Assessing and Interpreting Non-conformance in Land-use Planning Implementation

Abstract

Planners studying implementation continue to search for better ways to determine whether and how well plans have been implemented. Even when we can identify areas of non-conformance between plans and outcomes, it can be unclear how to interpret them. This paper presents a conformance-based framework for evaluating plan implementation based on a GIS comparison of planned versus actual land use. This method is especially useful for making distinctions between instances of non-conformance that are benign artifacts of the development process and those that suggest the presence of breakdowns in the planning process.

Eroding State Mandate Effectiveness in the Land ofLucas

“…Chapin, Deyle, and Baker (2008) used a sophisticated pre-and post-test approach, "standardizing [the number of permits issued, new units built, or land use changes] against the supply of available land" (277), which more accurately reflected the relationship between policy and development practices. The results of this spatial linkage suggest that policy-whether a mandate or a plan-is not reflected in the subsequent built form (Chapin, Deyle, and Baker 2008;Loh 2011), confirming the Ingram and Schneider (1990) findings.…”

“…The dominant and emergent approach to do so is conformance-based (Loh 2012, citing to Laurian et al 2004. It associates plans with spatial outcomes through permit issuance (Brody and Highfield 2005;Laurian et al 2004) and parcel-based conformance (Chapin, Deyle, and Baker 2008;Loh 2011). These assume the form of either post-test or pre-and post-test research designs, the latter of which is much more rare (Chapin, Deyle, and Baker 2008).…”

“…Actors at the local level can affect the plan content and its quality, as well as its ultimate implementation, which is also known as conformance (e.g., realizing the BMA's retreat policy and limiting new structures between the baseline and setback lines described below). The chain of coastal management policy generation to physical manifestation can be interrupted or sufficiently altered to cause non-conformance in coastal built form, depending on the introduction of variables, interest groups, and actors at each process stage (Loh 2011;2012;Laurian et al 2004;Norton 2005).…”

Can the Land Use Master Plan Control Urban Expansion and Protect Farmland in China? A Case Study of Nanjing

“…Planners and policymakers use plans to shape the physical development and often expect them to influence outcomes (Burby and May ; Loh ). Our case study indicates the inability of plans to control urban expansion and protect farmland under the existing top–down planning regulatory system in China.…”

“…This coercive plan designates land‐use patterns permitted in specific areas within each local jurisdiction. In this study, we compared practical land use with spatio‐temporal land‐use configuration in the plan (Abrantes et al ; Laurian et al ; Loh ; Padeiro ). Facing socioeconomic uncertainties, the constant adjusting of land‐use patterns and spatial reconfiguration among jurisdictions is inevitable.…”