The quality and implementation of local plans: An integrated evaluation

Abstract

Local plans are key components of municipal planning and scholars have developed methodologies to evaluate them. However, the purpose and use of local plans may vary, making their evaluation challenging, especially in comparative studies. In this context, existing evaluation methodologies that target local plans do not always account for the purpose of plans when evaluating their quality. Moreover, it is still unclear whether high-quality plans are better implemented than plans of lower quality. In this paper, we propose an integrated evaluation approach that links plan quality to implementation. To assess plan quality, we developed a flexible framework that accounts for the fact that local plans may present different characteristics according to their purpose. The framework rests on the analysis of the communication- and action-oriented dimensions of plans, and a system of coordinates that enables the classification of plans into four types (i.e. visions, blueprints, communicative policy acts, and basic plans) according to the score on each dimension. Plan implementation, assessed as conformance and performance, is determined based on the perception of local planners. Our approach and framework are applied to a set of 37 Swiss local plans. The approach is presented in a transparent way and requires basic numeracy skills, making it accessible to scholars and planning practitioners. Findings may be used to guide municipalities towards enhancing the quality of plans and identify best practices.

An evaluation of environmental plans quality: Addressing the rational and communicative perspectives

“…Goals are statements of future desired aspirations and needs, as well as problem alleviations that reflect shared public concerns. (Lyles et al, 2014a;Rudolf and Grădinaru, 2017) Fact Bases (direction-setting principle) Fact bases provide descriptive and empirical analyses of the actual and future local environmental conditions and impacts (in the absence of planning), which are further important for the prioritization of policies. (Berke and Godschalk, 2009;Berke et al, 1999;Rudolf and Grădinaru, 2017;Stevens, 2013) Policies (direction-setting principle)…”

“…(Ministry of Environment, 2004;Stevens, 2013) Public participation in plan creation (action-oriented principle) A description of the public participation process in the plan-making process, including identification of the stakeholders involved, the impact of their input in the plan's evolution, and the engagement techniques that were used. (Rudolf and Grădinaru, 2017;Steelman and Hess, 2009;Stevens, 2013) Plan provisions for implementation and monitoring (action-oriented principle)…”

“…The extent to which organization responsibilities, timeframes, funds and indicators are assigned for the policies implementation and monitoring to ensure the achievement of the stated goals. (Berke et al, 1999;Rudolf and Grădinaru, 2017;Steelman and Hess, 2009;Stevens, 2013)…”

Do State Comprehensive Planning Statutes Address Physical Activity?: Implications for Rural Communities

“…Such policies and actions might include the creation of community design guidelines, tax incentive programs for certain types of development, and capital investment plans, among others. This vision and the ensuing goals, policies, and actions are often encoded in a comprehensive plan [29][30][31].…”

Does non-conforming urban development mean the failure of zoning? A framework for conformance-based evaluation

“…Due to its merits and the absence of a satisfying alternative approach, the conformance criterion is still most frequently applied in plan implementation evaluation (Laurian et al., 2004; Rudolf and Gradinaru, 2019; Tian and Shen, 2011). Yet few methodological attempts have been made to alleviate its defect by improving the conformance evaluation method.…”