The major planning theories provide a theoretical foundation for environmental planning. This study extends the major planning theories and develops a robust conceptual framework to measure the key factors influencing local environmental-plan quality. A random sample of forty Californian local comprehensive land-use plans and associated planning processes is analyzed to identify the critical factors influencing environmental-plan quality. Results from multiple regression analysis indicate that regular updating, environmental-information management and sharing, and planners contribute significantly to local environmental-plan quality. The findings expand established planning theories and practice by suggesting ways to improve local environmental-plan quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltshulerA, 1965, “The goals of comprehensive planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners31186–195
2.
BaerW C, 1997, “General plan evaluation criteria—An approach to making better plans”Journal of the American Planning Association63329–344
3.
BerkeP R, 2002, “Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century”Journal of Planning Literature1721–36
4.
BerkeP RConroyM M, 2000, “Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans”Journal of the American Planning Association6621–33
5.
BerkeP RFrenchS P, 1994, “The influence of state planning mandates on local-plan quality”Journal of Planning Education and Research13237–250
6.
BerkeP RBeatleyTWilhiteS, 1989, “Influences on local adoption of planning measures for earthquake hazard mitigation”International Journal of Mass Emergency Disasters733–56
7.
BerkeP RRoenigkDKaiserEBurbyR, 1996, “Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management3979–96
8.
BerkePBackhurstMDayMEricksenNLaurianLCrawfordJDixonJ, 2006, “What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33581–600
9.
BrodyS D, 2003a, “Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management”Journal of Planning Education and Research22407–419
10.
BrodyS D, 2003b, “Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local comprehensive land use planning”Population and Environment24511–540
11.
BrodyS D, 2003c, “Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards”Journal of Planning Education and Research23191–201
12.
BrodyS D, 2003d, “Examining the role of resource-based industries in ecosystem approaches to management: An evaluation of comprehensive plans in Florida”Society and Natural Resources16625–641
13.
BrodyS DHighfieldW E, 2005, “Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida”Journal of the American Planning Association71159–175
14.
BrodyS DGodschalkD RBurbyR J, 2003, “Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices”Journal of the American Planning Association69245–264
15.
BrodyS DCarrascoVHighfieldW E, 2006, “Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida”Journal of Planning Education and Research25294–310
16.
BurbyR J, 2003, “Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action”Journal of the American Planning Association6933–49
17.
BurbyR J, 2005, “Have state comprehensive planning mandates reduced insured losses from natural disasters?”Natural Hazards Review667–81
18.
BurbyR JMayP, 1998, “Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management4195–110
19.
ConroyM MBerkeP R, 2004, “What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development”Environment and Planning A361381–1396
20.
DayD, 1997, “Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept?”Journal of Planning Literature11421–434
21.
DoelleMSinclairA J, 2006, “Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability”Environmental Impact Assessment Review26185–205
22.
EllingB, 2000, “Integration of strategic environmental assessment into regional spatial planning”Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal18233–243
ForesterJ, 1984, “Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through”Public Administration Review4423–31
25.
GodschalkD RBrodyS DBurryR, 2003, “Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management46733–754
26.
GuaganoG AMarkeeN, 1995, “Regional differences in the sociodemographic determinants of environmental concern”Population and Environment17135–149
27.
HealeyP, 1992, “A planners day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice”Journal of the American Planning Association589–20
28.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 1999, “Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning”Journal of the American Planning Association65412–423
29.
LaurianLDayMBerkePEricksenNBackhurstMCrawfordJDixonJ, 2004, “Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based methodology”Journal of the American Planning Association70471–480
LowryKAdlerPMilnerN, 1997, “Participating the public: Group process politics and planning”Journal of Planning Education and Research16177–187
32.
NortonR K, 2005, “Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina”Journal of Planning Education Research25149–171
33.
OlshanskyR B, 2001, “Comprehensive land use planning for seismic safety: The Los Angeles county experience 1971–1994”Journal of the American Planning Association67173–185
34.
PendallR, 1998, “Problems and prospects in local environmental assessment: Lessons from the United States”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management415–23
35.
RichardsonT, 2005, “Environmental assessment and planning theory: Four short stories about power multiple rationality and ethics”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25341–365
36.
ScottDWillitsF K, 1994, “Environmental attitudes and behavior”Environmental Behavior26239–261
37.
SinclairA JDiduckA, 2001, “Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative learning perspective”Environmental Impact Assessment Review21113–136
38.
VanderhaegenMMuroE, 2005, “Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25123–142
39.
Van LiereK DDunlapR E, 1981, “Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it's measured?”Environmental Behavior13651–676
