Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies

Journal of Planning Literature

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 227-240

  Berke, Philip ^a   Godschalk, David ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Future directions in plan evaluation; Land use plan evaluation concepts; Meta analysis of plan quality research; Plan evaluation methodology; Plan quality principles and criteria

Indexed keywords

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; LAND USE PLANNING; META-ANALYSIS; PLANNING METHOD; POLICY APPROACH; REGIONAL PLANNING;

AUSTRALASIA; BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; NEW ZEALAND; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 59649127688     PISSN: 08854122     EISSN: 15526593     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0885412208327014     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baer, W.C. 1997. General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (3): 329-45.
2. Ballon, H., and K. T. Jackson, eds. 2007. Robert Moses and the modern city: The transformation of New York. New York: Norton.
3. Bartholomew, K. 2007. Land use transportation scenario planning in an era of global climate change. Transportation 34 (4): 397-412.
4. Beatley, T. 1999. Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
5. Beatley T. 2005. Native to nowhere: Sustaining home and community in a global age. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6. Berke, P.R., M. Backhurst, L. Laurian, J. Crawford, and J. Dixon. 2006. What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33 (4): 581-600.
7. Berke, P.R., J. Crawford, J. Dixon, and N. Ericksen. 1999. Do cooperative environmental planning mandates produce good plans? Empirical results from the New Zealand experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26: 643-64.
8. Berke, P.R., J. Dixon, and N. Ericksen. 1997. Coercive and cooperative intergovernmental mandates: A comparative analysis of Florida and New Zealand environmental plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24: 451-68.
9. Berke, P.R., N. Ericksen, J. Crawford, and J. Dixon. 2002. Planning for indigenous people: Human rights and environmental protection in New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 115-34.
10. Berke, P.R., D.R. Godschalk, and E.J. Kaiser, with D.A. Rodriguez. 2006. Urban land use planning. 5th ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
11. Berke, P.R., and M. Manta-Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 21-33.
12. Berke, P.R., D. Roenigk, E. Kaiser, and R. Burby. 1996. Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39 (1): 79-96.
13. Brody, S. 2003a. Are we learning to make better plans? A longitudinal analysis of plan quality associated with natural hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (2): 191-201.
14. Brody S. 2003b. Implementing the principles of ecosystem management through local land use planning. Population and Environment 29 (6): 511-40.
15. Brody, S., V. Carrasco, and W. Highfield. 2006. Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25: 294-310.
16. Brody, S., W. Highfield, and V. Carrasco. 2004. Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 32-50.
17. Bullard, R., ed. 2007. Growing smarter: Achieving livable communities, environmental justice, and regional equity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Burby, R.J., P.R. Berke, R.E. Doyle, S.F. French, D.R. Godschalk, E.J. Kaiser, J.D. Kartez, P.J. May, R. Olshansky, R.G. Paterson, and R.H. Platt. 1999. Unleashing the power of planning to create disaster-resistant communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (3): 247-58.
19. Burby, R.J., and L.C. Dalton. 1994. Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas. Public Administration Review 54 (3): 230-38.
20. Burby, R.J., and P.J. May, with Philip R. Berke, Linda C. Dalton, Steven P. French, and Edward J. Kaiser. 1997. Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21. Caro, R.A. 1974. The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York. New York: Knopf.
22. Deyle, R.E., and R.A. Smith. 1998. Local government compliance with state plan mandates: The effects of state implementation in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (4): 457-69.
23. Edwards, M.M., and A. Haines. 2007. Evaluating smart growth: Implications for small communities. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (1): 49-64.
24. Ericksen, N., P. Berke, and J. Crawford. 2004. Plan-making for sustainability: The New Zealand experience. London: Ashgate.
25. Esnard, A., P. Berke, D. Godschalk, and E. Kaiser. 2006. Hypothetical city workbook III: Exercises in GIS data to accompany urban land use planning. 5th ed. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
26. Glass, G. 1977. Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education 5: 351-79.
27. Godschalk, D.R. 2004. Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (1): 1-9.
28. Godschalk, D.R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D. Brower, and E. Kaiser. 1999. Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning, 327-91. Washington, DC: Island Press.
29. Hoch, C. 2002. Evaluating plans pragmatically. Planning Theory 1 (1): 53-75.
30. Hoch C. 2007. How plan mandates work: Affordable housing in Illinois. Journal of the American planning Association 73 (1): 86-99.
31. Hopkins, L.D. 2001. Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32. Kaiser, E.J., and J. Davies. 1999. What a good plan should contain: A proposed model. Carolina Planning 24 (2): 29-41.
33. Kaiser, E.J., and D.R. Godschalk. 1995. Twentieth century land use planning: A stalwart family tree. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (3): 365-85.
34. Kaiser, E.J., D.R. Godschalk, and S. Chapin Jr. 1995. Urban land use planning. 4th ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
35. Kalkhoff, W., and S. Thye. 2006. Expectation states theory and research: New observations from meta-analysis. Sociological Methods and Research 35 (2): 219-49.
36. Knaap, G.J., C. Ding, and L.D. Hopkins. 2001. Do plans matter? The effects of light rail plans on land values in station areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 32-39.
37. Krippendorff, K. 2004. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communications Research 30 (3): 411-33.
38. Lombard, M., J. Snyder-Duch, and C. Bracken. 2002. Content analysis in mass communication research: An assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28: 587-604.
39. Meck, S., ed. 2002. Growing smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning and management of change. 2 vols. Chicago: American Planning Association.
40. Nelson, A., and S. French. 2002. Plan quality and mitigating damage from natural disasters: A case study of the Northridge Earthquake with planning considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 194-207.
41. Norton, R. 2005. More and better local planning: State-mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (1): 55-72.
42. Schon, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
43. Smith, C. 2006. The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the remaking of the American city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Talen, E. 1996. After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (2): 79-91.
45. Termorshuizen, J., P. Opdam, and A. van den Brink. 2007. Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 79: 374-84.
46. Tomalty, R., and D. Alexander. 2005. Smart growth in Canada: A report card. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
47. Wolf, F. 1986. Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. London: Sage.