Detailed Case Study - Zoning and Planning

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality A Fresh Look at What Makes “A Good Plan”

Gene Bunnell & Edward J. Jepson Jr.

To cite this article: Gene Bunnell & Edward J. Jepson Jr. (2011) The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality, Journal of the American Planning Association, 77:4, 338-353, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2011.619951

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.619951

Published online: 18 Oct 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2430

View related articles

Citing articles: 37 View citing articles

Bunnell, Gene, & Jepson Jr., Edward J. (2011). The effect of mandated planning on plan quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338-353. https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/ full/10.1080/01944363.2011.619951?scroll=top&needAccess=true

338

Problem: What is a “good plan”? Among their key goals, plans aim to communicate, influence and engage. Persuasiveness (the ability to engage and motivate) is, therefore, an essential plan quality. Unfortunately, all too many comprehensive plans lack this important quality. In addition, state planning mandates intended to strengthen planning can instead worsen this shortcoming.

Purpose: To develop a methodology to measure and compare the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans in states with and without planning mandates.

Methods: A specially designed protocol was developed to measure the communicative and persuasive qualities of comprehensive plans. Plans of 20 municipalities in states with planning mandates were compared with those of 20 municipalities in states without plan- ning mandates. Statistical analyses of the results were conducted using the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney (U) test and simple t tests.

Results and conclusions: Requiring local governments to prepare plans did not result in better plans—at least as measured by a protocol tailored specifically to assess the persuasiveness and communicative quality of plans. Plans prepared in mandate states were much more rigid and standardized than those prepared in nonmandate states. Nonman- dated plans also scored much higher in terms of their narrative and storytelling qualities than mandated plans. Private consultant involvement in plan making significantly increased the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans.

Takeaway for practice: Plans in all 40 municipalities fell far short of the ideal communicative and persuasive qualities set forth in the protocol. The deficiency was greatest in states with planning mandates. The involvement of private consultants had a

The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality

A Fresh Look at What Makes “A Good Plan”

Gene Bunnell and Edward J. Jepson, Jr.

P lanning professionals and researchers alike often disagree about what constitutes a “good plan” (Baer, 1997; Ohm, 2005; Susskind, 1978). That does not mean good plans are not made. What makes judging a

good plan difficult, of course, is that plans must typically address complex issues made even more difficult by the conflicting goals and interests of multiple constituencies. Given the complexity and diversity of planning contexts, there will never be one best way to plan.

If one community’s good plan might well be another’s recipe for trou- ble, it is difficult to imagine anything resembling consensus to emerge about the ideal plan format or strategy, even within a single state. How then should legislation mandating the preparation of local plans be written? Allowing adequate flexibility to allow for differences in places, their resi- dents, and their aspirations might seem in order. Yet, if there is too much flexibility in those mandates, what is the value of the requirement? Is the mandate truly binding if anything goes?

We begin this article by identifying what we believe are the basic, mini- mum qualities of a good plan, namely, that it should clearly and effectively communicate key principles and ideas, and energize, engage, and inspire residents in support of those principles and ideas. In other words, we argue that the extent to which plans persuasively connect with readers, and elicit their positive participation, should constitute the core notion of what consti- tutes a good plan. We, then, identify specific plan characteristics that we believe strengthen the communicative and persuasive quality of plans, and assemble them into a protocol that can be used to score and compare plans with respect to this core dimension.

positive impact on plan quality, while the provision of state funding for planning did not.

Keywords: plan quality, plan persuasiveness, planning mandates, comprehensive planning, planning requirements

Research support: None. About the authors: Gene Bunnell ([email protected]) is a member of the AICP and an associate professor in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University at Albany,

State University of New York. Edward J. Jepson, Jr. ([email protected]) is a member of the AICP and was an assistant professor in the master of science in planning program at the University of Tennessee, which was terminated in July 2009. He is currently working as a planning consultant.

Journal of the American Planning Association,

Vol. 77, No. 4, Autumn 2011

DOI 10.1080/01944363.2011.619951

© American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 338

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 339

Preparing persuasive plans is especially important in localities, where plans are prepared by local governments led by elected officials, who in turn are heavily influenced by local public opinion. Persuasion is necessary to “get the policymaker’s or the public’s attention, to make them ‘listen to reason’ where they are blinded by stereotypes or by wishful thinking” (Majone, 1989, p. 39).

As the planning profession considers criteria for judg- ing good plans, we need to consider the effect of mandates on the quality and character of plans. Do planning man- dates make plans better, worse, or have no effect in terms of their communicative effectiveness? To contribute to the empirical literature on plan quality and the effects of mandates, we present our study of 40 municipal plans in 4 strategically selected states, two that mandated plans and two that did not. We found that plan quality scores varied considerably in all four groups of plans and few plans met the ideal. Even more significantly, not only did mandates not in themselves produce better plans, the evidence was fairly clear that mandates on average were associated with lower plan quality scores.

The Structure of This Article

We begin by analyzing two professionally accepted protocols currently for evaluating plan quality, revealing that they mostly apply objective, technically verifiable criteria (i.e., whether policies are internally consistent with goals; whether each policy is clearly tied to a specific goal, or goals; and whether goals are quantified based on measurable objectives), and place relatively little importance on assessing the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans.

We argue that there is a subtle and underappreciated connection between mandated planning and concerns about plan quality. The first systematic framework for evaluating the quality of plans (Baer, 1997) was published during a period when the number of states passing legisla- tion mandating plans was reaching a crescendo. Around the same time, there was a burst of research activity exam- ining plan quality and the effects of mandated planning on plan quality. Berke and Godschalk (2009) report that at least 16 studies of plan quality were conducted in various parts of the country between 1997 (when Baer’s article was published) and 2007.

Our article proceeds to consider the question of what comprehensive plans should contain. We revisit the debate between Alfred Bettman and Edward M. Bassett (key drafters of the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act), as recounted by Kent (1964) over whether laws authorizing planning should specify the substantive ele-

ments that needed to be included in general plans. Kent’s opinion on the matter, forcefully expressed in The Urban General Plan, was that a municipal plan “should be gen- eral…should be in a form suitable for public debate … [and] should be available and understandable to the pub- lic…” (p. 91). More than a half century later, this position appears increasingly at odds with the practice of state legislatures, which seem to be increasingly inclined, when adopting planning mandates, to also specify the required contents of plans.

The balance of this article reports on exploratory research examining whether state laws mandating planning are having a discernible effect on the communicative quality and persuasive power of plans. To do so, we de- vised a protocol aimed specifically at assessing the commu- nicative and persuasive qualities of plans. We used the protocol to evaluate and compare 40 comprehensive plans drawn from municipalities in four states, two states that have mandated comprehensive plans (Wisconsin and Tennessee) and two that have not (New York and Massachusetts). The findings of this research, although far from definitive, indicate fairly clearly that planning mandates are not increasing the communicative and persuasive quality of plans and, if anything, appear to be weakening those important qualities.

Previous Research on Plan Quality

Baer’s (1997) JAPA article on general plan evaluation criteria set forth a remarkably comprehensive list of criteria contributing to plan quality. Baer identified 60 criteria, which he organized under eight main headings: adequate explanation of context; “rational model” considerations; procedural validity; adequacy of scope; guidance for imple- mentation; approach, data and methodology; quality of communication; and plan format. The fact that Baer recog- nized that quality of communication and plan format are important contributors to plan quality is noteworthy. Among the factors Baer considered in judging plan quality were:

• Are ideas convincingly presented, given the nature of the audience?

