05whatdoesitmean.pdf

What

Does

it

Mean

to

Implement

a

CAMA

Land

Use

Plan

Anyway?

Richard

K.

Norton

County and

municipal

governments

in

coastal

North

Carolina

have been

preparinglocal

land use plans underthestate'sCoastal

Area

Management

Act

(CAMA)

program

foralmost 25 years. Local planning has

always been

viewed

asan importantpartofthat larger coastal

management

program.

Both

the larger

program

in general

and

localplanning inparticular,

however,

have

recently

become

mired

in

controversyasthestate

and

coastal localities

attempttoaddress "explosive population

growth

and unexpected

environmental dangers[that]

continuetothreaten thecoast"

(NC

CFC

1994:

ES-1

).

Much

of

thatcontroversy revolves arounddiffering interpretationsof what, exactly,

thestatecan require

of

the localitiesthrough its

planningmandates,

whether

theplans being

produced

under those

mandates

are

good

plans,

and

whether

the localitiesthemselvesareactually

Richard

K.

Norton

is

a

doctoralcandidate in

City

and

Regional

Planning

atthe University

of

North Carolina

at

Chapel

Hill

and

a

member

of

the

North

CarolinaBar.

He

is studyinglocal

efforts to

implement

CAMA

land

use

plans

for

hisdissertationresearch

and

has

been

a

regular attendee

of

the Coastal

Resource

Commission

s

Planning Review

Team

proceedings.

Funding

forthisresearch

was provided by

the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency

under a

Scienceto

Achieve

Results

(STAR)

Graduate

Fellowship

award

and

by

the LincolnInstitute

for

Land

Policy.

Cambridge.

MA.

under

a

DissertationFellowship award.

implementing

theirplans.

Perhapsthe shaipestdisagreements

on

these

questions

come

from

debatesthatplace local

governments

inthe coastalregion collectivelyat

odds

withthe region'senvironmental interest

group community.

Simplifyingthe

arguments

a

bitto illustrate,

many

localitiesassert both that

their

CAMA

land useplans are

good

plans

—

they

comply

withthestate'splanning

mandates and

meet

community

needs

—

and

thatthey

implement

theirplans

by

using

them

when making

local land

userelated policy decisions. Incontrast,

members

ofthe coastalenvironmental interest

group

community

assert that local

CAMA

plans, by-and-large, are not

good

plansbecausethey

do

notadequately addressthecontinued loss

and

degradation

of

regionally significant coastal

resourcesin

any

rigorous way.

The

environmental

community

assertsfurtherthat to

theextentthat localitiesdo appeartoaddress environmentalissuesthroughtheirplans,they

failtofollowthrough

by

actually

implementing

thoseplans.

Not

surprisingly,these partiestothedebate

seeverydifferentsourcesbehind the

CAMA

land useplanning controversy

and

verydifferent

ways

out

of

thatcontroversy. In general, local

governments

want

more

flexibilitytoaddress

more

effectivelytheiruniquelocalconditions.

Environmentalists,incontrast,

want

totighten

down

onthestate'splanning requirementsin

orderto

compel

local

governments

toaddress environmental issuesina

more

meaningful

way. Local

governments

pointto

CAMA

permitting requirements

and

thestate'sotherenvironmental

protection

programs

as theappropriate

mechanism

forensuringadequatecoastal

resourceprotection. Environmentalists,again in

require)that local

governments

addresscoastal

resourceprotection directly

and

more

rigorously throughtheirplans. Finally, local

governments

tendtoseetheir

CAMA

plans

more

likevision

statements,

where

theplanprovides analyses

and

policiesdesignedtohelpthe

community

meet

aspirational goals. Environmentalists believe

that

CAMA

plansshouldbe

more

prescriptive ratherthan exhortativeindirectingappropriate

land

development

patterns,particularly forthe

purpose

of

providingadequatecoastalresource

protection.

All

of

the partiesto thisdebate generally agreethatthere is

room

to

improve

the local

planning process

under

CAMA

sothattheplans

produced

arebothbetter

and

better

implemented,

althoughtheextentto

which

such

improvements

are

needed

isprobablycontestable.

Disagreement

most

clearlyarises,

however,

on

thequestions

of what

makes

fora

"good"

local

CAMA

land use plan in thefirstplace

and what

it

means

toactually

"implement"

a

CAMA

plan

inthesecond.

These seemingly

straightforward questionsarenot so simple

under

the surface, especially

when

thinkingabouta

state-mandated

local planning

program and

placingit inthe

contextof

North

Carolina's legal, institutional

andpolitical setting

and

history. Butif

North

Carolina'scoastal

community,

takenaltogether,

istoreach

some

level

of workable consensus on

how

local

CAMA

landuseplanning

and

plan

implementationeffortsoughttobe(orcanbe)

improved.the

community

will first

need

toreach

some

level

of workable consensus on

what

qualifies as a

good

local landuse plan

and

what

good

plan implementationeffortslooklike.

As

describedin

more

detailbelow,the

North

Carolina Coastal

Resources

Commission

established aPlanning

Review

Team

inlate

1998

thathas

been

revisiting thelocal

CAMA

landuse planning

program

in responsetothecontroversy surrounding it.

As

partofthat effort, the

Planning

Review

Team

hasbeenstrugglingwith

a

number

of

difficultquestions.1

Several fundamentalpoints

of

disagreement inparticular

have

persistedthroughout thoseefforts,including

inessencethecore questions

of what

makes

for a

good

local

CAMA

plan,

what

makes

for

successfullocal

CAMA

planimplementation.

and

how

the state can bestfacilitate both.

The

purpose

of

this paperisnot so

much

tosuggest

answers

tothese thorny questionsasitis:opoint out

and

discuss

some

oftheconceptualissues

and

difficultiesraised

when

askingthem.

Reaching

a betterunderstanding

of what

makes

fora

good

plan

and

what

it

means

to

implement

thatplansuccessfullywillhopefullycontributeto

the coastal

community's

effortstofind

answers

upon which

all. orat leastmost, can agree.

This paperfirstpresents a brief history

of

the

CAMA

land useplanning program,

and

the recentcontroversy leading

up

toeffortstorevisit thatprogram, inordertoprovide

some

context.

