Evaluating Comprehensive Plans: Evaluation Criteria
Roger K. Hedrick, FAICP
Contents Search Help Home

Session:Evaluating Comprehensive Plans and Processes (March 14, 8:45am)

A. Introduction

This paper sets forth a definition of the Comprehensive Plan and ten (10) Planning Smart Principles that further define and operationalize the concept of a comprehensive plan. Using these principles, any community’s comprehensive plan, private or public can be evaluated to determine how well their policies measure up to my proposed definition of a Comprehensive Plan and Planning Smart Principles. The results of applying the criteria can be relatively self-evident, will enable one to tell good plans from bad and the corrections to a plan to meet the criteria will be relatively easy to make. It is anticipated the definition and Planning Smart Principles can universally be used to develop a high quality comprehensive plan and that any community or metropolitan plan in the U.S. can be evaluated.

The overall inquiry of this paper is: Are America’s major metropolitan communities planning smart? The answer to this general question begins with the following more specific question: What constitutes a high quality comprehensive plan?

B. Why Plan?

It is suggested here that the value of comprehensive planning remains relevant and that plan be of the highest quality and most useful for communities of all sizes. It is significant that, throughout the U.S., even where state statutes do not require it, local governments of all sizes continue to plan on their own. This underscores how widespread the recognition of the benefits derived from comprehensive planning has become. While local governments may have a special set of reasons in undertaking the preparation of plans, Chapter 7 of APA’s The Growing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook cites several of the most frequently-mentioned as follows:1

    First, local planning draws the attention of the local legislative body, appointed boards, and citizens to the community’s major development problems and opportunities. A plan gives elected and appointed officials in particular an opportunity to back off from their preoccupation with pressing, day-to-day issues and to clarify their ideas on the kind of community they are trying to create by their many specific decisions. A local comprehensive plan represents a “big picture” of the community, one that can be related to the trends and interests of the broader region as well as the state in which the local government is located.2 Second, local planning is often the most direct and efficient way to involve the members of the general public in describing the community they want. The process of plan preparation with its attendant workshops, questionnaires, meetings, and public hearings, permits two-way communications between citizens and local government officials as to a vision of the community and the details of how that vision is to be achieved. In this respect, the plan is “a blueprint of values” that evolves over time.3 Third, local planning results in the adoption of a series of goals and policies that, ideally, should guide the local government in administering regulations like zoning and subdivision controls and in the location, financing, and sequencing of public improvements in the community. In so doing, it may also provide a means of coordinating the actions of many different agencies within the local government itself.

In addition to the reasons from the local government perspective, comprehensive planning also has a direct benefit to the private sector.

    First because planning results in a statement of how the local government intends to act over time with respect to its physical development in terms of public investment and execution of land development controls, the “private land owner may shape his own plans in the plastic stage when they have not yet crystallized” in the words of one writer.4 A plan sends signals by providing a “prophecy of public reaction” to specific development proposals, which ultimately influences complimentary private investments.5 Second the predictability that a plan offers by its requirement of information gathering and analysis ensures (hopefully) that what a local government does is based on facts, not “haphazard surmises.” It thus provides a measure of consistency to governmental action, a “guard against the arbitrary” that “diminishes the problems of discrimination, the granting of special privileges, and the denial of equal protection of the laws.” 6

From the standpoint of the state itself, it is desirable that regions, parishes and municipalities plan. State facilities like freeway interchanges and parks are affected by what local governments authorize to occur around them. A local government can allow development that is either compatible or incompatible with such state investments. Typical state interests—like protection of wetlands, preservation of coastal areas and farmland, and provision of affordable housing—are directly influenced by what cities and parishes do. While states do not, in all instances, attempt to directly influence the substantive content of plans or their implementation, the preparation of such plans does provide an opportunity for such interests to be raised so that local governments can address them in a positive and proactive manner. The mere fact that a local government might consult with the state transportation or natural resources department in a plan’s preparation is a way in which state interests may be articulated and accommodated.