• Are the rationales behind the decisions effectively presented?

• Are proposals, recommendations, and conclusions consistent with objectives?

• Is the tone of the document consistent with the message?

• Are criteria indicated by which the plan is intended to be judged?

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 339

340 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

• Are the size and format of the plan conducive to the use intended?

• Are the authors shown (to indicate professional responsibility, i.e., names of personnel who worked on the plan, as well as agency or firm names)?

• Are graphics used to best advantage? • Is the plan attractively laid out?

In many respects, the criteria above specified by Baer were consistent with the advice offered by Alan Black (1986) 30 years earlier that “[a] plan should be easy to read and use… The document should be designed so that it is attractive and written so that it is interesting. It should not look forbidding or ponderous” (p. 371).

Roughly 10 years after Baer’s (1997) article, Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) developed a plan quality evaluation protocol designed to grade and rank the quality of plans on a numerical scale. This protocol lists 60 criteria (the same number as Baer’s, but not the same criteria) organized under eight main headings (again the same number but different headings). This protocol calls for each of the 60 criteria to be scored either 0 (not identified), 1 (identified but vague), or 2 (identified, clear, detailed). Summing the scores given to all 60 criteria produces a point score that presumably represents a measure of the relative quality of a given plan.

The main difference between the Baer (1997) and Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) protocols is that the latter places less importance on measuring and comparing the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans. One reason for this, we suspect, is that the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser protocol seeks to minimize the amount of subjectivity that might enter into the act of scoring plans, as evidenced by the fact that it is largely composed of objective, technically verifiable criteria. For example, criterion 3.2 asks, “Are policies internally consistent with goals wherein each policy is clearly tied to a specific goal (or goals)?” Criterion 4C.1 asks, “Are goals quantified based on measurable objectives (e.g., 60 percent of all residents within 1/4 mile of transit service)?”

Of the 60 criteria in the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) protocol, only four relate to aspects and qualities that could be said to enhance the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans:

• 5.1 Is the plan imaginative, offering compelling courses of action that inspire people to act?

• 5.3 Does the plan provide clear explanations of alterna- tive courses of action that enhance community flexibility and adaptation in dealing with complex situations?

• 6.5 Is plain English used (avoiding poor, ungrammati- cal, verbose, jargon-filled, unclear language)?

• 6.6 Are clear illustrations used (e.g., diagrams, pictures)?

As scrupulous as the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) protocol is in minimizing subjectivity, it is worth noting that it nevertheless contains an implicit bias in favor of plans that mandate and prescribe, and against those that seek to encourage voluntary compliance through the power of persuasion. Criterion 3.4 of the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser protocol asks: “Are policies mandatory (with words like shall, will, require, must) as opposed to suggestive (with words like consider, should, may)?” If most of a plan’s policies are stated as mandatory, the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser protocol awards 2 points; if some policies are mandatory, it awards 1 point; if none of the policies are mandatory, the score is 0.

As technically sound as the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) protocol is, it could be argued that it has been developed and put forward without explicitly address- ing the question of “What are plans for?” Are plans meant to prescribe what should and must be done, or should they aspire to persuade and motivate?

Baer (1997) reminded readers that plans can serve different purposes, and intimated that different kinds of criteria might be appropriate in assessing the quality of different types of plans. Among the different purposes Baer identified were:

• plan as vision, • plan as blueprint, • plan as land use guide, • plan as remedy, • plan as administrative requirement for federal funds, • plan as pragmatic action, and • plan as response to state and federal planning

mandates.

When a plan is prepared in response to a state or federal planning mandate, or to meet a requirement for federal or state funds, the criteria most relevant to deter- mining plan quality clearly relate to meeting the statutorily required standards and plan elements. A good plan under such circumstances is simply one that meets the rules. Persuasiveness, inspiration, and motivational messages become less relevant. As Baer (1997) observed, “state mandates are exhaustively—even mind numbingly— ‘rational’ in their detailed requirements for technical com- petence” (p. 330). Likewise if a plan is intended to serve as a blueprint or as a land use guide, specifying what should happen and where, the criteria for evaluating plan quality would relate to assessing the extent to which “each and every aspect of the plan…[is] described or mapped or diagrammed in considerable detail…” (p. 334).

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 340

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 341

If, on the other hand, the purpose of a plan is to motivate citizens and their elected officials to seriously consider how their community might change in the future and inspire them to commit to a set of policies and actions aimed at achieving a desired outcome, then different plan qualities are clearly called for. The criteria for determining what makes a good plan in such instances would be more similar to those that might be used in assessing the quality of vision plans, and would be aimed at assessing effective- ness in “communicating the vision in an empathetic, visceral and stimulating way that touches not just the mind, but the soul” (Baer, 1997, p. 333). Many plans that score well on the Berke, Godschalk, and Kaiser (2006) protocol would probably be rated much less highly when judged against such qualitatively different criteria.

The Rise of State Planning Mandates

One of the most important developments affecting planning practice in recent decades has undoubtedly been the increase in the number of states passing legislation mandating that local governments prepare plans. The attention planning educators and researchers have paid to developing criteria for assessing the quality of plans can be seen as an understandable response to this growing trend.

California was the first state to impose a planning mandate in 1937, when it passed legislation requiring all cities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans. It added requirements for land use and circulation elements in 1955, a housing element in 1967, conservation and open- space elements in 1970, and seismic safety and two other elements in 1971 (Burby & May, 1997). Florida and Oregon passed legislation in 1972 and 1973, respectively, mandating the preparation of local plans, and requiring state review and approval of those plans (Daniels, 1999). Nevertheless, by the end of the 1970s, no additional states had joined these three states in mandating that local gov- ernments prepare plans.

However, in the 1980s, in the midst of a development boom in many parts of the country, state legislatures in a number of states approved various growth control meas- ures, including state laws requiring local governments to prepare plans. In 1985, Maine adopted growth manage- ment legislation mandating the preparation of local plans, followed by Rhode Island in 1988. Legislation passed by Georgia in 1989 mandated regional plans, but left local plans voluntary (Daniels, 1999).

Five more states adopted legislation mandating the preparation of plans in the 1990s: Washington State in 1990; Maryland in 1992; Tennessee and Arizona in 1998;

and Wisconsin in 1999. Arizona’s mandate requiring preparation of general plans applied to cities and counties with populations above 50,000, as well as cities and towns with populations less than 50,000 that had been experienc- ing sustained rapid growth. Wisconsin’s 1999 Smart Growth Act (1999 Wisconsin Act 9) mandated compre- hensive plans for municipalities with populations of 12,500 people or more.

A number of states have imposed single-purpose plan- ning mandates, sometimes in addition to mandating prepa- ration of comprehensive plans. Municipalities in California and Florida are required to prepare local plans for natural hazards mitigation. Local governments in coastal areas of North Carolina are required to prepare plans to protect coastal resources (Burby & May, 1997). Washington, Maine, Vermont, and a few other states mandate that local governments assure adequate citizen involvement in the process of preparing plans (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003). Illinois passed a law in 2003 mandating planning for affordable housing. “If less than 10% of an Illinois munici- pality’s or county’s housing stock was classified as affordable, the Illinois Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act required that local government to make and adopt an af- fordable housing plan by April 2005” (Hoch, 2007, p. 88).