The

paper then

draws from

a relativelysmall but

growing academic

literature

on

land use plan implementation

and

state-mandated

growth

management

programs

inordertodiscuss

what

a

good

plan

and

successfulplanimplementation

mean

and

how

theyarerelated.

The

paper then

offers

some

thoughtsabout

how

local

CAMA

landuse planningfits intothe larger

North

Carolinacoastal

management

picture,

what

plan implementation

means

inthe

CAMA

context,

and

what

issueswillneedtobe resolvedinorderto structure

and

administerastate-mandated local

landuseplanning

program

that

produces

both

good

local plans

and

successful plan

implementationefforts.

Local

Land

Use

Planning

under

the

Coastal

Area

Management

Act

In 1974.the

North

Carolina General

Assembly

enactedtheCoastal

Area

Management

Act

:

inresponsetoaquickening

pace

of

development

throughoutthe coastalregionthat

threatenedboththe integrity

of

theregion's naturalsystems

and

itshistorical,social

and

cultural resources

(Owens

1985).

While

the

enactment

of

CAMA

was

noteasy

—

debate

was

spirited

and

extended over

two

legislative

sessions

—

theactestablished avisionary

comprehensive

regionalresource

management

program

forthestate'stwenty-countycoastal

area(see

Heath

1974:

US

DOC

1978: Lovvrv

1985:

Owens

1985:

Heath

and

Owens

1994).

Sincethattime, the

CAMA

program

has

evolved

and

now

comprises an integrated, four-part

program

for"areas

of

environmental

concern"

(AECs),

a local land use planning

program,

a

state-to-localgrants-in-aid

program,

and

a

coastal landareareserves

program

3

(Owens

1985;Moffitt2000).

CAMA

established a

quasi-legislative, quasi-judicialpolicy-making

"citizen

commission."

theCoastal

Resources

Commission

(CRC).

to

implement

theact,with advice

from

a larger"Coastal

Resources

Advisor)'

Council"

(CRAC)

and

administrative support provided

by

the

North

Carolina Division

of

Coastal

Management

(DCM).

4

From

itsveryinception,

and

perhaps

because

oftheambitiousgoal ofcreating a

"comprehensive

coordinated

approach

forthe protection,preservation,

and

orderly

development

oftheState'scoastal resources"

(US

DOC

1978:54),thestate'scoastal

management

program

actually consists ofa

complex,

at least

theoreticallycoordinatedsystem of resource

management

laws,statepolicies

and

executive

orders, as well as the

mandates of

CAMA

itself.

With

regardto

CAMA

specifically,the

program

establishes afairly

complex

approach

forstriking abalance

between

environmentalprotection

and

economic development

that reliesprimarily

on

the

combined

and

coordinated

AEC

regulatory permitting

program and

local land useplanning program. State regulatory authority

under

CAMA

isfocused

on

the

AECs.

althoughthe

combined

landareasdesignatedassuch

have

comprised

untilrecently only aboutthreepercent ofthe entirecoastal region

(Owens

1985)/ Local landuseplanningundertheact.on the otherhand, has

always

playeda

major

role in

advancing

thegoals oftheact,but it isdifficult todecipherexactly

how

its role

was

originally

intendedtofunctionin relation tothe

CAMA

permitting

program and

thestate'sother

regulator)

programs

(see

US

DOC

1978:202-23). Thisisespecially true,

and

especially

important giventhe extentoftheareainvolved,

with regardtoland useactivitiestakingplace

outsideof

AECs

thatmight

have

the potentialto

consume

fragilecoastalresourcesor

degrade

coastal waterquality. In particular, it isnot

entirelyclear

what

thestatecould

and

should

requireoflocalitiessubstantively in terms

of

theirefforts toprotect coastal resources through

theirlocal

CAMA

plans, especiallywithregard

to areasoutside

of

AECs.

Nor

isitentirelyclear

how

those expectations

might

change

over time with

changed

conditions

and improved

knowledge

regardingthelink

between

localland

usepolicydecisions

and

environmental outcomes.6

Nonetheless,as the entire

CAMA

program

has

become

established,

knowledgeable

observers

like

Heath and

Owens

(1

994) have

identified the

need

to

improve

theprogram,

and

inparticular

the local land useplanningprogram,inseveral

key ways,

especiallywith regardtowaterquality,

cumulative

and secondary

impacts,

and

the

promotion

of

sustainable

development.

More

prominently,a specialCoastal Futures

Committee

created in 1

994 by

the

Governor

as

partofthe

"Year

of

theCoast," charged with assessingthe

management

ofthe coastalarea

and

charting acourse forcarryingcoastal

management

intothe future

(NC

CFC

1994:87). also

found

the

need

fora similarexpansion ofthe

planningprogram. Citing "explosive population

growth and unexpected

environmental dangers"

thatcontinue tothreaten coastal resources{id. at

ES-1),thisspecial

committee

put forwarda

number

of

recommendations,

listingfirstand foremostas

"among

the

most

important"a

variety

of

recommendations

thatfocus

on

the

CAMA

planning

program

inorderto

improve

boththepreparation

and

implementation ofthose plansforthepurpose

of improving

environmental

protection (id.at ES-2).7

More

recently,giventhese persistent

environmental

problems and

at leastin part

because

of

theCoastal Futures

Committee's

emphasis

on local landuseplanning,controversy

overthelocal planning

program

haserupted.

As

explained by

DCM:

"Despitethe landuse planningprogram'ssuccess, ithas fallen under

criticism

from opposing

sides inrecent years.

Environmentalistsare

concerned

thatthestate

program does

not

go

far

enough

toprotect coastal resources.

On

theotherside, local

governments

feel thatthey

have

the best

know

ledgeoftheir

towns and

shouldlive

more

autonomy

in theirplanning. Criticson bothsides

of

the issue

have

complained

aboutcomplicated

taiidelines.one-size-fits-allregulations, lackof

D

O

m

m

>

z

>3

2

o

>

73

o

z

o

implementation

of

localplans,

and

inadequate

public participation

and

understanding

of

the

planningprogram. s

Responding

tothiscontroversy, the

CRC

in

1998

placeda

moratorium on

the local landuse planning process

and

established aPlanning

Review

Team.

It

charged

that

group

with reviewingtheplanning

program and

thestate's

planningguidelines

and

preparing

recommendations

torestructure that

program

into

one

that willbetteraddressconcerns about

CAMA

planning

and

bettersupport thegoalsof

CAMA.