According to Rouse, Chandler and Arason, the practice of comprehensive planning is undergoing significant changes as we enter a new century and millennium. In contrast to the top-down, data or policy based plans of the past, contemporary plans are driven by the issues and values identified by citizen participants in the planning process.7

C. Plan evaluation methodology

Following an evaluation of twenty years of planning in Oregon, Deborah Howe points out that evaluative research is generally resisted. She cites one professional planner as saying, “Declare victory and move on.”8 This paper proposes both policy-prescriptive and policy-evaluation of comprehensive plans. It has been claimed by some, that policy-prescriptive work is not theoretical. The opposite is true. All policy proposals rest on forecasts about the effects of policies. These forecasts rest in turn on implicit or explicit theoretical assumptions about the laws of social and political motion. Hence all evaluation of public policy requires the framing and evaluation of theory. Therefore, it is fundamentally theoretical.9

A key goal of planning mandates, according to Burby and May, is better-quality local plans.10 However, while planners can differentiate high-quality plans from low-quality plans, they are hard-pressed to identify explicitly the defining characteristics of a good plan. The planning literature is surprisingly sparse when it comes to describing what constitutes a superior plan. Planners generally avoid this normative question and criticizing other planners and focus instead on plan-making methods and processes. This paper intends to lay the groundwork by which all comprehensive plans can be evaluated, reformulated and for that matter initially prepared.

D. Defining a Comprehensive Plan

The comprehensive plan came of age in the 1950’s, spurred by population growth and the momentum for urban development following World War II, coupled with the adoption of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Section 701 grant program required local governments applying for urban renewal assistance to adopt long-range general plans, prescribed the contents of the plans, and made money available for their development. During this period, T. J. Kent and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. emerged as important theorists.11 In The Urban General Plan, Kent advanced this definition of the comprehensive or general plan:

    "The general plan is the official statement of a municipal legislative body which sets forth its major policies concerning desirable future physical development; the published general-plan document must include a single, unified general physical design for the community, and it must attempt to clarify the relationships between physical-development policies and social and economic goals."12

Kent believed that the plan should be long-range, comprehensive in its geographic scope, and general and inspirational in nature, with an emphasis on policy rather than specific actions.

According to The Practice of Local Government Planning ("the Green Book"), despite changes in name and concept, some consistent threads characterize the comprehensive plan:

    First, it is a physical plan. Although a reflection of social and economic values, the plan is fundamentally a guide to the physical development of a town or city. It is the translation of values into a scheme that describes how, why, when, and where to build, rebuild, or preserve the community. Second, the plan is long range. It covers a time period greater than one year, usually twenty years or more. It is now recognized that an effective plan will express current policies that will shape the future rather than show a rigid image of the future itself. Nevertheless, a good plan should inspire us with a vision of what might be and it should also tell us how to get there. Third, the plan must be comprehensive. It must cover the entire community geographically. And, the plan must encompass all of the functions that make a community work. Finally, the plan should be a guide to decision making by the community’s elected and appointed officials.13

The American Planning Association’s "Growing SmartSM Model for a Local Comprehensive Plan"14 also defines many aspects of a comprehensive plan.

    In particular, those items that will be relied upon relate to: the adequacy of contents of a local comprehensive plan in terms of a mandatory set of six elements (vision, land use, transportation, community facilities, housing and implementation) and three opt out mandatory elements (economic development, critical and sensitive areas and natural hazards - if the decision is made to mandate local planning) and optional elements; procedures for plan review, adoption, amendment and provision for public collaborative processes; and strategies proposed to carry out the plan and monitor its implementation, including legislation, official mapping and capital budgeting.

In The 21st Century Plan, the authors Rouse, Chandler, and Arason, suggest it is only natural to speculate about the ways comprehensive plans will likely change in the next millennium. Although many trends and events will undoubtedly influence planning in the future, several factors are already helping to change the face of planning as we get ready to transition to the 21st century as identified next.15

    The following attributes of comprehensive plans have become apparent in recent years: values driven; collaborative; thematic based; linking process and outcome; regional in focus; beyond paper.

