Are We Planning for Equity?

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Social equity goals are supposed to be prioritized in planning along with economic and environmental goals, yet in practice they are often de-emphasized. We developed a publicly available plan equity evaluation tool to investigate to what extent and in what ways local governments incorporate goals and recommendations that would advance equitable outcomes in their comprehensive plans. Using plan content analysis, we find that most plans do not talk about equity, nor do they include many goals and recommendations that would advance equity. More recent plans, plans in communities with more planning capacity, plans in coastal communities, and plans with strong public participation processes have stronger equity orientations. Limitations of our study include that we had a small sample size of 48 plans in a single state, our coding was partly conducted by volunteers, and our study is limited to plan content and so did not investigate existing conditions or equitable outcomes. Takeaway for practice: Plans should make equity a guiding principle. Planning processes need to be multifaceted. Plans should identify vulnerable people and geographic areas and ensure equitable protection from hazards and equitable distribution of amenities. Future land use changes should be more transparent.

Identifying Plan Perceptions: Higher Education Institutions as Arts and Cultural Anchors

“…However, this awareness and participation did not always translate into specific university-related arts and cultural development strategies or desired outcomes. This disconnect between process and content surprised us, given the importance of this connection in other work (Loh and Kim 2020). It is possible that university participants were included to check a box, but their actual involvement and influence was minimal.…”

At the Intersection of Equity and Innovation: Trans Inclusion in the City of Vancouver

“…As Loh and Kim (2021) write, the issue of equity is central to the practice of planning. Although equity suffers from a lack of consistent definition (Cairney et al, 2022), it is typically understood as access in two directions: Access resulting from equitable distribution of resources and services on the one hand, and, on the other, procedural access that transforms the who and the how of decision-making.…”

“…They argue: "Social issues are often siloed within the mandates of specific committees with limited intersectional crossover" (Bain & Podmore, 2021, p. 1660. Finally, the scholarship notes that where equity and inclusion are understood as exclusively social development initiatives, there is little integration between these strategies and other areas of city business, like economic development (Andrew & Doloreux, 2014), except when equity can be framed in terms of advancing economic goals (Loh & Kim, 2021).…”

Community-Designed Participation: Lessons for Equitable Engagement in Transportation Planning

“…The integration of local knowledge is important not only for procedural democracy—through the inclusion of previously excluded participants—but also in providing technical insights based on different types of evidence ( 10 ). Plans that are developed using a multi-pronged approach to public participation are found to be significantly more focused on equity, though it is unclear if this is related to issues brought forth during engagement or the existing orientation of organizations ( 16 ).…”

“…Despite this scholarly focus, engagement processes often display a lack of basic knowledge of diverse communities and continue to use practices that have had limited success ( 1 ). Strikingly, in Loh and Kim’s study of comprehensive plans in one state, only 1 out of 42 plans discussed efforts to engage historically marginalized populations ( 16 ). In addition to issues with processes, the outcomes of engagement are rarely evaluated for their effectiveness ( 19 ).…”