What Comprehensive Plans Should Contain

Agreeing on what should be included in a comprehen- sive plan has historically proven difficult (Kent, 1964). A number of pages in Kent’s The Urban General Plan are devoted to discussing a key question that the drafters of the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act confronted and debated at length. The question, which seems equally pertinent today, was: “Should the Act specify the elements that a General Plan needed to contain?” In the end, the standard act did not specify the elements that needed to be included in a general plan. Nor could the group agree on an express definition of a master plan or general plan.

[T]he decision to consciously omit what could be called an express definition of the general plan from the Act probably was the result of basic differences of opinion among the individuals in the group that drafted the document…Edward M. Bassett believed that the scope of the plan should be precisely delim- ited, and that the component parts of the plan should be specified…Alfred Bettman…argued that anything that might come to be known as a ‘standard definition’ of the general plan might lead city-planning

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 341

342 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

commissions throughout the country to do their work in a perfunctory way, without really thinking for themselves, and hence might cause them to ignore the special problems, features, and opportunities that characterize every community. (p. 45)

It is clear where Kent (1964) stood with regard to the Bassett–Bettman debate. Indeed, it is striking how little importance Kent placed on specifying elements that should be included in a general plan. Kent was much more con- cerned that a comprehensive plan lay out broad principles to guide decision making related to land use and develop- ment, so as to establish the general policy direction of a community. In Kent’s words, the general plan “should be general, and should remain general…should be in a form suitable for public debate…should be available and under- standable to the public…[and] should be amendable” (p. 91). In this regard, Kent’s views were similar to those of Charles Haar (1959), who likened the role played by a comprehensive plan to that of the U.S. Constitution.

A much more precise conception of what plans should consist of has seemed to have emerged in recent years. Evidence of this shift can be seen in the growing number of states which, in addition to mandating the preparation of comprehensive plans, have imposed specific requirements concerning what elements those plans need to contain. Legislation passed in Wisconsin defines a comprehensive plan as containing nine required elements: issues and oppor- tunities; housing; transportation; utilities and community facilities; agricultural, natural and cultural resources; eco- nomic development; intergovernmental cooperation; land use; and implementation (1999 Wisconsin Act 9). Legisla- tion passed in Arizona mandating plans also specifies the elements comprehensive plans must include. Plans prepared by Arizona towns or cities with populations of 50,000 or more must include 16 specific elements (land use; circula- tion; open space; growth area; environmental planning; cost of development; water resources; energy; conservation; recreation; public service and facilities; public buildings; housing; conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment; safety; bicycling). Plans prepared by towns and cities of 2,500 or less that have grown at an average annual rate of less than 2% over the past 10 years need only include two elements addressing land use and circulation (Arizona Department of Commerce, 2004).

Producing a comprehensive plan composed of a collec- tion of separate plan elements is the best way to be sure a plan complies with state requirements, because agency staff are able to check off the elements contained in a plan (the check-box approach to plan making). Unfortunately, chopping up a plan into different elements also makes it

difficult to produce a plan that presents a unified narrative storyline. Demanding that plans conform to a predeter- mined framework that is uniformly applied to all munici- palities also runs the risk of contributing to the production of look-alike plans that are all structured and presented in the same way, just the opposite of what one would want to do if the aim were to prepare plans that convey an appreci- ation of what is unique about individual communities.

State mandates specifying what functional elements need to be included in comprehensive plans can also make plans longer. As Anderson (1995) has observed, “Some lengthy plans are incomprehensible when considered as an entity, although each separate ‘element’ in them may be understandable….it is very difficult to grasp ‘the big pic- ture’ of what is planned” (p. 17). Moreover, careful reading of plans composed of discrete plan elements required by state mandates often reveals considerable overlap and duplication in content, such as in the material covered in the land use, housing, transportation, and public facilities elements.

Opinions in the Planning Field Regarding Mandates

Thirty years ago, the question of whether it was a good idea for state governments to mandate that local govern- ments prepare plans was posed to two distinguished plan- ning scholars. Mandelker (1978) answered yes; Susskind (1978) answered no. Since that time, planning mandates have come much more into the mainstream. Nevertheless, opinions on the subject among planning educators and researchers remain divided.

A traditional argument for mandating plans is that, in the absence of such a requirement, too many local govern- ments will not prepare them and local decision making regarding land use and development will suffer as a result. Another argument for planning mandates is that when plans are mandated, the result is better plans (Berke & French, 1994; Berke, Roenick, Kaiser, & Burby, 1996; Burby & May, 1997). However, such a blanket conclusion would seem to be open to question. As Norton (2005) has noted, “While the Burby and May research team found that North Carolina’s mandate yielded the highest quality plans relative to other states, they also concluded that none [italics added] of the states with comprehensive planning mandates ‘did a very good job of addressing natural haz- ards,’ including North Carolina’s plans…” (p. 56).

A study comparing voluntary planning versus man- dated plans in Maine conducted by Pendall (2001) pro- duced a mixed assessment of the value of mandated

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 342

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 343

planning. Although planning mandates in Maine suc- ceeded in getting local governments to produce plans, Pendall found that plans involuntarily prepared were often not adopted by local jurisdictions. In contrast, plans that were voluntarily prepared, with professional and technical support from the state, were more likely to be adopted. Pendall concluded that a “combination of incentives, assistance, and a qualified state agency with professional staff may produce positive results when compared to an unfunded mandate with only the lurking threat of legal action to encourage municipal planning” (p. 163).

Hoch’s (2007) study of affordable housing plans prepared by local governments in response to Illinois’s planning mandate also led him to conclude that mandates alone are not enough.

The results of this study illustrate how local officials’ beliefs justify their indifference and resistance to planning mandates. When state law requires plans, it does focus attention and compliance. But planning requires more than this…Coercion inspires procedural compliance, but incentives lead to greater commit- ment. (p. 98)

Despite these findings, some planning educators remain convinced that much more specific state mandates are needed. Pivo (1993) has been highly critical of Washington’s growth management legislation passed in 1990 and 1991 for giving too much discretion to local decision makers and providing too little state oversight of local planning matters. Likewise, Brody et al.’s (2003) study of state-mandated citizen participation in plan making in various states led them to call for additional requirements and “much more specific language to be included in state growth management laws and regulations” (p. 260). Among the provisions they recommend be imposed are:

• require that local government prepare written plans for participation programs and designate specific staff resources;

• require that participation programs clearly state their objectives and have them approved by the local government;

• require that participation programs target relevant stakeholders, including representatives of environmen- tal groups, business associations and neighborhoods, in addition to public-sector organizations;

• require that participation programs use a range of involvement techniques and media; and

• require that participation programs provide stakehold- ers with a full range of planning data, information, and proposals during the planning process.

Few planning educators would disagree with the notion that citizen participation in planning is highly desirable. Nevertheless, the proposition that the above- specified directives would necessarily produce more mean- ingful citizen participation seems speculative. In munici- palities that have been compelled to prepare plans, citizens and elected officials in those municipalities are in all likeli- hood far from enthusiastic about having to prepare a plan in the first place.

