Planning researchers often use planning capacity as an independent variable in studies of plan making and implementation. Increased capacity is associated with higher quality planning processes and plans. Yet, unlike in other fields such as public administration, planners have not devoted much attention to understanding the nature, impacts, and implications of planning capacity. This article synthesizes the literature concerning capacity in planning and related fields and proposes criteria that future definitions and measures of capacity should include.
ArendtRandall. 1987. Land-use planning in Britain and New England. Monadnock Perspectives8:1–4.
2.
ArnsteinSherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35:216–24.
3.
BabbieEarl. 2001. The practice of social research. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
BengstonDavid N.FletcherJennifer O.NelsonKristen C.. 2004. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning69:271–86.
5.
BerkePhilipBackhurstMichaelDayMaxineEricksenNeilLaurianLucieCrawfordJanDixonJennifer. 2006. What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33:581–600.
6.
BerkePhilip R.ConroyMaria Manta. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development?Journal of the American Planning Association66:21–33.
7.
BrodySamuel D. 2003. 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 Research22:407–19.
8.
BrodySamuel D.CarrascoVirginiaHighfieldWesley E.. 2006. Measuring the adoption of local sprawl. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:294–310. doi:10.1177/0739456x05280546.
9.
BrodySamuel D.GodschalkDavid R.BurbyRaymond J.. 2003. Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association69:245–64.
10.
BrodySamuel D.HighfieldWesley E.CarrascoVirginia. 2004. Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landscape and Urban Planning69:33–50.
11.
BrownTrevorPotoskiMatt. 2006. Contracting for management: Assessing management capacity under alternative service delivery arrangements. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management25:323–46.
12.
BurbyRaymond J.DaltonLinda C.. 1994. Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas. Public Administration Review54:229–38.
13.
BurbyRaymond J.MayPeter J.. 1997. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing growth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
CohenDavid K.RaudenbushStephenBallDeborah Loewenberg. 2000. Resources, instruction, and research. CTP Working Paper, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, Seattle.
15.
DaltonLinda C. 1985. Politics and planning agency performance: Lessons from Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association51:189–99.
16.
DaltonLinda C.BurbyRaymond J.. 1994. Mandates, plans, and planners: Building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association60:444–61.
17.
DellerSteven C.NelsonCarl H.WalzerNorman. 1992. Measuring managerial efficiency in rural government. Public Productivity and Management Review15:355–70.
18.
DentJonathan. 2008. Civic capacity and community response to government action: The endangered species act and state water law in the Methow and Walla Walla basins in the Pacific Northwest. International Journal of Public Administration31:262–76.
19.
FilionPierreMcSpurrenKathleenBuntingTrudiTseAlan. 2004. Canada–US metropolitan density patterns: Zonal convergence and divergence. Urban Geography25:42–65.
20.
GarganJohn T. 1981. Consideration of local government capacity. Public Administration Review41:649–58.
21.
GerberE. R.LohC. G.. 2011. Prospects for expanding regional planning efforts in Michigan. Urban Studies48:2303–19.
22.
GittellRossVidalAvis. 1998. Community organizing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
GlickmanNorman J.ServonLisa J.. 2003. By the numbers: Measuring community development corporations’ capacity. Journal of Planning Education and Research22:240–56.
24.
GoldfingerJohnnyFergusonMargaret R.. 2009. Social capital and governmental performance in large American cities. State and Local Government Review41:25–36.
25.
GreasleyStephenJohnPeterWolmanHarold. 2011. Does government performance matter? The effects of local government on urban outcomes in England. Urban Studies48:1835–51.
26.
HannaKevin S. 2005. Planning for sustainability: Experiences in two contrasting communities. Journal of the American Planning Association71:27–40.
27.
HawkinsBrett W.KocourekTerryStacyDonaldSwellerRichard A.. 1975. A macro analysis of the effects of planning agency professionalism on municipal planning outputs. Journal of the American Planning Association41:419–24.
28.
HonadleBeth Walter. 1981. A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review41:575–80.
29.
HopkinsLewis D. 2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington, DC: Island Press.
30.
JeongMoon-Gi. 2007. Local political structure, administrative capacity, and revenue policy choice. State and Local Government Review39:84–95.
31.
LobaoLindaKraybillDavid. 2009. Poverty and local governments: Economic development and community service provision in an era of decentralization. Growth and Change40:418–51.
32.
LohCarolyn G. 2012. Four potential disconnects in the local planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research32:33–47.
33.
MargerumRichard D. 2002. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research21:237–53.
34.
MayPeter J. 1993. Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12:634–63.
35.
MayPeter J. 1995. Can cooperation be mandated? Implementing intergovernmental environmental management in New South Wales and New Zealand. Publius25:89–113.
36.
MayPeter J.BurbyRaymond J.. 1996. Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15:171–201.
37.
McGrainBrianBaumerAmy J.. 2004. To plan or not to plan, Institute for Public Policy and Social Research policy brief. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.
38.
NortonRichard K. 2005. Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:149–71.
39.
Puppim de OliveiraJose Antonio. 2005. Enforcing protected area guidelines in Brazil: What explains participation in the implementation process. Journal of Planning Education and Research24:420–36.
40.
RudelThomas K. 1989. Situations and strategies in American land-use planning, a volume in the American Sociological Association’s rose monograph series. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SerokaJ. 1988. Community growth and administrative capacity. National Civic Review77:42–46.
42.
SerokaJ. 1989. Public administration and planning in rural areas. Journal of Planning Literature4:430–44.
43.
SokolowAlvin D. 1981. Local governments: Capacity and will. In Nonmetropolitan American in transition, ed. HawleyAmos H.MazieSara Mills, 704–35. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
44.
SokolowAlvin D. 1987. Small governments as newcomers to American federalism. Publius17:1–13.
45.
StoneClarence N. 2005. Looking back to look forward: Reflections on urban regime analysis. Urban Affairs Review40:309–41.
46.
VisserJames A. 2004. Voluntary regional councils and the new regionalism: Effective governance in the smaller metropolis. Journal of Planning Education and Research24:51–63.
