Introduction
Land use planning (LUP)
This is a risk management issue under the risk reduction strategy. Land Use Planning (LUP) as much as it’s a risk reduction strategy, is also a legal requirement when developing land around existing other industrial plants and also when developing industrial plants while considering other developers and the surrounding environment as a basis of land control. Land use planning during such developments will put into consideration some other critical factors like physical, economic and social factors of the surrounding area. Land Use Planning will automatically involve planning within a wider context beyond the original development area.
Risk Management
This is a management procedure of anticipating and putting up a plan for any eventuality and evaluating the potential the eventuality will have on the business and identifying ways to either totally avoid or minimize the impact of such eventualities on business operations.
Risk management as the process of identifying risk, assessing risk, and taking steps to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The risk management approach determines the processes, techniques, tools, and team roles and responsibilities for a specific project. The risk management plan describes how risk management will be structured and performed on the project (.Svejvig and Andersen 2015, p. 278).
In order for an urban centre and the people living in that community to be comfortable, the urban centre should be designed in such a manner that any risk and impact of natural hazards is drastically reduced. The management of these risks will only be successful while taking into consideration the following risk reduction strategies
a. Land Use Planning (LUP)
b. Early Warning Systems
c. Process Modification like by the use of engineering Solutions
We are going to look into one of the management risk reduction strategies Land Use Urban Planning
Land Use Planning (LUP)
This is one of the practices of Risk Management that can reduce the risk exposure, LUP is a risk based to reduce risks of natural hazards like earthquakes, Volcano, Erosion and Floods.
Purpose of This Document
This document will discuss the role of LUP while planning in industrial plants buildings, design for risk reduction. The urban plan will be provided and provision for factories and plants will be presented in the plan, which may stipulate the factory distance from residential places, in areas of high hazard risk like air pollution
This document will try to find the effect of industrial plant owners and constructors capacity in applying the risk reduction strategy of LUP.
This document will try to identify whether there is a gap in the use of LUP which is a local authority requirement before any construction of an industrial plant and whether the local authorities follow and check on this with contractors of industrial plants
Research Methodology
This will be a qualitative study based on structured interviews that will include almost 20 construction project managers, currently managing construction of industrial plants, as well as reviewing readily available information and documentation on land Use Planning (LUP) as a risk reduction strategy. Random sampling will be done to select the construction project managers to have a balance of the construction of industrial plants from different areas
Implementation (Case Study) – 2016 Pascagoula Gas Plant Explosion
While risk reduction strategy can be implemented and is very critical before, during and after such a disaster of fire and gas explosion that was experienced in 2016 Pascagoula Gas Plant Explosion, the term risk reduction strategy on this document will be defined as measures put in place to prevent, control, and preparedness of a situation while constructing an industrial plant such as the Pascagoula Gas Plant.
The Gap between Planning and the fire and Gas explosion at Pascagoula Gas Plant.
There is very limited information by the company from a design and engineering perspective on any risk reduction measures undertaken during the construction of the plant. The scenario mostly focuses on the structural issues related to the post fire and gas explosion incident. There are many gas plants which have been established throughout and the use same machinery and equipment’s as used by Pascagoula Gas Plant that caused the explosion is common. As a way of reducing risk and reducing the depreciation of this machinery so as to serve for a longer period of time, at the gas processing plants, thorough routine check-up and maintenance, this should be the normal risk reduction strategy (Oliffe et al, 2017, p.177). Operators are normally advised for continuous routine inspection rather than waiting for a gas leak for them to take action as these gas leaks are the hazards that have potential of causing the explosions. At the gas plant, the equipment’s and machinery were continuously exposed to temperatures changes that exceeded the industry recommended standards and practices. For over a period of 17 years the equipment’s and machinery were only repaired 9 times. This particular event clearly illustrate that operators solely waiting for a gas leak before due action is taken is exposing the plant to risk. Operators in these gas plants and the ones who constantly engage with these equipment’s require a more detailed assessment and a risk management plan to prevent such risks. Does it mean, that the management of Pascagoula Gas Plant was operating this facility without a proper risk management strategy, can they be held liable for the deaths of their two employees, or is it ignorance and lack of proper training where a number of operators who were interviewed clearly said the set limits in the gas plant processing sector regulation is not attainable. Does it mean that when the gas plant was being set up, there was no risk management plan, because the cbs report recommended as risk reduction strategy that a round table discussion between the players in the value chain and a clear guidance provided on safety of the equipment’s. The Cbs also gave further recommendations to the trade organisations to willingly share information among the industry players related to such hazards.