When Burby and May (1997) compared planning practices in states that mandated planning with those in states without mandates, they expected to find a strongly positive relationship between mandated plan- ning and local government planning capacity and com- mitment to planning. However, they reported that “We fail to find evidence for our theorizing that state man- dates and local plans are strong tools for persuading and enabling local officials to embrace state policy objec- tives” (p. 143). They attempted to explain this lack of evidence by noting that “our findings in part reflect insufficient specifications of our statistical models,” but also admitted that “the key driver of local action is community demand” (p. 144).

Toward a More Focused Assessment of the Communicative and Persuasive Qualities of Plans

What effect might state laws mandating that local governments prepare plans be having on the communica- tive qualities and persuasiveness of plans? Answering this question is critical to understanding whether state planning mandates are advancing the practice of planning by mak- ing it more effective. As Berke et al. (2006) openly ac- knowledge, “Plans will be used more widely if they are inspirational. If plans are imaginative and offer compelling courses of action that inspire people to act for the common good, then they have greater potential to change attitudes and beliefs, and encourage harder work and stronger commitment to mobilize resources” (p. 73).

In a paper reporting on a study analyzing the quality of plans prepared in Michigan, Norton (2008) argues that plan quality criteria aimed at assessing the substantive and technical content of plans should be kept separate from criteria that assess the effectiveness with which a plan communicates that content. Norton’s main policy interest was to determine the extent to which plans promoted neotraditional landscapes in place of conventional subur- ban sprawl. In the process of analyzing the content of plans, however, he came to realize the content of a plan

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 343

344 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

“should be distinguished from the way in which that content is conveyed” (p. 432).

We, therefore, devised a more focused plan quality protocol composed of 31 criteria (roughly half the number contained in the Baer [1964] and Berke, Godschall, and Kaiser [2006] protocols) to specifically assess and compare the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans. In doing so, we incorporated and made use of a number of the criteria contained in earlier protocols put forward by Baer and Berke, Godschall, and Kaiser. Plan qualities favored by Kent (1964) and Black (1968) were also included.

A handful of the criteria also assessed the extent to which plans embodied techniques of persuasive communi- cation endorsed by contributors to Engaging the Future (Hopkins & Zapata, 2007), such as:

• Does the plan acknowledge uncertainty? • Does it stimulate reader’s imaginations to think about

what the community might be like in the future and describe alternative plausible futures based on various what-if scenarios?

• Does the plan convey an understanding of how differ- ent policies and courses of action might contribute to different outcomes?

• Does the plan present alternative forecasts? and • Does the plan contain a narrative storyline that draws

in the reader?

Long before the term “scenario building” entered the planning lexicon, Kent (1964) recognized the importance of analyzing and comparing alternatives, noting that “…there can be no plan without decisions rejecting certain alterna- tives and adopting others” (p. 20). Likewise, he emphasized that “… the understanding and support necessary to imple- ment the plan require constant explanation of the reasoning expressed in the final plan… [and that] the major alterna- tives that were considered and rejected by the legislative body should be described in the plan document” (p. 20). More recently, Avin (2007), Isserman (2007), and Myers (2007) have argued that planners need to enable people to imagine and understand the implications of alternative futures. Scenario building is valuable because it challenges citizens and local officials to envision possible futures that are different from the past and the present (Avin, 2007). Incorporating alternative forecasts and scenarios can stimu- late public involvement in planning processes (Avin, 2004; Isserman, 2007; Klosterman, 2007). Presenting alternative scenarios reminds citizens and local officials that the deci- sions collectively arrived at, and actions taken (or not taken) at the local level, can influence future outcomes, thereby inviting greater civic engagement.

The scoring method we applied in our protocol was largely similar to that used in the Berke, Godschall, and Kaiser (2006) protocol, the difference being that the latter procotol scored all its criteria 0, 1, or 2, whereas criteria in our protocol were scored on a scale of 0–4. All but one of the criteria were scored 0, 2 or 4; one criterion was scored 0 or 4.

In constructing the plan quality protocol, we felt that six criteria were particularly central and fundamental to effective communication. The first of those was the inclusion of photographs and illustrations that supported the text and added visual interest. “Images enhance a plan’s capacity to change people’s minds, converting plans into political change agents…We live in a popular culture where images reign and determine fortunes” (Neuman, 1998, p. 215). Another plan quality criterion fundamental to effective communication is avoiding putting forward an overly long list of goals. To communicate effectively, plans need to focus attention on a limited number of aims and actions. As Duerkson, Dale, and Elliott (2009) have observed, plans that contain a long “wish list of things that the planners and citizens would like to see happen…discourage any kind of action. The laundry list looks so long and complex that readers are left wondering what is most important, what to do first, who needs to be involved, what it will cost, and where the money might come from” (p. 129).

Other plan quality criteria we considered crucial to the communicative quality of a plan were:

• Does the plan have a visually attractive format and page layout (e.g., columns not too wide, and adequate line spacing, so it is easy to read)?

• Are tables and other data in the plan relevant to the argument being made and to plan recommendations?

• Does the plan include an attractive, highly readable, and informative executive summary that is not overly long?

A copy of the plan evaluation protocol is provided in the Appendix.

Research Approach and Methodology

To explore the effects of state planning mandates on the persuasiveness and communicative qualities of plans, we examined 40 randomly selected plans prepared by municipalities in four states,10 plans from each state. We constructed the study so that 20 plans were drawn from states that had mandated comprehensive plans, and 20 plans were drawn from states that did not impose a plan- ning mandate. Wisconsin and Tennessee were chosen as the planning mandate states. The primary reason for their selection was that their mandates were imposed relatively

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 344

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 345

recently, thereby, enabling the examination of fairly recent plans prepared in response to a planning mandate. New York and Massachusetts were chosen as the control states. The geographic characteristics and planning contexts of all four of these states were extremely familiar to both of the investigators, adding to their comfort level in judging the qualities of plans and the degree to which their messages resonated with the characteristics of particular places.

We controlled for differences in city size by dividing the municipalities in the four states into two population clusters, small (12,500–50,000) and large (�50,000). Communities were then randomly selected from each state for each of these population clusters until five were found that had prepared plans that were approved since 1998 (the first year in which both states’ legislation was in effect) and were accessible either online or by mail. We excluded New York City from the New York State cluster because its extraordinarily large size made it difficult to compare to other communities.

In Tennessee, there were only four communities in the small population cluster with accessible plans, so we ran- domly selected Alcoa from among those communities with slightly smaller populations (7,500–12,500). In New York, there were only four communities in the large population cluster with accessible plans prepared during the study period. Binghamton (population 48,000), initially included in the small population cluster, had a population only

slightly below the 50,000 population threshold of the large population cluster, so it was shifted to the large population cluster; another community (Oneonta) was randomly selected to take its place in the small population cluster, thereby producing five municipalities in each category.

After the plans were identified, they were reviewed and scored separately and independently by both investigators using the specially devised plan evaluation protocol. The results of each individual evaluation were then verbally discussed and compared by the investigators until all points of disagreement were resolved to the satisfaction of both investigators. The final consensus results were then entered into a database for analysis.

Since the protocol called for ordinal measures, signifi- cance testing of evaluation scores was done using the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney (U) test. Simple t tests were conducted in all other cases.