One

key

focus

of

theCoastal Futures

Committee's

recommendations

regardingtheland

use planning

program,

which

has servedat least in parttofocusthePlanning

Review

Team's

efforts, isthat the

program

berestructuredso

thatthelocalities

produce

"highquality"plans

—

plansthat

do

abetter

job

of.

among

otherthings,

consideringissues affectingbasin-wide water

quality protection

and

regional

economic

development

strategies

and

consideringthe

cumulative

and secondary

impactsof

growth

(see

NC

CFC

1994:ES-2).

A

second key

focus,

one

closelyrelated, isthat the

program

be

restructured so that local

governments produce

and

"successfully

implement"

their

CAMA

land

use plans(id.).

A

number

of

approaches

for

achieving both

of

these

outcomes have been

put

forth

and

debated. Before reaching

agreement on

an appropriate solution,

however,

it

may

be

helpfultostep

back

and

askfirst

—

what does

a

high qualityplan look like

and what

makes

for

implementation success?

The

nextsection

draws

from

the

academic

literature totease apart

some

of

the subtleties

of

thesequestions

and

laythe

ground

work

forthinkingabout

them

in the

contextoflocal

CAMA

landuse planning.

Plan

Making

and

Implementation

from an

Academic

Perspective

By-and-large. planningscholars

have

focused

much

of

theirattention

on

theprocess

of

planningratherthanthequality oruse

of

the

plansproduced. Indeed,despite

much

exhortation

on

the

need

tofocus

on

plan content,

fewempirical studiesuntilrecently

have

focused

on

characterizing or

measuring

systematicallythe qualityof plans (Dalton

and

Burby

1994).

Moreover,

whilescholarsinthefieldsofpolitical

science,public administration

and

public policy

have

generatedaconsiderable

body

of

research

on

the implementation of

programs and

policies,

surprisinglylittleparallel

work

hasbee.t

done by

planningscholars

on

how

wellorin

what

ways

plansthemselvesareactually

implemented once

produced

(Talen 1996).

The work

on

both plan content

and

plan implementationthathas

been

done

hasquickly

stumbled

intoa

number

oftheoretical

and

concept

measurement

difficulties,raising

questionsthatarestraightforward

on

the surface yet analytically

complex,

suchas:

What

purpose

does

(orshould)planning serve?

What

purposes

do

(orshould) plans serve?

How

do

we

evaluate

whether

aplanis

"good"

ornot?

How

do

we

evaluate

whether

theplanactually

advances

its

statedgoals?

How

do

we

evaluate

how

much

and

how

wellaplan hasactually been

implemented? Moreover,

inaddressingthislast

question inparticular, it is importanttobear in

mind

thatplan

making

and

planimplementation

areinseparable concepts.

Because

planning is.at

least ideally,acontinuous

and

iterativeprocess.

w

ithplan

making

followed by monitoring, evaluation

and

updatingefforts,assessments

of

plan implementationnecessarily involve

questions

of

plancontent

and

quality. Inother words,as part

of

asking

how

well a planhas

been implemented,

one

must

ask

what

theplan

proposed

todo.

how

well itjustified its

proposed

course

of

action,

and

to

what

extent it

was

structuredto facilitateimplementation inthefirst

place.

Characterizing

Plan

Quality'

and

Implementation

Success

Talen (1996)

and Baer

(1997)

have

both surveyed implementationresearchinthepublic administration, public policy

and

planning

literatures

and have

articulatedtypologiesthat

linkplan

making,

plan quality

and

plan

implementation.

Focusing

more

on

theplanning

literature.

Baer

(1997)articulatesaconceptual

framework

that separatesplanning

and

plan

implementationanalysis essentiallyinto

two

fundamental

components

—

analysisofplan

analysisofthe

outcomes of

planimplementation,

what

hecalls"post

hoc

evaluation." Plan

evaluationinvolves

making

variousassessments

inbuildingthe plan, testingplan policy

alternatives,

and

critiquing theplan(often

done

byoutside researchers).

These

analysesspeak

primarilytothe qualityoftheplan

making

effort

and

oftheplanitself. Assessing planquality

from

acritical orscholarly

approach

in

particular

may

involve asking

whether

theplan

policiesappeartocorrespondto

and advance

the articulatedplangoals(an internalquality),

comparing

plans acrossdifferentlocalities(a

comparativequality),and/oraskingto

what

extentplan policiescorrespondtoexternal or

independentcriteria,suchas

how

welltheplan

will

advance

hazardmitigationor

water

quality protection (astandard-basedquality).

Baer

characterizes post

hoc

evaluationsas

involvingtheassessment

of

what

theintended

resultoreffect

of

theplan

was

and

to

what

extent

that result

was

achieved.

The

assessment

of

resultsnecessitatesasking

whether

theplan

was

essentiallyintendedtoserveasa"blueprint"for

development

or.attheotherextreme,

what

might bereferredtoas a "visionstatement"

—

a

document

merely

(oratbest)tobe consulted

and

cited in

working

throughtheland use

decision-making

process(see

Alexander

and

Faludi 1989).

Asking

to

what

extent the plan'sgoals

were

achieved, inturn,necessitatesasking

—

as

compared

to

what?

Plan implementation

outcomes might

be

compared,

for

example,

to

what

was

proposed-vvhat

Baer

(1

997:334)

notes

isthe

"normal

view

of plan evaluation"-or

what

might

have

occurred

had

there

been

no

plan in

thefirst place.

Although

not specifically

addressed

by

Baer.implementation

outcomes

might

alsobe assessed

by

comparing

what

happened

in realityas

compared

to

what might

have

happened had

theplan itself

been

"better"-had

it

employed

stronger policies_or

implementation measures.

Talen(1996) provides

somewhat

more

history

on

the

development

of implementation

theory across the several disciplines,focusingin

particularon thequestionof

whether

quantitative

and

qualitative

methods

might be

developed

to

more

systematically

and

rigorouslyevaluate

whether

aplan has

been implemented

successfully.

Noting

thedifficultyinherentin

predicting

and

molding

futuredevelopment, she surveysa

number

of

approaches

thathave been takentoevaluateplan implementation

quantitatively,such as

Alterman and

Hill's

(1978)efforts to usegridoverlaystoquantify

consistency

between

plans

and

actual landuse.