Loss Reduction During the Incidence – Although no offsite property was damaged during the explosion, many of the people living in that community made a decision to move out of their residential places. The community that was heavily affected expressed their concerns that during the entire incidence they did not know how to behave or responds (Mahon, Tripathy and Singh 2015, p.10). The Cbs reports then recommended of a more engaged community that will form an alert network, one that will include various social media platforms in order to interact and engage with each other during such occurrence
Observations from the case study
No risk reduction strategy (LUP) was employed by the management of Pascagoula Gas Plant and they never took risk management seriously, with increasing number of disasters and casualties. The management of this company showed very little concern and attention to preventing such an incidence for example, not training their operators and constantly equipping them with new information in regard to the machines they are operating, hence putting the lives of the operators at a risk, and also not being concerned with the lives of the community living around the gas plant by providing the relevant information about the risk exposure and also what the community could do or behave during such an incidence (Lutter 2015, p.329).
Conclusion and Future Works
There was no use of Land Use Urban Planning as evidence in the report by Cbs and yet this is a legal requirement by the government. All the employees were exposed to risk as a result of this issue (Hodgson and Paton 2016, p.352) The community around where the industrial plant had been set up are not aware of Land Use Planning (LUP) as a legal requirement and that the community should also be involved in such an exercise before an industrial plant has been set up in an area. Most communities living around such industrial plants only understand Land Use Planning (LUP) as a zoning and building use without any connection to risk reduction strategies (Eagly and Miller 2016, p. 899). Most organizations take planning through risk reduction strategies as a waste of time especially when the industrial plant is set up around a community of low income earners and informal settlements.
The relationship between planning through Risk Reduction Strategies and Disasters Occurrence
Generally there is a lack of risk reduction and there is a gap between what is currently happening on the ground and what is supposed to happen (Chiu, Balkundi and Weinberg 2017, p. 334). Reasons being that owners of industrial plants have decreased interest on the welfare of others, with their main objective making huge profits while putting the lives of their workers and the community at risk (Ben-Amar, Chang and McIlkenny 2017, p.369).
Appendix
LUP Local Authorities Procedures
LUP Local Authorities Procedures and Variable Definition
| Objective | Variable | Indicator | Measurement |
| To check Level of Skills | Number of employees of the organisation involved in LUP | Employee Register | Technical expertise of employees involved in LUP |
Impacts of construction of industrial plants on human settlement
| Established but IncompleteFire and explosion danger | Well Established |
| SpeculativeFire and Explosion Increased | Competing ExplanationsIncreased air, noise and water quality issues more serious for human health |
Interview Schedule for Plant Construction Project Managers
Declaration: This data collection is purely for research on LUP and will not be sold or reproduced for another purpose.
Section A – Bio Data
1. Name of Respondent ————————————————————– (Optional)
Date—————————————————————————————————–
Section B – Who is responsible for LUP?
2. Who handles the LUP?
a. The industrial plant owner
b. The contractor of the industrial plant
3. What are some of the challenges faced during the LUP application to the local authorities?
4. How long does it take before approvals of LUP are done?
Section C: Procedures in LUP Approvals
5. Does the Local authorities maintain records on LUP approvals
6. Which method of communication does the Local Authority use to convey outcome of the LUP application
7. Upon approval of the application, which document is issue by the Local Authority to the applicant?
8. What are some of the challenges faced when dealing with Local Authorities on LUP approvals
References
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. and McIlkenny, P., 2017. Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), pp.369-383. Retrieved From: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1>
Chiu, C., Balkundi, P. and Weinberg, J., 2017. When managers become leaders: The role of manager network centralities, social power, and followers’ perception of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), pp.334-348. Retrieved From: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984316300285 >
Eagly, H. and Miller, I., 2016. Scientific eminence: Where are the women?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), pp.899-904. Retrieved From: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616663918>
Hodgson, E. and Paton, S., 2016. Understanding the professional project manager: Cosmopolitans, locals and identity work. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), pp.352-364. Retrieved From: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786315000472>
Lutter, M., 2015. Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project-based labor market, 1929 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 80(2), pp.329-358.Retrieved From: < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122414568788>
Mahon, T., Tripathy, A. and Singh, N., 2015. Putting the men into menstruation: the role of men and boys in community menstrual hygiene management. Waterlines, 34(1), pp.7-14. Retrieved From: < https://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/abs/10.3362/1756-3488.2015.002>
Oliffe, L., Kelly, T., Bottorff, L., Johnson, L. and Wong, T., 2017. “He’s more typically female because he’s not afraid to cry”: Connecting heterosexual gender relations and men’s depression. In The psychology of gender and health (pp. 177-197). Academic Press. Retrieved From: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128038642000067>
Powell, A. and Sang, J., 2015. Everyday experiences of sexism in male-dominated professions: A Bourdieusian perspective. Sociology, 49(5), pp.919-936. Retrieved From: < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038515573475>
Rosemann, M. and vom Brocke, J., 2015. The six core elements of business process management. In Handbook on business process management 1 (pp. 105-122). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved From: < https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5>
Savelsbergh, M., Havermans, A. and Storm, P., 2016. Development paths of project managers: What and how do project managers learn from their experiences?. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), pp.559-569. Retrieved From: < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786316000144>
.Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P., 2015. Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp.278-290. Retrieved From: < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786316000144>
