalizes-agreementbetween.html (accessed 1.18.16.). Geipel, R., 1991. Long-term Consequences of Disaster: The Reconstruction of Fruili, Italy, in Its International Context, 1976–1988. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 167. Gergen, K.J., 2009. Pragmatics and pluralism in explaining human action. Behav. Philos. 37, 127–133. Godschalk, D.R., Kaiser, E.J., Berke, P., 1998. Integrating hazard mitigation and local land-use planning. In: Burby, R.J. (Ed.), Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. John Henry Press, Washington, DC, pp. 85–118. Godschalk, D.R., Brody, S., Burby, R., 2003. Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 46, 733–754. Godschalk, D.R., 2003. Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Nat. Hazards Rev. 4, 136–143.

Goldman, A.I., 1971. Theory of Human Action, 1st ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ, pp. 770. Goudie, A., 1981. The Human Impact; Man’s Role in Environmental Change. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 316. Haas, E., Kates, R.W., Bowden, M.J., 1977. Reconstruction Following Disaster. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 366. Hagelman III, R.R., Connolly, M.H., Zavar, E., Dahal, K.R., 2012. Disaster reconstruction and business geography following the 2007 Kreensburg, Kansas Tornado. Environ. Hazards 11, 283–302. Harris, D., 1999. The Postmodernization of landscape: a critical historiography. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 58, 434–443. Hinchliffe, S., Whatmore, S., 2006. Living cities: towards a politics of conviviality. Sci. Cult. 15, 123–138. Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S., 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, pp. 376pp. Kweit, M.G., Kweit, R.W., 2004. Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 34, 354–373. Marfai, M.A., Sekaranom, A.B., Ward, P., 2015. Community responses and adaptation strategies toward flood hazard in Jakarta Indonesia. Nat. Hazards. 75, 1127–1144. Marsh, G.P., 2003. Man and Nature; Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. In: Lowenthal, D. (Ed.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Original work published 1864. McLellan, E., MacQueen, K.M., Neidig, J.L., 2003. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Method 15, 63–84. Mercer, D., 1972. Behavioural geography and the sociology of social action. Area 4 (1), 48–52. Mitchell, W.J.T., 1994. Landscape and Power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 383pp. NVivo,2012, 2012. Qualitative Data Analysis (Version 10 [Software]). QSR International Pty Ltd. Oberschall, A., 1973. Social Conflicts and Social Movements. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 371. Paine, R.T., 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat. 103, 91–93. Pais, J.F., Elliott, J.R., 2008. Places as recovery machines: vulnerability and neighborhood change after major hurricanes. Soc. Forces 86, 1415–1453. Parsons, T., 1949. The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers, 2nd ed. Free Press, Glencoe, IL, Original work published 1937. Patterson, O., Weil, F., Patel, K., 2010. The Role of community in disaster response: conceptual models. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 29, 127–141. Peräkylä, A., 2008. Analyzing talk and text. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln,Y, S. (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, pp. 351–374. Perdue, W.D., 1986. Sociological Theory: Explanation, Paradigm, and Ideology. Mayfield Publishing, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 410. Raco, M., 2000. Assessing community participation in local economic development-lessons for the new urban policy. Polit. Geogr. 19, 573–599. Ritzer, G., 2000. Classical Sociological Theory, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, Boston, pp. 608. Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S., 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 288. Schein, R.H., 2009. A methodological framework for interpreting ordinary landscapes Lexington, Kentucky’s Courthouse Square. Geogr. Rev. 99, 377–402. Simon, M.A., 1982. Understanding Human Action. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 226. Smith, C.M., Kurtz, H.E., 2003. Community gardens and politics of scale in New York City. Geogr. Rev. 93, 193–212. Soja, E.W., 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. Verso, London, pp. 228. Spradley, J.P., 1980. Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 195. Therborn, G., 1991. Cultural belonging, structural location and human action: explanation in sociology and in social science. Acta Sociol. 34 (3), 177–191. Thomas, W.L. (Ed.), 1956. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 1236. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T., Meyer, W.B. (Eds.), 1993. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 732. Weber, M., 1957. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Henderson, A.M., Parsons, T. (Trans). Free Press, Glencoe, 450pp. (Original work published 1922). Willhelm, S.M., 1967. A reformulation of social action theory. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 26 (1), 23–31. von Mises, L., 1966. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 3d ed. Regnery, Chicago, Original work published 1949. Zainal, Z., 2007. Case study as a research method. J. Kemanusiaan 9, 1–6. Zavar, E., 2015. Residential perspectives: the value of floodplain-buyout open space. Geogr. Rev. 105, 78–95. Zavar, E., Hagelman III, R.R., Rugeley, W., 2012. 2012. Site, situation, and property owner decision-making after the 2002 Guadalupe River flood. Pap. Appl. Geogr C. 35, 249–257.