Planning departments can frame a policy by citing some of its presumed benefits over others. However, there is limited understanding of framing’s frequency within planning and why planning departments pursue it. Using a nationwide mail survey, we examined how planning departments (n = 197; 40.1% response rate) frame discussions of proposals to increase allowed residential density. We found that departments air fewer presumed benefits of these proposals than respondents perceive to exist, demonstrating that departments selectively frame these proposals. Using logistic regression modeling, we found a number of demographic and political factors associated with departments’ framing, suggesting that this framing is rhetorical.
AurandAndrew. 2010. “Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing.” Urban Studies47 (5): 1015–36.
3.
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 (2): 271–86.
4.
BurchellRobert W.DownsAnthonyMcCannBarbaraMukherjiSahan. 2006. Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5.
BurchellRobert W.ListokinDavidGalleyCatherine C.2000. “Smart Growth: More Than a Ghost of Urban Policy Past, Less Than a Bold New Horizon.” Housing Policy Debate11 (4): 821–79.
6.
BurchellRobert W.MukherjiSahan. 2003. “Conventional Development versus Managed Growth: the Costs of Sprawl.” American Journal of Public Health93 (9): 1534–40.
7.
BurtonElizabeth. 2000. “The Compact City: Just or Just Compact?” Urban Studies37 (11): 1969–2006.
8.
CalthorpePeterFultonWilliam. 2001. The Regional City. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
CampoliJulie. 2012. Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
10.
CampoliJulieMacLeanAlex S.2007. Visualizing Density. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Instittue of Land Policy.
11.
CappellariLorenzoJenkinsStephen P.2003. “Multivariate Probit Regression Using Simulated Maximum Likelihood.” The Stata Journal3 (3): 278–94.
12.
CheckerMelissa. 2011. “Wiped Out by the ‘Greenwave’: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics Urban Sustainability.” City and Society23 (2): 210–29.
13.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review101 (4): 637–55.
14.
CollinRobert W.CollinRobin M.1997. “Urban Environmentalism and Race.” In Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows, edited by ThomasJ. M.RitzdorfM., 220–36. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
CorburnJason. 2003. “Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making.” Journal of Planning Education and Research22:420–33.
16.
DillmanDon A.SmythJolene D.ChristianLeah Melani. 2008. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
17.
DobersteinCareyHickeyRossLiEric. 2016. “Nudging NIMBY: Do Positive Messages Regarding the Benefits of Increased Housing Density Influence Resident Stated Housing Development Preferences?” Land Use Policy54:276–89.
FawcettTom. 2006. “An Introduction to ROC Analysis.” Pattern Recognition Letters27:861–74.
24.
FischelWilliam A. 2004. “An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects.” Urban Studies41 (2): 317–40.
25.
FossAnn. 2016. “Divergent Responses to Sustainability and Climate Change Planning: The Role of Politics, Cultural Frames and Public Participation.” Urban Studies 55 (2): 332–48. doi:10.1177/0042098016651554.
26.
FrickKaren Trapenberg. 2013. “The Actions of Discontent: Tea Party and Property Rights Activists Pushing Back against Regional Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association79 (3): 190–200.
27.
FrumkinHoward. 2002. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports117:201–17.
28.
GardnerRobertBurgessGuy. 2003. “Analysis of Colorado Growth Conflict Frames.” In Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts, edited by LewickiR.GrayB.Elliott5M., 387–40. Washington, DC: Island Press.
29.
GlaeserEdward L.GottliebJoshua D.2006. “Urban Resurgence and the Consumer City.” Urban Studies, 43 (8): 1275–99.
30.
GlonekGary F. V.McCullaghPeter. 1995. “Multivariate Logistic Models.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)57 (3): 533–46.
31.
GoetzEdward G. 2008. “Words Matter: The Importance of Issue Framing and the Case of Affordable Housing.” Journal of the American Planning Association74 (2): 222–29.
32.
GoffmanErving. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
GordonPeterRichardsonHarry W.1997. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 95–106.
34.
HairJoseph F.AndersonRolphTathamRonald L.BlackWilliam C.2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
HastorfAlbert H.CantrilHadley. 1954. “They Saw a Game: A Case Study.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology49 (1): 129–34.
36.
HealeyPatsy. 1992. “Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Town Planning Review63 (2): 143–62.
37.
HirtSonia. 2015. Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
JacobyWilliam G. 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 750–67.
39.
JamesG. S.1954. “Tests of Linear Hypotheses in Univariate and Multivariate Analysis When the Ratios of the Population Variances Are Unknown.” Biometrika41: 19–43.
40.
KahanDan M. 2011. “Nuetral Principles, Motivational Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law Review.” Harvard Law Review126:1–77.
41.
KahanDan M.HoffmanDavid A.BramanDonald. 2009. “Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism.” Harvard Law Review122: 837–906.
42.
KahnemanDaniel. 2003. “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics.” The American Economic Review93 (5): 1449–75.
43.
KendigLane H.KeastBret C.2010. Community Character: Principles for Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
44.
KlostermanRichard E. 1992. “Planning Theory Education in the 1980s: Results of a Second Course Survey.” Journal of Planning Education and Research11:130–40.
45.
KlostermanRichard E. 2000. Planning Theory Education in the 1990s: Results of a Course Survey. Atlanta, GA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
46.
KlostermanRichard E. 2011. “Planning Theory Education: A Thirty-Year Review.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (3): 319–31.
47.
LindblomCharles E.CohenDavid K.1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
LordCharles G.RossLeeLepperMark R.1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (11): 2098–109.
49.
McCrightAaron M.DunlapRiley E.2011. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly52 (2): 155–94.
50.
MeligranaJohnSkaburskisAndrejs. 2005. “Extent, Location, and Profiles of Continuing Gentrification in Canadian Metropolitan Areas, 1981–2001.” Urban Studies42 (9): 1569–92.
51.
MontgomeryJohn. 1998. “Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design3 (1): 93–116.
52.
NelsonThomas E.OxleyZoe M.ClawsonRosalee A.1997. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior19 (3): 221–46.
53.
PanZhongdangKosickiGerald M.2001. “Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation.” In Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World, edited by ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.Jr.GrantA. E., 35–66. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
.
54.
ReichMichael. 1975. “A Noisy Tale of Two Cities.” Planning41 (8): 8–11.
55.
ReinMartin. 1976. Social Science and Public Policy. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
56.
ScheufeleDietram A. 1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication49 (1): 103–22.
57.
ScheufeleDietram A.TewksburyDavid. 2007. “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” Journal of Communication57: 9–20.
58.
SchönDonald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
59.
SchönDonald A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
SchönDonald A.ReinMartin. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
61.
Schulz-HardtStefanFreyDieterLuthgensCarstenMoscoviciSerge, 2000. “Biased Information Search in Group Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78 (4): 655–69.
62.
SkocpolThedaWilliamsonVanessa. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TausanovitchChrisWarshawChristopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review108 (3): 605–41.
65.
TaylorDorceta E. 2002. “Race, Class, Gender, and American Environmentalism. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.” Accessed March 16, 2017.https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr534.pdf.
66.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” The Journal of Business59 (4): S251–S278.
67.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 Census of Population and Housing. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
VallanceSuzannePerkinsHarvey C.MooreKevin. 2005. “The Results of Making a City More Compact: Neighbours’ Interpretation of Urban Infill. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32:715–33.
70.
Van HerzeleAnn. 2004. “Local Knowledge in Action: Valuing Nonprofessional Reasoning in the Planning Process.” Journal of Planning Education and Research24:197–212.
71.
WhittemoreAndrew H. 2013. “Finding Sustainability in Conservative Contexts: Topics for Conversation between American Conservative Elites, Planners, and the Conservative Base.” Urban Studies50 (12): 2460–77.
72.
WhittemoreAndrew H.BenDorTodd K.2018a. “Exploring the Acceptability of Densification: How Positive Framing and Source Credibility Can Change Attitudes.” Urban Affairs Review, January, 1–31. doi:1078087418754725.
73.
WhittemoreAndrew H.BenDorTodd K.2018b. “Talking about Density: An Empirical Investigation of Framing.” Land Use Policy72:181–91.
74.
YearleySteven. 2000. “Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study.” Public Understanding of Science9:105–22.