Comparison of Wisconsin’s and Tennessee’s Approach to Planning Mandates

As noted earlier, planning mandates adopted in differ- ent states have taken different forms and applied to different types of municipalities. Table 1 highlights the differences

Table 1. Comparison of state planning mandates.

Wisconsin Tennessee

Applicability All municipalities with populations All counties lacking a metropolitan or greater than 12,500 consolidated government

Type of plan required Comprehensive plan Growth plan

State funding State grants offered to offset local costs No state funding offered of plan preparation

Plan requirements State goals identified and required to State goals identified but not required to be addressed. Plans be addressed to receive state funding. Nine must delineate Urban Growth Boundaries, but no specific plan specific elements identified and required elements required. to be included.

Plan completion timea 32 months 38 months

Technical assistance Provided by University of None specifically provided Wisconsin-Extension

Population projections None specified 20-year state-prepared population projections specified as a given

State approval Required Required

Consequences for noncompliance Loss of local zoning and subdivision control, Loss of community development block grant funds official mapping and authority to use tax increment financing

Note: a. Wisconsin Act 9 was passed on October 29, 1999, and plans were required to be completed by January 1, 2002. Tennessee Public Chapter 1101 was passed on May 1, 1998, and plans were required to be completed by July 1, 2001.

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 345

346 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

and similarities between the planning mandates imposed in Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Four differences between Wisconsin’s and Tennessee’s approach to mandated planning are worth noting. First, Wisconsin’s planning mandate is substantively prescriptive, requiring comprehensive plans to contain nine specified plan elements; Tennessee’s mandate only requires that plans delineate urban growth boundaries (UGBs), and does not require that any particular elements be included in plans. Second, the state of Tennessee required that each munici- pality base its plan on a 20-year population projection provided by the state, in effect prohibiting consideration of alternative scenarios based on alternative population projec- tions. Wisconsin’s legislation contained no such limitation on considering alternative population projections.

Third, the state of Wisconsin appropriated a signifi- cant amount of state funding providing grants to munici- palities to offset the cost of preparing comprehensive plans. An initial $3.5 million was appropriated, and additional grant funding of roughly $1 million/year was provided in later years (personal communication, B. W. Ohm, October 1, 2006). Local governments had to apply for and compete with other local governments for the funding. Priority was given to funding communities that undertook cooperative planning efforts or when counties assumed responsibility for coordinating the planning efforts of local governments within their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in Tennessee, no state funding was made available to help local governments with the costs of preparing their plans.

The fourth and last major difference in the approaches of the two states is that University of Wisconsin-Extension provided a considerable amount of staff and technical assis- tance in support of county and local planning processes. University of Wisconsin-Extension County Extension Agents were often heavily involved in encouraging local planning years before the state-mandated process of compre- hensive planning even began. County Extension Agents and University of Wisconsin-Extension Specialists also often helped organize and facilitate local planning processes once mandated planning was underway, supplementing local government resources and energizing the process. There was no comparable University-Extension involvement in support of the development of county and local plans in Tennessee.

As shown in Table 1, there were also striking similari- ties between the planning mandates imposed in Tennessee and Wisconsin. Both states required state agency review and approval of plans, and both set a firm deadline for the completion of state-approved plans. The length of time municipalities were given to complete and obtain state approval for their plans was also roughly similar, although Wisconsin granted somewhat less time (32 months) than

Tennessee (38 months). Finally, both states called for severe penalties to be imposed on municipalities that failed to prepare and gain state approval for their plans by the specified deadline, although the precise penalties varied. Local governments in Wisconsin that failed to complete state-approved comprehensive plans by the 2010 deadline stood to be stripped of their power to zone land, regulate subdivisions, exercise official mapping, and finance projects using tax increment financing. Tennessee communities that failed to prepare state-approved growth plans became ineligible to receive community development block grant (CDBG) funding.

Hypotheses Regarding How State- Mandated Comprehensive Planning Might Affect the Communicative and Persuasive Qualities of Plans

Prior to undertaking this study, we had a number of hypotheses regarding how planning mandates might affect and possibly undermine the persuasive and communicative quality of plans. Different sets of questions in the plan evaluation protocol were keyed to specifically test these hypotheses.

Effects of Being Forced to Plan and Local Enthusiasm for Planning

As Daniels, Keller, and Lapping (1995) have observed, the first and most critical step in the planning process is the decision to plan. Indeed, it seems altogether reasonable to expect that the circumstances surrounding a community’s decision to engage in planning might have a considerable impact on how willingly and enthusiastically a community engages in planning. Voluntarily deciding to plan indicates a recognition that planning is necessary and in the best inter- est of the community, whereas being commanded to prepare a plan suggests an inner reluctance to plan. If Susskind (1978) is correct that “the most useful and effective munici- pal plans are those that emerge from a planning effort spurred by a coalition of local people and dedicated officials who are intent on reordering local priorities” (p. 17), then one might question whether mandating planning could ever have a positive effect on plan quality.

Planning Mandates and Plan Narrative Quality, Creativity, and Originality

As discussed earlier, prior to undertaking this empirical research we believed there was reason to suspect that state mandates requiring that comprehensive plans must contain

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 346

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 347

a series of specified plan elements might have a negative effect on the narrative, storytelling quality of plans. We also hypothesized that requiring plans to be composed of a series of specified elements would result in longer, less reader- friendly plans, with greater numbers of goals and objectives.

Producing persuasive plans with an engaging storyline requires that plan makers exercise creativity and imagina- tion in the process of plan making, and tailor the storyline and substantive message of plans to the unique conditions, circumstances, and political cultures of particular places. Specifying in advance the structure to which plans must conform, much like specifying the sequence of chapters in a book, constrains the ability of planners to exercise cre- ativity and originality in the plan-making process. Indeed, requiring that all plans be constructed in the same way could have the unfortunate effect of transforming what should be a creative process into a rote exercise.

There was one other factor that led us to hypothesize that enacting state legislation mandating the preparation of plans might lead to less original, imaginative, and engaging plans. Passing legislation mandating planning is tanta- mount to passing a full-employment act for planners. Virtually overnight, planning consulting firms that might have formerly had difficulty finding clients can find them- selves with an abundance of contracts and commitments. While this places professional planning firms in an enviable economic position, it can also stretch their professional staffs to the limit, making it difficult to devote the time and energy necessary to produce distinctive, high-quality plans. At the very least it could prompt firms to make greater use of standardized templates and formats to in- crease their production capacity, but at the cost of produc- ing less individually distinctive plans.

Discouragement of Considering Alternative Scenarios

A major rationale for engaging in scenario building is for citizens and local officials to realize that the future is likely to be very different from the present and the past. Unfortunately, state planning mandates and requirements can present an impediment to scenario building. For exam- ple, the state of Oregon, which pioneered in mandating local planning, “looks askance upon, and requires significant documentation of any [forecasted] annual population growth rate [contained in a local plan] over 2 percent, because the state has rarely grown over that rate and never for a period of a decade or more” (Moore, 2007, p.24). A major objection to overruling the consideration of alterna- tive forecasts is that it reflects “a bias toward business-as- usual” and “does not allow ‘aspirational’ plans…” (p. 24).