Calkins" (1979)algebraic

formula

for

characterizing"total

change"

as afunctionof "planned

change" and "unplanned

change."

and

more

recent

work

by

Bryson

etal. (1990) using

regression analysistoassess the

achievement of

planninggoals.

Talenalsoaddressesthedifficultyof characterizingthe

meaning

of

plan

implementation "success"or goal

achievement

and does

so in a

way

thatspeakstothe distinction

drawn

by Baer

withregardtothe

purpose

of

a plan.

On

the

one

hand, ifthe

purpose of

aplan istoserve

more

likea blueprint,then

measuring

success is

more

ofa

linearprocessthatrigidly

measures

plan policies

against

outcomes.

On

theotherhand,ifthe

purpose

of

a planis toserve

more

likea vision statement,then

measuring

implementation successentailsa

more

looselydefinedassessment ofgoalachievement.1_"

Despitethesedivergent orientations,

and

despite the analyticaldifficulties

of determiningthecausesof planning

outcomes

giventheever-increasing geographic,social

and

fiscalcomplexitiesoflanddevelopment. Talen

asserts thatitis possibleto

more

rigorously evaluate planimplementationoutcomes.

Moreover,

sheassertsthatundertaking such rigorous evaluationof planning outcomes,in

effect

merging

assessmentof boththeprocess

employed

and

thesubstantivegoalsachieved,is

absolutelynecessaryif

we

are totrulyevaluate theeffectiveness

of

local planningefforts.

hi the Context

of State-Mandated Planning

The

works of Baer and

Talen are both

more

theoretical,designedtohelp scholars

reconceptualize

what

"planqualitv"and "planningimplementation success"

mean

and

how

they

might

bemeasured.

A

second,

empirical

body of

work

hasalso recently

work

isbasedon, orhas

been

conducted

in

responseto,thepublishedfindings

from

an extensive researchproject

headed by

planning scholar

Raymond

Burby." This research project

focusedon local effortstoplanfor

and

mitigate naturalhazards, an issue

of

universal

concern

and one

thatcannecessitate

making

difficult land

use

development

decisions.

The

project studied

localplanningeffortsin fivedifferentstates,

including:

North

Carolina. Florida,

and

California

—

allwith local planning

mandates

that

covertheircoastal areas;

and Texas

and

Washington

—

neitherhavingalocalplanning

mandate

atthattime

(Washington

hassince

enactedsuch a program).12

This

body

of

work

speaksespecially to thequestion

of

plancontent

and

planimplementation (definedas

development

management

program development)

inthe

contextof state-mandated localhazards

mitigationplanning programs.

Buildinglargely

from

Kaiser,

Godschalk and

Chapin's(1995) well

known

text

on

landuse

planning, theseresearchersgenerally characterize high-qualityplansasthosethat

demonstrate

a

strongfactual basis,provideclearly articulated goals,and

employ

policiesthatbothare directive

(i.e..directingdecision-makersto

do something

ratherthanexhorting

them

tosupport

something)

and

appropriate (i.e., reasonablycalculated to

actuallyeffectthedesired plangoals). Strong plansalso incorporatetheconcept

of

spatial

specificity

—

clearly relating policiesto

geographically identifiedareas

—

and

several

types ofconsistency,including"internal"

(between

facts,goals

and

policy),"horizontal"

(between

thelocality

and

neighboring

jurisdictions),

and

"vertical"

(between

the

localityand state

and

federal mandates).

A

final

aspectofplanquality,

one

that hasnot

been

culled out

and

emphasized

asaseparatefactorin

the empirical literature,includes the extentto

w

hich the planincorporates

ongoing

monitoring

and

evaluationprocedures, particularly interms

of

assessingpastimplementation successatthe front

end

ofaplan update effort(see Kaiser.

Godschalk and

Chapin

1995).

Closelyrelated to theconcept

of

plan quality

more

generallyisthenotion

of development

management

planning.

Development

management

planningefforts (or

programs)

are essentiallydesignedspecificallyto limitand/or

control landuse

development

patternssoas to

achieve

management-oriented

substantivegoals

likehazardmitigation,naturalresource

protectionand/ortheadequate

and

efficient

provision

of

community

services (Kaiser,

Godschalk and Chapin 1995;Landis

1992). In

general terms, therefore, strong

development

management

plans (as well as

programs

developed

independentlyorderived

from

those

plans)

have

the

same

attributes

of

high-quality

plansasdescribed

above and

may

have

additional

components

likecoordinatedcapital

improvement programs and

land acquisition

programs

(Kaiser.

Godschalk and Chapin

1995).

Intherecentempiricalliterature

on

plan

implementation,strong

development

management

programs

designedtoaddresshazard mitigation

have been

definedasthosethat

employ

a

balanced

mix

oflandusecontrols,sitedesign requirements,building standards,

and

knowledge

enhancement

techniques(Dalton

and

Burby

1994).

Such

programs,

when

balanced soasto

rely as

much

or

more

so

on

landusecontrols

and

sitedesign requirementsas

on

knowledge-buildingtechniques,

have

also

been

characterized

as

more

sophisticated,tendingtobe

more

anticipatoryorpreventative in focusratherthan passive orreactive(id.).

Draw

ing

from

this

work

inparticular

and

the

planningliterature

on

implementation

and growth

management more

generally,severalsets

of key

policy-related factors13appeartoinfluence the

implementationof state-mandatedlocal landuse planningefforts.

These

include thestate's

planningmandate, with regard in particularto

thecomplexity

and

emphasis of

that

mandate:

the

state'sadministrative policy

and

oversight

of

localplanningefforts; statecapacity-building,

technical assistance,

and

outreach oreducation

efforts; local capacityfor

and

commitment

to

planning;

and

finally,with regardtoplan implementationefforts inparticular,the quality

of

theplanitself.,J Table 1 liststhesefactors,

along with local situational factorsthatappearto

be

most

important,

and

brieflydescribestheir

function.

The

table alsonotesthesource or sourcesin theliteraturethatdiscuss theoperation

of

eachvariable

most

directlyorthoroughly.

Some

General

Answers

Boilingthis

academic

literature

down,

itis

possibletoprovide

some

initial

and

general

answers

tothequestionsat

hand

—

what

makes

for a

good

plan

and what does implementation

success

mean.

First, a"good'"local landuse plancan be defined as

one

that

employs

astrong

factual base,providesclearly articulated goals, presentsstrongpolicy statements,

and

specifies a

reasonable

development

management

program

(and/orimplementation

and

monitoring

program)

thatclearlyestablishes

mechanisms,

responsibilities

and

time

frames

for

implementing

the plan.

The

policiesofa

good

land use planin

particularare directiveratherthan

merely

exhortatory,reasonably calculatedtoachievethe plan's stated goals,

and

spatially-specific.

Evaluating

whether

aplan is

good

ornot, inturn,

requiresthinkingabout

what purpose

theplanis

toserve(i.e.,vision-statement, blueprint,or

something

in

between) and whether

itspeaksto thatpurpose takenas awhole; thinking about

whether

theplan

"hangs

together"(i.e..

whether

thefacts, goals,policies,

and implementation

program

arecoherent

and

internally consistent);

and

possibly setting the plan againstother plans

forcomparison.

Answering

all

of

thesequestions

and

concluding

whether

aplan is

good

also requiresthinking both interms

of

process(did theplanning

team

takeall

of

theright steps

and

conducttheright kinds ofanalysesin preparing

the plan?)

and

substance(is the plantaken as a

whole

reasonablydesignedto

advance

the

community's

goals?).

Second,successful plan implementation can be determined byasking,in a larger sense,

whether

the

way

theplan is used in practice

squares withthe

way

it

was

intendedtobeused

in light

of

itsintended

purpose

or function(i.e.,

vision statement, blueprint,or

something

in

between). Inotherwords,

does

thelocality

consult

and

usethe plan as intended

when

enacting orrevisinglocal land use ordinances,

making

site-specificland use-relatedpolicy decisions, or

making

capital

improvement

decisions? In a

more

narrow

sense, successful planimplementation can be

determined

by asking

whether

specific policies

have been

followedor carried out.

More

particularly, successful land useplanimplementation occurs

when

the

locality'sadopted

development

management

program

components

—

whether

theyinclude land

useordinances(e.g.,zoning,subdivision), site

design requirements, buildingstandards,outreach

and

educationefforts,or

some

combination

of

theseand/or otherefforts

—

servetocarry out

and

areconsistentwiththe landuseclassifications

and

policiesestablished

by

the plan. Evaluating

whether

implementation has

been

successful,in

turn, requiresassessingto

what

extent

and

in

what

ways

theon-the-ground landuse

development

outcomes

compare

with

what

the

plan itselfcalledfor. It

might

alsoinvolve

thinkingabout

what might have been had

there

been

no

plan or

what might have

been

had

the

plan

been

different.

And

again,

answering

allof

thesequestionsrequiresthinkingboth interms

of

process (didthe locality

do

allofthethings the plan called for?)

and

substance(are the

on-the-ground

outcomes

consistentwith

what

the

community

hoped

toachieve?).

Inadditiontothequestions

of

plan quality

and

implementation successgenerally,the

academic

literaturealsosheds light

on what

the

statecan

do

to facilitate local planningeffortsso

thatthey

produce

highqualityplans

and

yield successful plan implementation. Before

discussingtheimportantfactorsatplay,

however,

it

would

beuseful to

make

explicit

and

consider animportantdistinctionthat isreflected

implicitly inthat literature.

The

distinctiontobe

drawn

is

whether

theplanningeffortinquestion

was

initiated locally,

presumably

to

promote

primarily local goals,or initiatedbythestate, not

onlyto facilitate

good

localplanningbut also

expressly forthepurposeof

prompting

local

governments

tointernalizetransboundary

regional concernsorstate-levelgoals. Specifically,

one

threadofthis

academic

work

hasaddressedthequestions of

what

it

means

ingeneralto

make

a

good

local land use plan

and

to

implement

thatplan, as well as

how

those implementationeffortsmight be evaluated

rigorously. This first

body of

work comes

out

of

a

more

traditional

view of what

planningis

and

what

itaspirestodo. Thatis.planning isseen

Table

1. Principal factors that

appear

toaffectthe

outcomes

of

state-mandated

localplan

making

an

d plan

implementation

effortsas synthesized

from

the

planning

literature

Outcomes

area

functionof: Operatinginthefollowing

way:*

Primary

Source(s):

1.

The

state's

Through

theclarity,prescriptiveness. and Bollens(1992):

Burby

and

growth

management

specificityofthemandate regarding,e.g.,the Dalton(1994); Berke and

program

and/orlocal purpose and intended use ofthe plan, the French(1994); Kaiser, planningmandate. delegation ofdutiesandprerogatives,the role

of planning inthecontext of other

program

components. Also through monitoring and implementationevaluation requirements.

Godschalk

andChapin

(1995): Berkeetal. (1999).

Q

2. State

As

a function oftheemphasisplacedbystate Deyleand Smith (1998).

8

administrative policy administrators onlocal effortswith regardto

CNj

andoversightefforts. thesubstance oftheplan's content andthe

l

planning process used, givenpractical and

CO

3. Statecapacity

political realities.

Through

theprovision of fundsandtechnical

Burby

and Dalton(1994):

C3

2

buildingandpublic assistance for localplanningefforts, and Berke

and

French(1994): educationefforts. through educationandoutreachefforts for Berkeetal. (1999).

5? both thegeneral publicandlocal officials.

-j

o

4.

The

local Inparticular,throughpoliticalactivism(where

Burby

and Dalton(1994).

s

situation. different interest groupspromote competing

outcomes1,developmentpressure(where

heightened pressure generally heightens local

planningefforts), andthe availability of

developable landin non-sensitive areas(where

limited availability generally

dampens

local

planning and/orgrowthrestriction efforts).

?. Local capacityto

As

a function oflocal wealthand local

Burby

andDalton (1994).

plan. planning/administrativecapacity.

6. Local

Through

local planningefforts andlocal land

Burby

andDalton (1994).

commitment

to use analysis and decision-makingprocesses. planning.

Through

local decision-makingon

Burby

and Dalton(1994).

7. Local plan quality development

management program

efforts

(asafactoraffecting (wherehigher quality plans tendto result in

plan

more

balanced development

management

implementation!. programs).

