Attention to if and how plans are implemented is increasing. Among the conceptions of plan implementation used by scholars, plan conformance and plan performance are most prominent, though rarely have both been assessed in a single study. We assess plan conformance and a modified version of performance, which we call influence, for a sample of more than 100 local hazard mitigation plans developed in response to a national planning requirement in the United States. Our findings indicate that progress on implementation of the policies included in the plans (plan conformance) is moderate, but that the rate of progress varies widely by the type of policy and the state in which the local jurisdiction is located. The findings also indicate that coordination of hazard mitigation plans (plan influence) is strongest with other emergency management agency-led planning initiatives and weaker with planning initiatives led by other agencies. National officials interested in advancing local implementation of national goals need to consider the degree to which state and local governments are given autonomy to select and prioritize local policies included in plans, as well as constraints on coordination across planning initiatives.
AlexanderE RFaludiA (1989) Planning and planning implementation: notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16: 127–140.
2.
AlfasiNAlmagorJBenensonI (2012) The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: Insights from high resolution observation. Land Use Policy29: 862–877.
3.
AltermanRHillM (1978) Implementation of urban land use plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners33(1): 274–285.
4.
AltesW K K (2006) Stagnation in housing production: another success in the Dutch ‘planner’s paradise’?Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33: 97–114.
5.
BaerW C (1997) General plan evaluation criteria — an approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association63(3): 329–345.
6.
BerkeP R (1998) Reducing natural hazard risks through state growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association64(1): 76–87.
7.
BerkeP RFrenchS P (1994) The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research13: 237–250.
8.
BerkePGodschalkD R (2009) Searching for the good plan: a meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature23(3): 227–240.
9.
Berke P R and Smith G (2010) Hazard mitigation, planning, and disaster resiliency: challenges and strategic choices for the 21st entury. In: U Fra (ed.) Sustainable Development and Disaster Resiliency. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp.1–23.
10.
BerkeP RRoenigkDKaiserEBurbyR (1996) Enhancing plan quality: evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management39(1): 79–96.
11.
BerkeP RBackhurstMDayMEricksenNLaurianLCrawfordJDixonJ (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.
12.
BerkeP RGodschalkD RKaiserE J (2006) Urban Land Use Planning, fifth edition, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13.
BerkeP RLylesWSmithG (2014) Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation policies on local land use policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research34: 60–76.
14.
BrodyS DHighfieldW E (2005) Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental lanning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association71(2): 159–175.
15.
BrodyS DCarrascoVHighfieldW E (2006) Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research25: 294–310.
16.
BrodyS DHighfieldW EThorntonS (2006) Planning at the urban fringe: an examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33(1): 75–96.
17.
Burby R J (Ed.) (1998) Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry/National Academy Press.
18.
BurbyR J (2003) Making plans that matter — citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association69(1): 33–49.
19.
BurbyR J (2005) Have state comprehensive planning mandates reduced insured losses from natural disasters?Natural Hazards Review6(2): 67–81.
20.
BurbyR JMayP J (1997) Making Governments Plan, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
CalkinsH W (1979) The planning monitor: an accountability theory of plan evaluation. Environment and Planning A11(7): 745–758.
22.
CouperM (2008) Designing Effective Web Surveys, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
DaltonL C (1985) Politics and planning agency performance lessons from Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association51(2): 189–199.
24.
DaltonL CBurbyR J (1994) mandates, plans, and planners: building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association60(4): 444–461.
25.
DaltonL CConoverMRudholmGTsudaRBaerW C (1989) The limits of regulation: evidence from local plan implementation in California. Journal of the American Planning Association55: 151–168.
DillmanD ASmythJ DChristiaL M (2008) Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: John Wiley.
28.
DriessenP J (1997) Performance and implementing institutions in rural land development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24(6): 859–869.
29.
FaludiA (2000) The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research15(4): 299–318.
30.
FEMA (2008) Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Blue Book) Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
31.
FretchlingJ A (2007) Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation. Inc, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
32.
GilgA WKellyM P (1997) The delivery of planning policy in Great Britain: explaining the implementation gap. New evidence from a case study in rural England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy15: 19–36.
33.
GodschalkD RBrowerD JBeatleyT (1989) Catastrophic Coastal Storms: Hazard Mitigation and Development Management, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
GodschalkD R (2010) Lee County, Florida. In: SchwabJ (ed.) Case Studies: Large Jurisdictions, in Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning, Planning Advisory Service Report 560, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, pp. 60–74.