A similar restriction on considering alternative fore- casts exists in Tennessee, which passed legislation mandat- ing the preparation of plans in 1998. As specified by Tennessee Public Chapter 1101 (1998), the growth plan that is prepared by each county should be based on a 20- year population projection. This population projection is developed by the state in conjunction with the University of Tennessee and is established as a given upon which municipalities are supposed to base their plans. No provi- sion was made for the development of plans based on alternative population projections.

Findings and Analysis

General Findings The 31 questions included in our protocol were specif-

ically devised to provide a broad and multifaceted measure of the overall communicative and persuasive quality of plans. The maximum total number of points a plan could conceivably score on the plan evaluation protocol was 124.

As shown in Table 2, only one of the 40 plans (Buffalo, NY) came near that total possible point score. There was a significant amount of variation in plan quality scores, with the total point score of the five lowest-scoring plans being only 14% of the total point score of the five highest-scoring plans.

Prior to undertaking this research, we had expected municipalities affected by recently passed state planning mandates to rely heavily on private planning consultants to help them prepare their plans. What we found instead was that municipalities in the non-mandate states were much more likely to hire private consultants than municipalities in mandate states. Seventy-five percent of plans prepared by nonmandate municipalities were prepared with the assistance of private planning consultants, compared to only 30% prepared by municipalities in mandate states.

Table 2. Highest and lowest scoring plans.

Highest-scoring Lowest-scoring plans (points) plans (points)

Buffalo, NY (112) Stevens Point, WI (10) Fall River, MA (90) Clarksville, TN (10) Green Bay, WI (84) Pittsfield, MA (12) Niagara Falls, NY (80) De Pere, WI (14) Oneonta, NY (76) Oshkosh WI (16)

Total Points: 442 Total Points: 62

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 347

Table 3 shows a comparison of plan scores in relation to the population of the municipality, the involvement of consultants, and the availability of state funding. As can be seen, plans prepared by municipalities with larger populations earned higher plan scores on average than plans prepared by municipalities with smaller populations, a finding that is not surprising, since larger municipalities are likely to have more resources available to them and probably also have greater prior experience in preparing plans. We also found that the involvement of consultants in preparing plans had a significant positive effect on protocol score, with the scores of plans prepared with the assistance of consultants averaging 40% higher than those that were not.

There was a seemingly paradoxical negative relation- ship between protocol score and the provision of external funding. Correctly interpreting this finding is complicated by the fact that a much higher percentage of municipalities in mandate states received external funding (40%) than those in nonmandate states (15%). Thus, this finding

could be viewed as associated with planning mandates, rather than due to the independent effect of external funding.

The Effect of Mandates As shown in Table 4, while the total scores of man-

dated plans were lower on average than those of nonman- dated plans, the difference was not statistically significant. Thus there is no basis for concluding that planning man- dates make plans worse. What this finding does make clear is that mandates did not bring about better plans, at least as measured by our protocol.

At the outset we had believed that the narrative quality of a plan could be affected by its overall length and com- plexity, leading us to hypothesize that state planning mandates might lead to plans that were longer and less reader friendly. However, our examination of plans failed to confirm such a relationship. As shown in Table 5, while mandated plans were longer on average than nonmandated plans, the difference was not statistically significant. It is worth noting that, while there was a great deal of variation in the number of pages within both groups, there was much greater variation in the length of plans prepared by municipalities that were mandated to prepare plans than there was in the length of plans prepared in the absence of mandates. This high level of intragroup variation was also found in terms of the number of goals and objectives

348 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

Table 3. Comparison of plan scores.

Average Test scores statistic

Large cities (�50,000 56.9 Z � 2.54** population) (n � 20)

Small cities (7,500–50,000 35.6 population) (n � 20)

Consultants involved (n � 21) 53.4 Z � 1.85* No consultants involved (n � 19) 38.3 External funding (n � 12) 34.1 Z � 2.01** No external funding (n � 28) 51.5

*p � .10 **p � .05 (two-tailed)

Table 4. Plan evaluation protocol scores.

Average score

Mandate states 40.2 Nonmandate states 52.2 Test statistics Z � 1.34, p � .181 (two-tailed)

Table 5. Comparison of plan content counts.

Minimum Maximum Average Standard deviation Test statistics

Number of pages All plans 55 784 194.0 142.4 t � 1.34, p � .19 Mandate states 55 (TN) 784 (TN) 224.0 189.0 (two-tailed) Nonmandate states 102 (NY) 378 (NY) 164.0 63.3 Number of goals All plans 4 45 18.7 12.0 t � .69, p � .49 Mandate states 6 (TN & WI) 43 (WI) 17.4 11.5 (two-tailed) Nonmandate states 4 (NY) 45 (MA) 20.0 12.7 Number of objectives All plans 11 244 82.0 51.5 t � .38, p � .70 Mandate states 16 (TN) 244 (WI) 85.1 46.4 (two-tailed) Nonmandate states 11 (MA) 244 (NY) 79.0 57.1

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 348

contained in plans, although there was no pattern of signif- icant variation between the two groups.

The two groups of plans (mandated and nonman- dated) were also compared with respect to four specific plan characteristics/qualities advocated by Hopkins and Zapata (2007). The results of these comparisons are shown in Table 6.

First, we assessed the extent to which plans were likely to inspire and stimulate the imaginations of readers. To get at this plan quality, our plan evaluation protocol contained three questions that assessed the rigidity and standardization of plans. Standardized plans that follow a rigid, predictable format, and put forward prescriptions aimed at achieving a future very much like the present typically may not inspire and stimulate people’s imaginations. Three questions were included in the protocol to specifically measure the imagina- tiveness and creativity of plans, with a low score indicating a high degree of standardization. As shown in Table 6, plans prepared in mandate states scored significantly lower in terms of standardization than those prepared in nonmandate states with respect to this important characteristic, a differ- ence that was highly significant and indicates that plans prepared in nonmandate states were more creative and imaginative than those prepared in mandate states.

The second criterion we evaluated was the extent to which plans acknowledged uncertainty by describing alternative futures and various what-if scenarios. As shown in Table 6, neither group performed well in terms of this characteristic as measured by three questions in our proto- col. While the average score of mandated plans was some- what higher than that of nonmandated plans, the differ- ence was not statistically significant.

Four questions in our protocol measured the third criterion, the extent to which plans conveyed an under-

standing of how different policies and alternative courses of action could contribute to different outcomes. Neither group of plans performed well with respect to this plan characteristic. As shown in Table 6, average scores for the four questions were only 10.6% and 15.0% of the maxi- mum total number of points possible—a difference that was not statistically significant.

The fourth criterion we analyzed was the presence of a unifying narrative storyline. There were four questions in the protocol directed toward measuring this characteristic, with a maximum possible score of sixteen points. Again, referring to Table 6, the nonmandated plans scored much better with respect to this characteristic than did the man- dated plans, with an average point total of 9.8 compared to 5.8, a difference that was highly significant.

Conclusions and Discussion

The findings of this comparative study of 40 plans drawn from four states suggest that state requirements requiring local governments to prepare plans did not result in the production of better plans, at least as measured by a protocol tailored to specifically assess the persuasiveness and communicative qualities of plans. In fact, the opposite proved to be the case. This finding, in and of itself, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that mandating planning is undesirable. Indeed, advocates and defenders of planning might credibly argue that having even a mediocre plan is better than having no plan at all.

The fact that mandate states require all communities to plan, regardless of their interest in or capacity for plan- ning, may at least partially explain the difference in average plan quality scores between mandate and nonmandate

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 349

Table 6. Comparison of plan qualities.

Average score Test statistics

Plan quality 1: Standardization/rigidity (three questions) Mandate states 3.3 Z � 2.34 ** Nonmandate states 6.2 Plan quality 2: Acknowledgment of uncertainty (three questions) Mandate states 1.9 Z � 1.07 Nonmandate states 1.2 Plan quality 3: Understanding of alternatives conveyed (four questions) Mandate states 1.7 Z � 1.23 Nonmandate states 2.4 Plan quality 4: Compelling narrative storyline (four questions) Mandate states 5.8 Z � 2.29 ** Nonmandate states 9.8

** p � .05 (two-tailed).

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 349

communities. A number of the plans examined in this study drawn from mandate states were the first compre- hensive plans ever prepared by those municipalities. A lack of prior planning experience could easily have contributed to lower plan quality scores. When these same communi- ties update these plans and prepare new plans in the future, it is reasonable to hope and expect that plan quality will improve.

Possibly the most thought-provoking finding is that state-mandated planning requirements may be contribut- ing to the production of unimaginative plans that are less creative and engaging than those prepared by municipali- ties where planning is not mandated. One factor that undoubtedly contributed to this finding is that legislation in Wisconsin required plans to be composed of a series of specified plan elements. However, creativity, imagination and inspiring visions of the future were also less character- istic of plans prepared in Tennessee, which did not man- date that plans conform to a predetermined structure. At the very least, these findings suggest a need for states not to impose plan requirements that have the unintended effect of stifling creativity in plan preparation. One way to do this would be to explicitly encourage the production of plans that are more deeply rooted in place, and that cap- ture and communicate the special qualities and unique identities of places.

The finding that private consultant involvement in plan making significantly increased the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans should be reassuring to profes- sional planners. Less easily explained is why nonmandated municipalities hired private consultants so much more frequently than municipalities in mandate states, a finding that was particularly surprising, inasmuch as Wisconsin offered grants to municipalities to cover the cost of preparing plans, while New York and Massachusetts (nonmandate states) did not. One possible explanation is that municipalities in nonmandate states that decided on their own to plan were more committed and, therefore, more willing, to appropriate the money necessary to hire a private planning firm. Another possibility is that munici- palities in states where planning was mandated may have viewed planning as more likely to be an ongoing activity, and therefore felt more justified in hiring more permanent staff. Our research did not investigate this possibility.

Prior to conducting the study, we had hypothesized that longer plans were inherently less user-friendly. A related hypothesis was that plans of greater length would also tend to score less well in terms of their overall persua- siveness and communicative qualities. No evidence was found to support either of these hypotheses. Plans prepared in mandate states were found to be longer on average than

those in nonmandates states; there was also far greater variation in plan length among plans produced in mandate states than in nonmandate states. However, the relation- ship between plan length and the communicative and persuasive qualities of plans was not nearly as clear as we had expected.

A number of unusually lengthy plans were found to be extremely effective in terms of communicating key ideas, and scored exceptionally well on the overall protocol. For example, plans prepared in LaCrosse, WI, Schenectady, NY, and Niagara Falls, NY, were exceptionally long in terms of page length, but scored comparatively well on the protocol. The additional length of these plans was often due to the inclusion of optional plan components, such as individual neighborhood plans, and special sections ex- plaining particular planning concepts in greater detail. In other cases, added plan length was due to the inclusion of sidebars and text expanding on particular topics, such as design guidelines. Although some might consider such tangents superfluous to the central purpose of a plan, we came to view them as giving the document greater persua- sive power and a more place-specific foundation.

In retrospect, we realize that the size and bulkiness of a plan may not be as much of an impediment to its useful- ness as it was in the past. Formerly, the only way to make reference to a plan was to physically gain possession of a copy and carry it to meetings. Now plans are commonly posted and publicly accessible on the internet. Indeed, 38 of the 40 comprehensive plans analyzed in this study were accessible online; only two had to be purchased (the plans for Brentwood and McMinnville, TN). In most cases, planning commission members, planning staff, and citi- zens can access plans online, so it is no longer necessary for them to have the whole plan with them at all times.

Two last noteworthy findings shed light on the current state of the art of planning practice. First, remarkably few plans in both mandate and nonmandate states incorpo- rated alternative scenarios based on different assumptions about future trends and alternative courses of action. This finding is surprising, and will be especially disappointing to those in the planning profession who have encouraged practicing planners to make greater use of scenario build- ing in planning processes.

Second, plans in both mandate and nonmandate states varied widely in the number of goals and objectives they articulated and addressed. This finding suggests that prac- ticing planners throughout the 40 municipalities lacked a shared understanding of the proper definitions of goals and objectives. Indeed, a careful reading of the contents of plans in the four states indicates there were widespread misunderstandings of the professionally accepted

350 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 350

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 351

definitions of goals and objectives and an inability to properly distinguish them from policies, strategies, and actions. Clearly, much more needs to be done to strengthen local understanding of these basic planning concepts, especially if state governments are going to require municipalities to prepare plans.

The findings presented in this article are not put forth with the intent of rendering a definitive judgment on the relationship between state planning mandates and the persuasiveness of plans. We would be the first to admit that our findings are based on an examination of a rela- tively small number of plans drawn from only four states. Rather, this is a first step toward gaining understanding and evidence of possible effects.

The findings presented in this article are worthy of professional consideration and discussion because they draw attention to the importance of plan qualities that have too often been overlooked and underemphasized in evaluations of plan quality. It is important that our find- ings not be misinterpreted. We are not asserting that not mandating plans provides the best path to preparing better plans. What we are saying is that, contrary to assertions put forward previously by planning researchers, we found no evidence that planning mandates produce better plans, at least when plans are judged in terms of their persuasive and communicative qualities. To the extent that this is a matter of concern to the planning profession and communities, we hope our study provides impetus for reconsidering how state planning mandates are drafted so to not unnecessarily discourage and impede the ability of planners to inject creativity and imagination into planning, and in so doing to produce engaging plans.

References Anderson, L. T. (1995). Guidelines for preparing urban plans. Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press. Arizona Department of Commerce. (2004). Growing smarter/plus: Summary for municipalities. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.azleg.state.az.us Avin, U. (2004, April). Scenarios that make a difference. Presentation at the National Conference of the American Planning Association, Washington, DC. Avin, U. (2007). Using scenarios to make urban plans. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 103–134). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329–344. Berke, P. R., & French, S. (1994). The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(4), 237–250.

Berke, P. R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 322–240. Berke, P. R., Godschalk, D. R., & Kaiser, E. J. (2006). Urban land use planning (5th ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Berke, P. R., Roenick, D. J., Kaiser, E. J., & Burby, R. J. (1996). Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37(2), 155–169. Black, A. (1968). The comprehensive plan. In W. I. Goodman & E. C. Freund (Eds.), Principles and practice of urban planning (pp. 349–378). Washington DC: International City Manager’s Association. Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245–264. Burby, R. J., & May, P.J. (1997). Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Daniels, T. (1999). When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press. Daniels, T., Keller, J. W., & Lapping, M. B. (1995). The small town planning handbook. Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press. Duerksen, C. J., Dale, C. G., & Elliott, D. L. (2009). The citizens guide to planning. Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press. Haar, C. M. (1959). Land-use planning: a casebook on the use, misuse and reuse of urban land. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Hoch, C. (2007). How plan mandates work: Affordable housing in Illinois. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 86–99. Hopkins, L. D., & Zapata, M. A. (Eds.). (2007). Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Insti- tute of Land Policy. Isserman, A. M. (2007). Forecasting to learn how the world can work. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 175–197). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Kent, T. J., Jr. (1964). The urban general plan. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Klosterman, R. E. (2007). Deliberating about the future. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 199–219). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mandelker, D. R. (1978). Should state government mandate local planning? ….Yes. Planning, 44(6), 14–16. Moore, T. (2007). The use of forecasts in creating and adopting visions for regional growth. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Myers, D. (2007). Promoting the community future in the contest with present individualism. In L. D. Hopkins & M. A. Zapata (Eds), Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects (pp. 59–78). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Neuman, M. (1998). Does planning need the plan? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 208–220. 1999 Wisconsin Act 9. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://crawford.uwex.edu/cnred/documents/CompPlanfact15.pdf Norton, R. K. (2005). More and better local planning: State-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1), 55–71.

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 351

352 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4

Norton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use Policy, 25, 432–454. Ohm, B.W. (2005). Universities as participants in planning enabling stature reform. In W. Wiewel & G. Knaap (Eds), Partnerships for smart growth: University-community collaboration for better public places (pp. 216–236). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Pendall, R. (2001). Municipal plans, state mandates, and property rights: Lessons from Maine. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(2),154–165.

Pivo, G. (1993). Is the Growth Management Act working? A survey of resource lands and critical areas development regulations. University of Puget Sound Law Review, 16(3), 1141–1179. Susskind, L. (1978). Should state government mandate local planning?....No. Planning, 44(6), 17–20. Tennessee Public Chapter 1101 (PC 1101). (1998). Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.tennessee. gov/sos/acts/100/pub/ PUBC1101.htm

Appendix: Plan Evaluation Protocol

PLAN QUALITIES CODE (shown at the end of the questions):

R: Rigidity, Standardization, Lack of Creativity/Imagination (3 questions)

U: Acknowledges Uncertainty, Alternative Scenarios (3 questions)

P: Conveys Understanding how Policies and Actions might contribute to Different Outcomes (4 questions)

N: Contains a Compelling Narrative Storyline (4 questions)

Evaluator: _____________________ Name of Municipality: ____________________ State: _________________ Population: _____________ Type of plan:

___ Goal oriented ___ Problem/issue oriented ___ Vision oriented ___ Blueprint plan (picture of desired land use) ___ Policy plan ___ Strategic (SWOT)

State funding received toward the cost of the comprehen- sive plan? ___Yes ___No Was the plan developed ___by a consultant, ___in-house and/or ___ by an RPC?

I. Criteria Related to Readability, Synthesis and Qual- ity of Presentation of Information, Narrative Qual- ity, Persuasiveness and Realism of Plans (No � 0; Somewhat � 2; Yes � 4, unless indicated otherwise).

1. Does the plan identify, describe and discuss previous plans?

Yes ____ (4 points) Somewhat ____ (2 points) No ____ (0 points)

2. Does the plan consciously embrace or reject previous plans or planning strategies?

Yes ____ (4 points) Somewhat ____ (2 points) No ____ (0 points)

3. Does the plan squarely place the community in its regional context, including analysis of extra-territorial and other driving forces (opportunities and threats)?

Yes ____ (4 points) Somewhat ____ (2 points) No ____ (0 points)

4. ___ Does the plan provide historical perspective through extensive narrative of its history and how it has changed over time? (N)

5. ___ Does the plan reinforce the community’s unique identity and sense of place by conveying an understanding of its unique geography, history, economy, political culture, etc.? (N)

6. ___ Does the plan establish its legitimacy by explain- ing the process followed preparing the plan, and steps taken to obtain wide-ranging participation and input from citizens and stakeholders? “Pro- cedural validity” (Baer, 1997)

7. ___ Is the plan imaginative and creative (extent of commitment to preparing a meaningful, effec- tive plan)? (R)

8. ___ Is the plan more than a collection of separate plan elements (what I call the “check-box” approach to plan making)? Does it contain a unifying narrative storyline that tells an engag- ing story? (N)

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 352

Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 353

9. ___ Does the plan put forward a compelling vision (through illustrations, photographs, maps, and words) of what the future could be like? (R)

10. ___ Is there a vision statement that conveys the essence of what the community wants to be and look like in the future? (R)

11. ___ Are goals clearly stated, and are they a meaningful guide to action and decision making (i.e. are the goals more than “motherhood and apple pie”?

12. ___ Does the plan focus attention on a limited number of unifying themes (�10)? (Yes � 4, No � 0) (N)

13. Does the plan present a limited number of goals: ___ �12 (4 points) ___ 13–24 (2 points) ___ �25 (0 points) Number: _____

14. Does the plan present a limited number of objectives: ___ �20 (4 points) ___ 20–40 (2 points) ___ �40 (0 points) Number: _____

15. ___ Does the plan present more than one forecast of future population and/or job growth, and in so doing recognize uncertainty? (U)

16. ___ Does the plan present alternative scenarios, or at the very least compare the Desired Scenario vs. Trend Scenario? (U)

17. ___ “Does the plan provide clear explanations of alternative courses of action that enhance com- munity flexibility and adaptation in dealing with complex situations?” (Berke et al., 2006) (U)

18. ___ Does the plan communicate how future out- comes are likely to be shaped by different poli- cies and courses of action? (P)

19. ___ Does the plan convey an understanding of the consequences of different courses of action? (P)

20. ___ Does the plan present compelling arguments for the recommended course of action? (P)

21. ___ Are rationales for the recommended course of action effectively presented? (Baer, 1997) (P)

22. ___ Does the plan exhort and inspire people to act? 23. ___ Are maps included in the plan clear, relevant and

comprehensible? (Berke et al., 2006)

24. ___ Well written, clear and concise, with a mini- mum of technical jargon, so that citizens will want to read it?

25. ___ Is there a distinctive and recognizable branding element, such as a logo, trademark or title?

II. Format, Style, and Appearance (No � 0, Some- what � 2, Yes � 4, unless indicated otherwise).

1. ___ Does the plan contain photographs and illustra- tions that support the text and add visual interest?

2. ___ Does the plan have a visually attractive format and page layout (e.g., columns not too wide; adequate line spacing, so that it is easy to read)?

3. ___ Are tables and other data presented in the plan relevant to the argument that is being made and plan recommendations?

4. Does the plan explicitly underscore the importance of implementing the recommendations contained in the plan by laying out a clear path to plan implementation that specifically identifies what, who, when (implemen- tation dates or prioritized), and how funded:

___ All four aspects (4 points) ___ Three of the four aspects (2 points) ___ No implementation program or � three aspects

(0 points)

5. Is the plan not overly bulky; that is, is it compact and easy to carry?

Number of pages (not including appendices):

___ 1–99 (4 points) ___ 100–166 (2 points) ___ �167 (0 points)

Number: _____

6. ___ Does the plan include an attractive, highly read- able, and informative executive summary?

TOTAL SCORE: _____________________

RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 353