* Unlessotherwise noted, thefactoridentifiedtendstooperate toincrecisethelocality'splanning

effortsand/orthequalty ofthoseefforts(e.g.,both increasedclarity_ofthe state'splanning

mandate

and

increasedlocalco

mmitment

toplanning tendtoincreaseplan qualty).

largelyasa local function, a public

decision-making

process designedtohelpalocality

more

systematically

and

thoughtfullydirectits

own

destiny. Typically authorized

by

state

law

under

generalenablinglegislationforthe

purpose

of

promoting

the public welfare,local planningis

initiated

by

the locality itself fortheprimary

purpose ofclarifying

and

achievinglocal goals.

The

second

thread

of

work

on

implementationintheplanningliteraturehas focused

on

the issue

of

state-mandated local

planning, looking inparticularateffortsto

implement

stateplanning

mandates

forthe

purpose

of

natural hazardsmitigation. This line

of

academic

work

has

developed

largelyin

responsetothe increasinguse

of

state-mandated

growth

management

programs,

which have

appeared since the early 1970s

and have

become

increasingly sophisticated

overtime

(Bollens

1992). aswell asstatecoastal

management

programs developed

inassociationwiththe federalCoastal

Zone

Management

Act

(Lowry

1985).

These

state-mandated

programs

in

general

have been

designed expresslyto

prompt

(orin

some

instances

compel)

localitiestoadopt

policiesorlawsthatconstrain land useactivities thatare locallybeneficialbutthat

degrade

regionally-importantnaturalresources

—

what

Bollensreferstoas

"growth

restriction"1

-

—

_or

to

adopt ordinancesor policiesthat allow forthe

development of

regionallyimportantbut locally

undesirablefacilities(e.g..landfills)

—

what

Bollensreferstoas

"growth

accommodation"

(1992:455-56).

They

alsotendto

combine

a

mix

ofrestrictiveor coercive requirements with

collaborative orcooperativerequirements(see.

e.g..

May

and

Burby

1996;

Berke

etal.1999).

Localplanning undertaken in responsetothese

kindsof state-mandated

growth

or coastal

management

programs

is still alocal function, butit isdriven primarily

by

thestate(and

sometimes funded

largely bythestateas well),

and

so

must

internalizeboth local

and

regionalor

state goals.

Moreover,

given thispurpose

and

the institutionalstructureinvolved, local plans

aresubjectto

some

legitimate

amount

ofstate

oversight, both in termsoftheprocess usedby

thelocalities in preparingtheplans

and

the

substantivecontent

and

quality ofthe plans

produced.

Given

thisstate-mandated planning

framework,

thekeyplan quality

and

implementation questionsarethevery

same

ones discussed above,but

w

ithan

added

layer

of

complexity

placed

on

top.

One

must

asknotonly

what

makes

fora

"good"

local plan

and

how

to characterize

and

measure

implementation

success,but

now

those questions

must

necessarilyspeakto

whether and

in

what

ways

thelocal plan

and

plan implementationefforts

have

successfullyincorporatedthestate's

growth

management

goals. Inadditiontotheprocedural questionsof

whether

theappropriatesteps

were

taken

and

theappropriatepeople

were

involved,

one

must

askalso

whether

the state'sprocedural

mandates were

followed.

Moreover,

inaddition

toaskingthesubstantivequestionof

whether

the plan's policies

were

reasonablydesignedto

achieveitsstated goals,

one must

askalso

whether

those statedgoals adequately

internalizedthestatesgoals

and whether

the

adoptedplan policies

were

reasonablydesigned

toachieve thosegoals.1"

And

evaluating

whether

the overall

state-mandated

local planningefforthasbeen

successful, inturn,

now

involves thinking

carefullyabout

what

thestate's local planning

mandate

itselfrequiresboth substantively

and

procedurally,

on

top

of

the already-difficult task

of

assessing

how

good

the locality'splanning

effort

was

(interms

of

theprocess used

and

the

substantivecontent

and

qualityoftheplan

produced)

and

whether

and

in

what

ways

the

locality actually usedthe plan. This

new

evaluativetaskis

more

difficult notonlybecause ofthe additional steps involved,

moving

from

state

mandates

to local plan

making

to local plan

implementation,but alsobecause it

adds

a

new

dimension

ofstate-and-local intergovernmental

relationsnotpresentin locally-initiated (or non-state-mandated)landuseplanningprocesses.

Finally,giventheimportantdistinction

between

locally-initiated landuseplanning

and

state-mandatedlocal landuse planning, thenext question

becomes:

What

canthestate

do

to

facilitate asuccessful state-mandated local

planning

program

—

one

thatyieldshighquality

local land use plans

and

successful plan

implementation.

Here

the

academic

literature

pointstothe

importance

of

mandates,

message,

capacity,

and

commitment. That

is.determining

what

astate can

do

to facilitate

good

state-mandated

local landuse planningrequires

thinkingfirstabout

what

exactly theplanning

mandates

require,

what message

thestatesends

asitadministers those mandates,

and

how much

capacity the localities

have

tocarryoutthe

mandates. Perhaps

most

importantly, thestate

needsto

pay

particularattentiontothe levelof

commitment

localities

have toward

bothcrafting land use plansthat

meet

state

and

localgoals

and

thenfollowingthrough in

implementing

those

plans. Buildinglocal

commitment,

inturn,

speaksbackto localacceptance

of

thelegitimacy

of

thestate"splanning mandates,localresponse

tothestate"sadministrativemessage,

and

local

willingnessto

commit

itsavailable capacity to

the planningtask.

And

finallywith regard to

commitment

building, theconcept of

message

is

particularly important in severalways. First, it speakstothe

message

the statesends intermsof

which mandates

are

most

important

and

what

willconstituteacceptable

compliance

with those mandates.

Second,

itspeakstothe

message

the

statesendsthrough itsoutreach,education,

and

technicalassistanceeffortstojustify

why

its

regional

growth

management

goalsare

worth

strivingfor.

Back

to

Planning

in Coastal

North Carolina

Thissynthesisofthe

academic

literature

helpstolayoutina

more

general sense

what

makes

for a

good

plan,

what

constitutesplan implementationsuccess,

and what

thestatecan

do

to

make

both happen.