During the last twenty years in particular, there have been several important attempts to identify the characteristics of high-quality plans. Chapin and Kaiser have defined the characteristics or three critical components of comprehensive plans that conceivably could serve as initial evaluation criteria. Their three critical components are as follows:16

    First, factual underpinnings of the comprehensive plan describe and analyze social, economic and environmental conditions and trends related to the growth and development of the community; Second, goals identify general aspirations of the population, problems needing alleviation and needs that are based upon shared values of community members; and Third, policies and recommended actions serve as guides to decisions concerning the amount, location design and timing of public and private development to insure that progress is made toward achieving the goals identified in the comprehensive plan.

Berke and Manta Conroy believe that the planner overseeing preparation of a plan is important. They contend, "one person writing and developing the plan can make a significant difference."17 These authors speculate that a planner may be convinced of the importance of a concept, but may not be able to get interest groups to agree to the idea. However, a planner still may have the ability to work principles into policies where they are less obvious. During the 1960s, HUD in concert with state planning agencies, developed Planner-In-Charge qualifications to determine who could direct the HUD "701" grant funded comprehensive plans. This designation continues to be used today in some states.

In summary, the literature on the comprehensive plan has made substantial strides in defining the key characteristics of the concept that are relevant to the theory and practice of comprehensive planning. For the purposes of evaluating the four metropolitan plans, I used these characteristics to develop the following working definition: A comprehensive plan is a vision of a community’s future for physical development and is prepared based upon Planning Smart Principles.

E. Planning Smart Principles

Given my definition of a comprehensive plan and the task of constructing a set of operational performance principles for evaluating community and metropolitan comprehensive plans, I offer ten (10) Planning Smart Principles. Each principle an explicit connection to the quality of future development of a community has a common basis and may be measured in a common way. The first phase of my ongoing research has been to identify and propose ten (10) Planning Smart Principles. These principles have been derived from traditional and less accepted contemporary sources. The principles are:

  1. Long Range – The plan should cover a time period of 20-30 years. While an effective plan will express current policies that will shape the future, the plan should inspire and challenge the community with a vision of what might be in the future.
  2. Inclusive Plan Elements18 - The plan should encompass all of the functions that make a community work. These ten functions are: vision; land use; transportation; community facilities; housing; economic development; critical and sensitive areas; natural hazards; community design and implementation.
  3. Regional – The territorial scope of city and county governments is too limited to effectively address major regional issues such as transportation, air pollution control, watershed protection and affordable housing. Thus, the plan’s study area should be regional geographically and closely coordinated with the ten plan elements.
  4. Smart Growth Values – Each community should grow according to its own values. Based on experience, however, communities have identified ten smart growth principles: mixed land use; compact building design; range of housing choices; walkable neighborhoods; attractive communities; preserve open space; direct growth to existing communities; transportation choices; predictable, fair, cost effective development decisions; and community, stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
  5. Collaboration – Meaningful citizen involvement should result in partnerships with the business community and local government. Expression to the work of citizens should be given in addition to relevant information and context, facilitating decision-making and consensus building.
  6. Appropriate Planning process - A process which is appropriate to its place and situation in: number and order of steps; orientation to the future, to value change and to resource constraints; quality of research and analysis; and format of policy or plan.
  7. Planner–In-Charge Designation –The qualifications of who prepares the plan is important. The PIC should be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. The AICP is a highly respected, national organization that establishes professional standards, educational requirements and professional ethics for professional planners.
  8. Multi-media Plan - Documents should be user friendly with ample maps and graphics and readily available in hard and electronic copy. GIS, the Internet, CD-ROM, computer visualization and other interactive devices will continue to increase community understanding and involvement.
  9. Viable Plan – The plan should remain current, sound and workable if translated into action. It is important that plans reflect change in community values, growth, technology, etc. Thus, the plans should have been completed or updated during the last five years.
  10. Policy Guide – Linking process, plans and outcome is important. The plan should have direct linkage with implementation tools (development codes, capital improvement programs, etc.). The plan must also act as a tool for decision making by elected and appointed officials. The policy board should adopt the plan.

