Fluent Essays

Read the article - The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality by Gene Bunnell a & Edward J. Jepson Jr. b (2011). Read also chapter 1 of the class text - What Planners Do. Provide an executive summary based on the following questions:1. The text argues for the greater role of experts in planning as well as making of plans that have a broad public appeal. What are the practical implications/conflicts of these two approaches?2. Baer identified 60 criteria for plan evaluation and were listed under eight headings. Please list the eight headings.3. What are the main factors to consider when judging the quality of a plan?4. Briefly discuss the rise of state planning mandates5. What are the elements that go into comprehensive planning6. Discuss the major findings of this article week_1___mandated_planning_on_plan_quality__2__1__1_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview This article was downloaded by: [67.10.72.43] On: 22 October 2014, At: 19:32 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of the American Planning Association Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20 The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality a Gene Bunnell & Edward J. Jepson Jr. a b Department of Geography and Planning , University at Albany, State University of New York b Planning consultant Published online: 18 Oct 2011. 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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.619951 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions RJPA_A_619951.qxp 10/11/11 3:27 PM Page 338 338 The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality A Fresh Look at What Makes “A Good Plan” Downloaded by [67.10.72.43] at 19:32 22 October 2014 Gene Bunnell and Edward J. Jepson, Jr. 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 planning 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. Nonmandated 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 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 trouble, 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 residents, 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, minimum 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 constitutes 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 (gbunnell@albany.edu) 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. (ejjplanning@gmail.com) 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 339 Downloaded by [67.10.72.43] at 19:32 22 October 2014 Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality 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 judging good plans, we need to consider the effect of mandates on the quality and character of plans. Do planning mandates 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 legislation mandating plans was reaching a crescendo. Around the same time, there was a burst of research activity examining 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- 339 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 general…should be in a form suitable for public debate … [and] should be available and understandable to the public…” (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 devised a protocol aimed specifically at assessing the communicative 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 implementation; approach, data and methodology; quality of communication; and plan format. The fact that Baer recognized 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 340 340 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2011, Vol. 77, No. 4 Downloaded by [67.10.72.43] at 19:32 22 October 2014 • 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 alternative courses of action that enhance community flexibility and adaptation in dealing with complex situations? • 6.5 Is plain English used (avoiding poor, ungrammatical, 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 addressing 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 determining 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 competence” (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 341 Bunnell and Jepson: Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality Downloaded by [67.10.72.43] at 19:32 22 October 2014 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 effectiveness 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 openspace 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 governments 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 measures, including state laws requiring local governments to prepare plans. In 1985, Maine adopted growth management 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 volunt ... Purchase answer to see full attachment