Journal of Planning Education and Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Norton, R. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, 149-171 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X05278984

Local Commitment to State-Mandated Planning in Coastal North Carolina

Richard K. Norton

Urban and Regional Planning Program at the University of Michigan

A consistent finding from recent work on the evaluation of planning outcomes has been that local commitment to planning plays a vital role in explaining those outcomes, especially when planning is promoted as a way to address regional development management concerns. While the importance of local commitment is not surprising, many questions remain, such as what "local commitment" means, what motivates it, and how it operates to affect local planning efforts and outcomes. This article presents results from a study of state-mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina during the mid-1990s, focusing on the factors that appear to motivate local elected officials’ commitment to planning and the influence of their commitment on planning outcomes. Taken altogether, coastal localities generally failed to address coastal resource protection through their local planning beyond complying with minimum state resource protection rules. This was largely because of resistance to the imposition of state-level policies through local planning requirements. State mandates appeared to foster local commitment to planning but not the state’s development management goals. Within that context, local elected officials’ commitment to planning played an important role in enhancing both plan quality and plan implementation.

Key Words: state-mandated local planning • regional growth management • plan implementation evaluation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?