Note: This paper represents ongoing research of the author in the area of comprehensive plan evaluation. The ten Planning Smart Principles contained herein will be refined and tested in the field through evaluation of large community comprehensive plans. For further information please contact:

    Roger K. Hedrick, FAICP
    HedrickCPD
    227 Grand Avenue
    Lafayette, LA 70503
    (337) 989-8135 (Tel/Fax)
    rhedrick@iamerica.net (Email)

Notes

  1. American Planning Association, “Local Planning,” The Growing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook, Phases I & II Interim Edition, Chicago: APA, September 1998, Chapter 7: p. 5. [back]
  2. Black, Alan, “The Comprehensive Plan,” in Principles and Practice of Urban Planning, William I. Goodman and Eric C. Freund, eds, Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, 1968, p. 360. [back]
  3. Charles M. Haar, The Master Plan: An Impermanent Constitution, @ Law and Contemporary Problems, 20,3, summer 1955, p. 359. [back]
  4. Ibid, 363 [back]
  5. Ibid, 362. [back]
  6. Ibid, 365-66. [back]
  7. Rouse, David, Chandler, Todd Michael and Arason, John, “The 21st Century Comprehensive Plan, “1999 APA Proceedings, AICP Press, Washington D.C., 1999. [back]
  8. Abbott, C., Howe, D. and Adler, S., Planning the Oregon Way: A Twenty-Year Evaluation, Corvallis, Ore.: Oregon State University Press, 1994. [back]
  9. Van Evera, Stephen, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, Cornell University Press, 1997, p. 91. [back]
  10. Burby, Raymond J., and May, Peter J., Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use, Johns Hopkins University Press, May 1997, p. 101. [back]
  11. Rouse, David, Chandler, Todd Michael and Arason, John, "The 21st Century Comprehensive Plan," 1999 APA Proceedings, AICP Press, Washington D.C., 1999. [back]
  12. Kent, T. J. Jr., The Urban General Plan, (Chicago: APA reprint 1990, original 1964). [back]
  13. Beal, Frank and Hollander, Elizabeth, "City Development Plans" in Frank S. So, Israel Stollman, Frank Beal and David S. Arnold, eds, The Practice of Local Government Planning, Washington D.C., International City Management Association, Chapter 6, p. 153. [back]
  14. American Planning Association, "Local Planning," The Growing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook, Phases I & II Interim Edition, Chicago: APA, September 1998, Chapter 7: 1-189. [back]
  15. Rouse, David, Chandler, Todd Michael and Arason, John, "The 21st Century Comprehensive Plan," 1999 APA Proceedings, AICP Press, Washington D.C., 1999. [back]
  16. Chapin, Stuart F. and Kaiser, Edward J., Urban Land Use Planning (3rd edition), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1979, p. 327-40. [back]
  17. Berke, Phillip and Manta Conroy, Maria, "Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 66, No.1, winter 2000, p. 28. [back]
  18. Note: The following elements are "opt-out" elements if deemed not appropriate for the community: economic development; critical and sensitive areas; and natural hazards. Community Design has been added by the author and is also deemed as an "opt-out" element. [back]

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2001 by Author

Roger K. Hedrick, FAICP, is President of Hedrick -- Community Planning and Design, a Lafayette, Louisiana, based planning firm that specializes in comprehensive plans, design based unified development codes and technological, citizen participation strategies. With three decades of community planning and development experience, he is the holder of a master of Public Administration degree from the University of Missouri -- Kansas City and a Bachelor of Science degree in Landscape Architgecture from Iowa State University. He is a past National President of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), a Fellow of AICP and currently serves on the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB).