After abating somewhat in the early 1980s, state involvement in local planning has regained momentum. States are increasingly adopting new or strengthening existing growth management programs that mandate local governments to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans. This study examines the influence of state mandates on the content and quality of comprehensive plans from 139 local governments in five states. Three components of the plans are analyzed: fact basis, goals, and policies. This study indicates that state mandates have a clearly measurable effect in enhancing plan quality. The findings also suggest that the design of the mandate itself can be important in determining local plan quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alterman, R., and M. Hill.1978. Implementation of urban land use plans . Journal of the American Institute of Planners44:274-285.
2.
Applebaum, R., M. Dolny, P. Dreier, and J. Gilderbloom.1991. Scapegoating rent control: Masking the causes of homelessness. Journal of the American Planning Association57:152-165.
3.
Berke, P., and T. Beatley.1992. Planning for Earthquakes. Risk, Politics and Policy. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Berke, P., and N. Stubbs.1989. Automated decision support systems for hurricane mitigation planning. Simulation53:101-109.
5.
Bollens, S.1992. State growth management: Intergovernmental frameworks and policy objectives. Journal of the American Planning Association58:454-467.
6.
Bolton, P., S. Heikkla, M. Greene, and P. May.1986. Land Use Planning for Earthquake Hazards Mztigation: A Handbook for Planners. Boulder, Colorado : Natural Hazards Research Applications and Information Center, University of Colorado.
7.
Bosselman, F., and D. Callies.1971. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control . Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality.
8.
Bradley, J.1968. Distribution-Free Statistical Tests. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
9.
Braithwaite, J.1985. To Punish or Persuade, Enforcement of Coal Mine SafetyAlbany: State University of New York Press.
10.
Burby, R.1992. Limiting the Development of Hazardous Areas. The Role of Land Use Plans and State Planning Mandates. New Orleans, Louisiana: College of Urban and Public Affairs, University of New Orleans.
11.
Burby, R., B. Cigler, S. French, E. Kaiser, J. Kartez, D. Roenigk, D. Weist, and D. Whittington.1991. Sharing Environmental Risks, How to Control Governments'Losses in Natural Disasters. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
12.
Burby, R., and L.C. Dalton. In press. Plans can matter: The role of state planning mandates in limiting development. Public Administration Review .
13.
Burby, R.J., and S.P. French.1981. Coping with floods: The land use management paradox. Journal of the American Planning Association47:289-300.
14.
Burby, R., S. French, B. Cigler, E.J. Kaiser, D.H. Moreau, and B. Stiftel.1985. Floodplain Land Use Management A National AssessmentBoulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
15.
Chapin, S., and E. Kaiser.1979. Urban Land Use Planning. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
16.
Connerly, C.1990. State mandated housing plans: How effective are they? A case study of Florida's growth management act housing element requirement . Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Austin, Texas. 1-4 November.
17.
Dalton, L.1989. The limits of regulation: Evidence form local plan implementation in California. Journal of the American Planning Association55:151-169.
18.
DeGrove, J.1984. Land, Growth, and Politics. Chicago, Illinois: APA Planners Press.
19.
DeGrove, J.1989. Growth management and governance. In Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and a Research Agenda, eds. D. Brower and D. Godschalk.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
20.
DeGrove, J.1992. Planning and Growth Management in the States: The New Frontier for Land Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
21.
Elmore, R.1980. Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions . Political Science Quarterly94:601-616.
Fishman, R., ed. 1978. The State of Art in Local Planning. In Housing for All Under Law: New Directions in Housing, Land Use, and Planning Law. Report of the American Bar Association, Advisory Committee on Housing and Urban Growth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company .
24.
Gale, D.1992. Eight state-sponsored growth management programs: A comparative analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association58:425-439.
25.
Godschalk, D., D. Brower, and T. Beatley.1989. Catastrophic Coastal Storms: Hazard Mitigation and Development Management. Durham, North Carolina : Duke University Press.
26.
Googin, M., A. Bowman, J. Lester, and L. O'Toole.1990. Implementation Theory and Practice, Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresam.
27.
Healy, R., and J. Rosenberg.1979. Land Use and the States. Second edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press.
28.
Hedge, D., D. Menzel, and M. Kraus.1989. The intergovernmental milieu and street-level implementation. Social Science Quarterly70:285-299.
29.
Hill, M.1968. A goals achievement matrix for evaluating alternative plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners3:19-28.
30.
Hollander, E., L. Pollock, J. Recklinger, and F. Beal.1988. General development plans. In The Practice of Local Government Planning, second edition, eds. F. So and J. Getzels.Washington. D.C.: International City Management Association.
31.
Innes, J.1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association58:440-454.
32.
Kent, T.J.1990. The Urban General PlanChicago : American Planning Association.
33.
Knaap, G.1992. Evaluating land use programs: Structured thoughts and research strategy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference , Columbus, Ohio, October 30-November 1.
34.
Knaap, G., and A.C. Nelson.1992. The Regulated Landscape Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Litchfield, N., P. Kettle, and M. Whitebread.1975. Evaluation in the Planning Process . Oxford, England: Pergamon Press .
37.
Lowry, K.1985. Assessing the implementation of federal coastal policy . Journal of the American Planning Association51:288-298.
38.
Majone, G., and A. Wildavsky.1978. Implementation as evolution. In Policy Studies Review Annual, Vol. 2., ed. H. E. Freeman.Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
39.
May, P.1992. Regulatory federalism: State mandate design and hazard mitigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, March 19-22.
40.
May, P., and W. Williams.1986. Disaster Policy Implementation Managing Programs Under Shared GovernanceNew York: Plenum Press.
41.
Mazmanian, D., and P. Sabatier.1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresam.
42.
McFarlane, D.1989. Testing the statutory coherence hypothesis. Administration and Society20:395-424.
43.
Miles, M., and A.M. Huberman.1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
44.
Owens, D.1985. Coastal management in North Carolina: Building a regional consensus. Journal of the American Planning Association51:322-329.
45.
Petak, W., and A. Atkisson.1982. Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy. New York: Spnnger-Verlag .
46.
Pitkin, S.1992. Comprehensive plan format: A key to impacting decisionmaking . Environmental and Urban Issues19(4):8-10.
47.
Popper, F.1988. Understanding American land use regulation since 1970: A revisionist interpretation. Journal of the American Planning Association54:291-301.
48.
Sabatier, P.1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy6:21-48.
49.
Scholz, J.1984. Cooperation, deterrence, and the ecology of regulatory enforecment. Law and Society Review18:179-224.
50.
Scholz, J.1991. Cooperative regualtory enforecment and the politics of administrative effectiveness. American Political Science Review85:115-136.
51.
Van Meter, D., and C. Van Horn.1975. The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society6:445-488.
52.
Wenger, D., T. James, and C. Faupel.1980. Disaster planning: An examination of disaster plans and public expectations. In Disaster Beliefs and Emergency Planning. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
53.
Wyner, A., and D. Mann.1986. Preparing for California's Earthquakes: Local Government and Seismic Safety. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.