How

doesthis helpto

informthecurrentdebatesoverlocal landuse planningunder

CAMA?

As

describedin

some

detailabove, local planning under

CAMA

is part

of

a larger,state-mandated coastal area

management

program.

As

such, ithas

some

of

thestate

growth

management

program

attributes

described

by

Bollens(1992).with botha

growth

restricting

component

and

a

growth

accommodating

component,

although inthiscase

growth

accommodation

generally takes

form

as the "orderly

development" of

the coast's natural

resourcesratherthanthe

accommodation

of

locally

unwanted

but regionallyimportant

facilities.17

The

entire

CAMA

program

also

employs

a

complex

mixture of coercive

and

collaborativerequirements,primarily throughthe

AEC

regulatory permitting

program and

the

planning

program,

respectively,althoughboth

programs have

both coercive

and

collaborative

attributes.IS

More

importantly, likestate-mandated

growth

management

programs

ingeneral,the

CAMA

landuseplanning

program by

design

must

factorin stategoals, including goals

pertainingtothe protection

and

preservation

of

coastal resources.10 This aspect ofthe

program

isallthe

more

important giventheincreasingly

recognized

need

tobetteraddressthe

problems of

cumulative

and secondary

impacts

on

coastal resources,

and

especially giventheCoastal Futures

Committee's

emphasis

on improving

local planning

and

local planimplementationfor

the

purpose

of

improving

coastalresource

protectioneffortsoverall. Thus,

when

thinking aboutthe local land useplanning

program under

CAMA.

it isnot

enough

tothinkonlyabout

whether

local

CAMA

planshelpto

advance

community

goals.

That

is.inadditiontothinking about

how

well

and

in

what

ways

theplans serve

to

meet

localneeds,itisalsonecessary tothink

about

whether and

how

they helpto

advance

the

state'scoastalresource

management

goals.

Moreov

er. itis importantto

do

so.first, both in

termsoflocal

compliance

w

iththestate's

procedural planning requirements

and

interms

of

substantiv egoal achievement,

and

second, both

w

ithregardtothe quality

and

content

of

the

plans

produced by

thelocalities

and

with regard

tothe

ways

in

which

they usetheirplans.

At

the

same

time.

CAMA

land useplanning

isunique

and

defies easy,generalizedpolicy prescriptions.

North

Carolina hasa long history

of

giving greatdeferenceto local

government

autonomy,

asevidenced in particular

by

the structureofthe

CAMA

land useplanning

program

as ultimatelyadopted (see

Heath

1974). aswellas the

CRC's

long-ago

adopted

administrative policy

of

focusing

on

the

procedural aspectsofthe land useplanning

guidelines

and

leavingsubstantiveplan policy

decisions laraelvtolocal

government

(see

Owens

1985;

Heath

and

Owens

1994).

Moreover,

there least:

has been

some

debate about

how

theplanning •

What

the

purpose

ofthe

CAMA

plan

program

should fittogetherwiththe

AEC

should bein thefirst place(i.e..whether.

permitting

program

(i.e..whether,for

example,

where,

and

in

what

ways

theplanshould

coastalwaterqualityshould beaddressed be

growth

restricting,

growth

throughthe

AEC

program

aloneorthrough local

accommodating,

or both:

how much

and

plans as welland, ifso,to

what

extent

and

in in

what

ways

theplan should

advance

what

ways);

how much

and what

kinds

of

thestate'scoastal

management

goalsas

flexibilityshouldbe givento localitiesin wellaslocalgoals);

preparingtheirplans;

how

prescriptivethose •

How

the

CAMA

planshould be used plansshould be indirectinglocal landuse (i.e..

whether

theplan shouldfunction as decision

making

(i.e..blueprint,vision statement. a blueprint, vision statement, or

or

something

inbetween);

how

much

local

something

in

between

2

");

governments

can be expectedto

do

throughtheir •

What

makes

for ahighquality

CAMA

planning

and

plan implementationeffortsgiven plan (e.g., lookingasthe plan's factual

staff

and

resourceconstraints;to

what

extent base,clarity

of

goals,

and

the

local

governments

shouldbeexpectedto

go

prescriptiveness

and

appropriateness

of

5

beyond

statecoastalresourceprotection the policiesadopted,as well as itsspatial

o

_m

requirements, if atall;and,

more

generally,to specificity,various

forms

ofconsistency.

what

extent thelocal planning

program

should be

and

monitoring

and

evaluation

S

viewed

as solely a localprerogativeorshould procedures);

m

>

z

incorporatestate

management

objectives. All

of

these issues are thorny, inseparable.

•

Whether

theprocess used in preparinga

given

CAMA

plan

was

appropriate(e.g.,

-j

73

and

contestable.

And

tothe extentthatdifferent followedtheright steps,includedthe

O

_I

members

of

the coastal

community would

give rightpeople,

employed

appropriate

>

73 fundamentally

opposed

prescriptionsfor analyses,providedtheproperdisclosure

X

addressingthem, itshould be

no

surprisethat regardingthe policychoices

made

and

2

_o

there iscontentiousdisagreementon

whether

theirimplications);

and

73-i

local planningis

working

(orperhaps

agreement

•

Whether

thesubstantivecontent

of

a

o

Z

that itisnot

working

butdisagreementasto

why)

given

CAMA

plan

was

appropriate(e.g..

and

what

should be

done

to

change

it. adopted policiesthat

were

both Nonetheless,thequestionremains:

What

doesit consistentwiththegoals

of

the plan.

mean

to

implement

alocal

CAMA

land use plan given itspurpose and intendeduse.

and

anyway? Or more

tothepoint,thequestion reasonablydesignedto

advance

those should be phrased:

What makes

forthe goals; includedameaningful

and

successfulimplementationofalocal

CAMA

land reasonable

development

management

use plan?

The

shortand simple

answer

isthatit program: includedameaningful depends; it

depends

on

what

we

expecttogetout monitoring

and

evaluation

component).

of

the local planning program,

how we

design the

To

make

mattersall the

more

challenging,all of

process,

and whether

thelocal plans

produced

these issues

need

be

resoKed

in thecontextof (andthe

way

theyare

implemented) meet

our

North

Carolina's contentiouscoastal

expectations. Shortand simple

answers

often are

management

history

and

institutional setting,as

notallthathelpful.