35.
HopkinsL D (2001) Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans, Washington, DC: Island Press.
JulianD AJonesADevoD (1995) Open systems evaluation and the logic model: program planning and evaluation tools. Evaluation and Program Planning18(4): 333–341.
38.
Kartez J D and Faupel C E (1994) Comprehensive hazard management and the role of cooperation between local planning departments and emergency management offices. Technical report, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center at Texas A&M, College Station, TX.
39.
KnaapG JDingCHopkinsL D (2001) Do plans atter? The effects of light rail plans on land values in station areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research21: 32–39.
40.
LangloisP (2010) Municipal visions, market realities: does planning guide residential development?Environment and Planning. B: planning and Design37(3): 449–462.
41.
LaurianLDayMBackhurstMBerkePCrawfordJDixonJChapmanS (2004a) What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47(4): 555–577.
42.
LaurianLDayMBerkePEricksenNBackhurstMCrawfordJDixonJ (2004b) Evaluating plan implementation: a conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association70(4): 471–480.
43.
LaurianLCrawfordJDayMKouwenhovenPMasonGEricksenNBeattieL (2010) Evaluating the outcomes of plans: theory, practice and methodology. Environment and Planning B; Planning and Design37: 740–757.
44.
LohC G (2011) Assessing and interpreting non-conformance in land use planning implementation. Planning Practice and Research26(3): 271–287.
45.
Lyles W (2012) Stakeholder network influences on local-level hazard mitigation planning outputs. PhD Thesis, Department of City and Regional Planning, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
46.
LylesWStevensM (2014) Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012 growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research34: 433–450.
47.
LylesWBerkePSmithG (2014a) A comparison of local hazard mitigation plan quality in six states, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning122: 89–99.
48.
LylesL WBerkePSmithG (2014b) Do planners matter? Examining factors driving incorporation of land use approaches into hazard mitigation plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management57(5): 792–811.
49.
MastopH (1997) Performance in Dutch spatial planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24(6): 807–813.
50.
MastopHFaludiA (1997) Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 815–832.
51.
MastopHNeedhamB (1997) Performance studies in spatial planning: the state of the art. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 881–888.
52.
MayP JBurbyR JEricksenN JHandmerJ WDixonJ EMichaelsSSmithD I (1996) Environmental Management and Governance:Iintergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability, London: Routledge.
53.
MiletiD S (1999) Disasters By Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
54.
NeedhamBZwanikkenTFaludiA (1997) Strategies for improving the performance of planning: some empirical research. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 871–880.
55.
NelsonA CFrenchS P (2002) Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural disasters: a case study of the Northridge earthquake with planning policy considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association68(2): 194–207.
56.
NolonJ (2009) Climate change and sustainable development: the quest for green communities. Planning and Environmental Law61(10): 3–7.
57.
NortonR K (2005) Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(2): 149–171.
58.
NortonR K (2008) Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use Policy25: 432–454.
59.
OliveriaVPinhoP (2009) Evaluating plans, processes and results. Planning Theory and Practice10(1): 35–63.
60.
OliveriaVPinhoP (2010) Evaluating in urban planning: advances and prospects. Journal of Planning Literature24(4): 343–361.
61.
PressmanJ LWildavskyA (1973) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
62.
SeasonsM (2003a) Indicators and core area planning: applications in Canada’s mid-sized cities. Planning Practice and Research18(1): 63–80.
63.
SeasonsM (2003b) Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning: considering the realities. Journal of the American Planning Association69(4): 430–440.
64.
Smith G (2009) Planning for sustainable and disaster resilient communities. In: Pine J (ed.) Natural Hazards Analysis: Reducing the Impact of Disasters., Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp.221–247.
65.
SmithGLylesWBerkeP R (2013) The role of hazard mitigation planning in building local capacity and commitment: a tale of six states. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters31(2): 178–203.
66.
TalenE (1996a) Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature10(3): 248–259.
67.
TalenE (1996b) After the plans: methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research16(2): 79–91.
68.
TalenE (1997) Success, failure and conformance: an alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 573–587.
69.
TeubnerG (1983) Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law and Society Review17: 239–289.
70.
Van DammeLGalleMPen-SoetermeerMVerdasK (1997) Improving the performance of local land-use plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 833–844.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
