Councils of governments create regional comprehensive plans to shape the future development of their regions. However, actual implementation often depends on local governments that control land use. How, if at all, did two Atlanta Regional Development Plans (RDPs) influence local government policies? Interviews and comparisons of regional and local policies reveal that the RDP planning process clearly and causally influenced voluntary local comprehensive plans, but not subsequent local land-use regulations. However, the RDPs served other functions, such as data provision. Thus, it is useful to incorporate a communicative evaluation approach to examine the broader functions of the planning process, rather than strictly examining the conformance outcomes of the plan policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1969Urban American and the Federal System (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
AlexanderE, 1995Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Concepts, Theories and Issues2nd edition (Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam)
4.
AlexanderERFaludiA, 1989, “Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16127–140
5.
AltshulerA, 1965The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis (University Press, Ithaca, NY)
6.
Atlanta Regional Commission, 1999A Framework for the Future: ARC's Regional Development Plan (Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA)
7.
BaerW, 1997, “General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans”Journal of the American Planning Association63329–344
8.
BenvenisteG, 1972The Politics of Expertise (Glendessary Press, Berkeley, CA)
9.
Committee for Economic Development, 1970Reshaping Government in Metropolitan Areas (Committee for Economic Development, Washington, DC)
10.
ConnickSInnesJ, 2001Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to EvaluationInstitute for Urban and Regional Development, University of California at, Berkeley, CA
11.
DeKalb County Planning Commission, 1975DeKalb County Framework PlanDeKalb County Planning Commission and Planning Department, Decatur, GA
12.
DeKalb County Planning Department, 19711975 DeKalb County Land Use PlanDeKalb County Planning Department, Decatur, GA
13.
Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 19681988 Comprehensive PlanDouglas County Board of Commissioners, 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA
14.
Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 1976Douglas County Comprehensive Development Plan 1975–1985Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA
FriedmanJBlochR, 1990, “American exceptionalism in regional planning, 1933–2000”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research14576–601
17.
Fulton County Board of Commissioners, 1988Comprehensive Plan, Fulton 2010: Policies and Staff ReportFulton County Board of Commissioners, 141 Pryor Street, Atlanta, GA
18.
Fulton County Department of Planning, 1978Land Use PlanFulton County Department of Environment and Community Development, 141 Pryor Street, Atlanta, GA
Gwinnett County Planning and Development, 1986Gwinnett County Land Use Plan report prepared by Robert and Company for the Gwinnett County Department of Planning and Development, 446 West Crogan Street, Lawrenceville, GA
21.
Gwinnett County Planning and Development, 19922000 Use PlanGwinnett County Department of Planning and Development, 446 West Crogan Street, Lawrenceville, GA
22.
InnesJ, 1995, “Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice”Journal of Planning Education and Research14183–189
23.
InnesJBooherD, 1999, “Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning”Journal of the American Planning Association65412–423
24.
KentT, 1991The Urban General Plan (Chandler, San Francisco, CA)
25.
KingdonJ, 1995Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Harper Collins, New York)
26.
LacayoR, 1999, “The brawl over sprawl”Time Magazine 22 March, page 153
27.
LoganJMolotchH, 1987Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
28.
LongN, 1962The Polity (Rand McNally, Chicago, IL)
29.
McHargI, 1969Design with Nature (Natural History Press, Garden City, NY)
30.
MastopHFaludiA, 1997, “Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24815–832
31.
MazmanianDSabatierP, 1983Implementation and Public Policy (Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL)
32.
NeumanM, 1998, “Does planning need the plan?”Journal of the American Planning Association64208–220
33.
NorrisDF, 1994, “Killing a COG: The death and reincarnation of the Baltimore Regional Council of Governments”Journal of Urban Affairs16155–167
34.
PharesD, 1989, “Bigger is better, or is it smaller? Restructuring local government in the St. Louis area”Urban Affairs Quarterly25(1) 5–17
35.
Robert and Company, 229 Peachtree Street NE, International Tower, Suite 2000, Atlanta, GA
36.
Robert and Company, 1986aComprehensive Land Use Plan 1986–2000 prepared for Dekalb County
37.
Robert and Company, 1986bDouglas County, Georgia Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan
38.
Robert and Company, 1992Comprehensive Land Use Plan 1986–2000 (amended), prepared for Dekalb County
39.
SabatierP, 1999, “Two decades of implementation research: From control to guidance and learning”, in Current Issues in Public Administration6th edition, Ed. LaneF, (Bedford/St Martin's, Boston, MA) pp 281–293
40.
TalenE, 1996, “Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning”Journal of Planning Literature10248–259
41.
WeitzJSelzerE, 1998, “Regional planning and regional governance in the United States 1979–1996”Journal of Planning Literature12361–386
42.
WikstromN, 1980, “Studying regional councils: The quest for a developmental theory”Southern Review of Public Administration4(1) 81–99
43.
WildavskyA, 1973, “If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing”Policy Sciences4127–153
