The process of planning for sustainable development: Dimensions, comparisons, and insights

International Journal of Sustainable Development

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 460-477

  Conroy, Maria Manta ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Planning process; Public participation; Resource commitment

Indexed keywords

FORECASTING; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

PROCESS DIMENSIONS;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; LOCAL PLANNING; PLANNING PROCESS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0345767275     PISSN: 09601406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2003.004209     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Beatley, T. (1995) 'Planning and sustainability: the elements of a new (improved?) paradigm', Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 383-395.
2. Rees, W.E. (1995) 'Achieving sustainability: reform or transformation?', Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 343-361.
3. Wheeler, S. (1996) Sustainable Urban Development: a literature review and analysis. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley.
4. Berke, P.R. and Conroy, M.M. (2000) 'Planning for sustainable development: measuring and explaining progress in plans', Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 21-33.
5. Kaiser, E.J., Godschalk, D.R. and Chapin, Jr, F.S. (1995) Urban Land Use Planning, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
6. Beatley, T. and Manning, K. (1997) The Ecology of Place, Island Press, Washington, DC.
7. Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis, Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
8. Roseland, M. (1998) Toward Sustainable Communities, New Society Publishers, Stony Creek, CT.
9. Campbell, S. (1996) 'Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development', Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 296-313.
10. Grant, J., Manuel, P. and Joudrey, D. (1996) 'A framework for planning sustainable residential landscapes', Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 331-345.
11. United Nations (1992) Earth Summit: Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, United Nations Publications, New York.
12. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
13. Innes, J.E. (1996) 'Planning through consensus building', Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 460-472.
14. Ostrom, E. (1993) 'A communitarian approach to local governance', National Civic Review, Vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 226-234.
15. Crowfoot, J.E. and Wondolleck, J.M. (1990) Environmental Conflicts: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
16. Berry, J.M., Portney, K.E. and Thomson, K. (1993) The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
17. Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory, Avebury, Aldershot, England.
18. Wild, A. and Marshall, R. (1999) 'Participatory practice in the context of Local Agenda 21: a case study evaluation of experience in three English local authorities', Sustainable Development, Vol. 7, pp. 151-162.
19. Hester, R. (1999) 'A refrain with a view (a new approach to local citizen participation in community design)', Places, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 12-25.
20. Berke, P.R. and French, S.P. (1994) 'The influence of state planning on local plan quality', Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 13, pp. 237-250.
21. Dalton, L.C. and Burby, R.J. (1994) 'Mandates, plans, and planners: building local commitment to development management', Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 444-461.
22. DeGrove, J.M. (1992) Planning and Growth Management in the States, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
23. Amstein, S. (1969) 'A ladder of citizen participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, pp. 216-221.
24. Burke, E.M. (1979) A Participatory Approach to Urban Planning, Human Sciences Press, New York.
25. Burby, R.J. and May, P.J. (1997) Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
26. Healey, P. and Shaw, T. (1997) 'Planners, plans and sustainable development', Regional Studies, Vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 769-776.
27. The basis for differentiating the plans in the sample is the observed integration of sustainability into the plan's vision or framework. Good plans describe the current status of a community, present a vision for the community's future, and provide concrete policies that not only guide actions to achieve the vision, but are strong enough to insure that they will be followed. A 'sustainable development' plan differs in content from this description primarily in that the community's vision, and therefore the orientation of plan policies, is focused on becoming a sustainable community. Plans using the concept of sustainable development in their vision statement or as an organizing concept are said to integrate the concept in the plan [4]. Integration of the concept is an indication of the 'systematic transformation of the planning agenda' anticipated with adoption of a sustainable development planning paradigm [26].
28. This sample selection process was an expansion of that for the Berke and Conroy study [4]. In that study, the authors identified 105 plans, approved between 1985 and 1995, that potentially used the concept of sustainable development. Size constraints limited this number to 85. Ten of the 85 plans were identified as having integrated the concept of sustainable development, and 20 were randomly selected from the remaining plans. This study expanded the original sample to 135 using the same sample selection process and the original collection of plans.
29. Twenty-one of these plans included the core values of sustainability (environmental protection, economic development, and social equity) in an introductory vision statement that guided the goals and policies. Four plans did not include a vision statement, but contained language that consistently referred to the core values of sustainable development and translated these values into policies throughout the plan. This total is somewhat lower than expected. However, the communities still show considerable variation in geographic location and population size. Communities that integrated sustainable development in their plans are located in 22 states and are distributed in population size across a range from about 20 000 to 998 000 people.
30. Plans that had been updated from the Berke and Conroy study [4] included Burlington, VT; Kansas City, MO; Lincoln, NE; San Antonio, TX; Annapolis, MD; Bethel, ME; and Georgetown, TX. Three of the original local plans that did not integrate the concept had to be dropped due to plan revisions that would not be completed in time for use in this research (Anchorage, AK; Madison, WI; and Nantucket, MA). Communities that integrated sustainability into their plans included: Ames, IA; Boulder, CO; Burlington, VT; Calvert County, MD; Cambridge, MA; Chattanooga, TN; Durham, NC; Grantsville, UT; Kane County, IL; Kansas City, MO; Larimer County, CO; Lincoln, NE; Livingston, MT; Loveland, CO; McFarland, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Oakdale, CA; Olympia, WA; Portland, OR; San Antonio, TX; San Jose, CA; Santa Clara, CA; Santa Fe, NM; Seattle, WA; and Teton County, WY. Communities that did not integrate sustainability into their plans included: Annapolis, MD; Arlington, TX; Bethel, ME; Bozeman, MT; Bucks County, PA; Champaign, IL; Charleston, SC; Cleveland, OH; Davis, CA; Georgetown, TX; Honey Brook, PA; Howard County, MD; Jacksonville, FL; Loudoun County, VA; Pittsburgh, PA; Wilmington, NC; and Windsor, CT.
31. Levy, J.M. (1992) 'What has happened to planning?' Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 81-84.