Does planning work?: Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in florida

Journal of the American Planning Association

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 159-175

  Brody, Samuel D ^a   Highfield, Wesley E ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS;

FLORIDA [UNITED STATES]; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 21544475765     PISSN: 01944363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01944360508976690     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alexander, E. R., and Faludi, A., 1989. Planning and plan implementation:Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 16:127–140.
2. Alterman, R, and Hill, M., 1978. Implementation of urban land use plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33:274–285.
3. Anselin, L., 1995. Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27:93–115.
4. Baer, W. C., 1997. General plan evaluation criteria:An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63:329–344.
5. Beatley, T., 2000. Preserving biodiversity:Challenges for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66:5–20.
6. Beatley, T., and Manning, K., 1997. The ecology of place:Planning for environment, economy, and community, Washington, DC:Island Press.
7. Berke, P., and French, S., 1994. The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13:237–250.
8. Berke, P., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., and Erickson, N., 1998. Do co-operative environmental management mandates produce good plans? The New Zealand experience, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Working Paper)
9. Brody, S. D., 2003a. Examining the impacts of stakeholder participation in watershed approaches to planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22:107–119.
10. Brody, S. D., 2003b. Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through land use planning. Population and Environment, 24:511–540.
11. Brody, S. D., Carrasco, V., and Highfield, W., 2004. Evaluating ecosystem management capabilities at the local level in Florida:A policy gap analysis using geographic information systems. Environmental Management, 32:661–681.
12. Bryson, J. M., 1991. There is no substitute for an empirical defense of planning and planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10:164–165.
13. Burby, R., 2003. Making plans that matter:Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69:33–49.
14. Burby, R, and May, P., 1998. Intergovernmental environmental planning:Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41:95–110.
15. Burby, R, May, P., Berke, P., Dalton, L., French, S., and Kaiser, E., 1997. Making governments plan:State experiments in managing land use, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
16. Calkins, H. W., 1979. The planning monitor:An accountability theory of plan evaluation. Environment and Planning A, 11:745–758.
17. Clawson, M., 1971. Suburban land conversion in the United States:An economic and governmental process, Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
18. Driessen, P., 1997. Performance and implementing institutions in rural land development. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24:859–869.
19. Duerksen, C. D., Elliot, N., Thompson, E., and Miller, J., 1997. Habitat protection planning:Where the wild things are, Washington, DC:Planning Advisory Service. (APA Planning Advisory Service Report No. 470/471)
20. Faludi, A., 2000. The performance of spatial planning. Planning practice and research, 1:299–318.
21. Mastrop, H., and Faludi, A., 1997. Evaluation of strategic plans:The performance principle. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24:815–832.
22. Miles, M., and Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis:A sourcebook of new methods, 2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
23. Mutagh, B., 1998. Evaluating the community impacts of urban policy. Planning Practice and Research, 13:129–138.
24. Peck, S., 1998. Planning for biodiversity:Issues and examples, Washington, DC:Island Press.
25. Pinellas County. Penny for Pinellas http://www.pinellascounty.org/pennydefault.htm(n.d.)Retrieved April, 2004, from
26. Seasons, M., 2003. Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69:430–440.
27. Talen, E., 1996a. After the plans:Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16:79–91.
28. Talen, E., 1996b. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10:248–259.
29. Talen, E., 1997. Success, failure, and conformance:An alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24:573–587.
30. Wildavsky, A., 1973. If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing. Policy Sciences, 4:127–153.
31. Williams, J., Wood, C, and Dombeck, M., eds. 1997. Watershed restoration:Principles and practices, Bethesda, MD:American Fisheries Society.