The

long

and

hard

answer

is touched

upon

brieflyabove.

thatreaching

agreement

on

what

makes

for

Moreover,

having

answered

these questions.

successnecessitatesreaching

some

levelof characterizingplanning

program

successfurther

workable agreement

on theappropriate

answers

requires

agreement

on

thequestionof

how

to toa

number

of

more

difficult

and

interrelated characterize

what

makes

forsuccessful use ofthe questions.

Draw

ing

from

thediscussion plans

once

produced.

Answering

thisquestion.

presented above,these issues includeatthevery inturn, requiresthinking back tothepurpose

and

intended use

of

the plan

—

where measuring

the

outputs ofa blueprint

means

something

different

from measuring

theoutputsofa vision

statement

—

and

thinkingabout

how

outputs themselves should be

measured

(e.g..against

what

theplanproposed,

what

might have

happened had

there

been

no

plan,or

what might

have happened had

theplan

been

better). Italso

requiresthinkingabout

whether

successis

achievedsimplyifa plan's policies are

implemented

procedurally(e.g..a called-for

zoning ordinance

was

adopted), orifitis also

necessaryto

show

some

tangibleevidencethat

the plan'ssubstantivegoals(e.g..

improved

coastalwaterquality)

have been

achieved.

Sometimes

long

and

hard answers,although perhaps

more

helpful, can bedaunting.

In

summary,

these arecomplicated questions speakingtoahostof complicatedcoastal

management

and

landuse planningissues.

The

CRC's

Planning

Review

Team

has

been

strugglingwith allof theseissues

and

questions

in

one form

oranother, as wellas the

more

difficultquestionsrevolving

around

how

to

restructurethe

CAMA

planning guidelinesina

way

that will

most

likelyyieldhighqualityplans

and

implementationsuccess.

Once

theirtaskis

done,the largercoastal

community

will

have

to

come

toterms with

and

reach

some

kind

of

workable consensus

onall ofthese

same

issues as well.

Being

thoughtfulaboutthetechnical

planning processestobe

employed

willbevitally

important, but

by

itselfwillnot besufficient.

Rather,resolvingthe

CAMA

landuse planning controversywill

come

only

when

thestate

and

coastal

community

togethercan reacha

workable

consensus

on

several

key

substantive issues as well,including: (1)

what

purposethe local

CAMA

planning

program

should serve

—

particularly inrelationtothestate'sothercoastal

resourceprotectionefforts: (2)

how

that

program

would

be

most

effectively

and

most

appropriately

structuredgiven allthethingsthat

make

for

good

planning

and

good

planimplementation inthe

contextofallthe factorsthat

make

North

Carolina unique:

and

(3)

what

we

can

hope

to

achieve throughtheuse

of

theplans

produced

from

theprocess.

No

one

shouldthink thatthis

taskwillbeeasy, but the potential

rewards of

moving

theplanning

program forward

as a

meaningful

and

valuablepartofthecoastal

management

program

make

it

worth

forging

ahead.©

Notes

1

The

characterizationofthe differingpositions

presented above drawslargelyfrom direct

observation ofthe PlanningReview Team's efforts,

along with extendedtelephone and in-person interviewsofstateand local officials, interestgroups

representatives, andprivate citizens from acrossthe

coastal region.

: _The

act iscodifiedat N.C.General Statutes 1

13A-100etseq.

The

CAMA

program was formallyapproved by

the federal Office ofCoastal

Zone

Management

as

being in compliancewith the Coastal

Zone

Management

Act(16 U.S.C. Section 1451 et seq.)in

1978

(US

DOC

1978). This approvalhadthe effect,

among

other things, of

making

the state eligibleto

receive federalgrants-in-aid from theNational

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA).

4

See N.C. General Statutes 113A-104 etseq.

The

CRC. among

other things, establishes policies and

objectives for the coastal area,promulgates

administrative rules or"guidelines" for carryingout

the act. certifies local land useplans, anddesignates

areas of environmental concern.

DCM.

a division

within theN.C. Department ofNatural Resources,

supplies administrative supportto the

CRC

by.

among

other things, providingstaffsupport forits

proceedingsandconductingtheday-to-day administration ofthe planning and

AEC

regulator},

permitting programs. In addition, the Directorof

DCM

serves as the Executive Secretarytothe

CRC.

Thispercentage

was

recently increasedtoroughlv seven percent withthe

CRC's

promulgation ofits

new

coastalshoreline

AEC

rules (seeN.C.

Administrative

Code

7H.201 etseq.). It is worth

noting that this expansionofthe

AECs

was

quite

controversial itself,

coming

onthe heelsofa

more

ambitious proposal thatwas retractedand

amended

in linewith therecommendations ofastakeholder advisory group convened in responsetothat

controversy. Foradiscussion ofthis rulemaking

effort, see: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/

Current o20Issues current mainpage.htm (August

10. 2000).

6

The

North Carolina Coastal

Management

Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement

(US

DOC

1978). written in orderto satisfy'federal

standards forapproval of North Carolina's Coastal

Management

ProgramundertheCoastal

Zone

Management

Act, provides a contemporary

interpretation of

how

the coastal

management

program was intended to operate. This document

speaksto the relationship betweenstatepolicies,

standards, regulator},' permitting, and local land use

planning throughout. It speaks mostdirectlytothe

issueofthe roleoflocalplanningefforts in

furthering thegoalsoftheact-that is.beyond the

AEC

permittingprogram-in what it refersto as

"The Second Tier-

Management

Outside of

AECs"

(US

DOC

1978:202-23). This discussionclearly

contemplatesaheavyrelianceon various state

resource

management

programs other than

CAMA

itselfto ensure adequate

management

ofactivities

taking place within

CAMA

local land use planning

areas butoutside of designated

AECs.

At sametime,

however,the programclearly establishesthat local

plans are to be prepared in accordance with state

planning guidelinesthat are. in turn, clearly to be

crafted so asto advancethe largergoals oftheact,

including most prominently the"protection,

preservation, andconservation ofnatural resources."

(seeN.C. General Statutes 113A-102(b)(4)(D).

suggesting that relianceon otherstate programs

alone forcoastal resourceprotectionoutsideof

AECs

was

not intended.

For

more

discussion regardingtheCoastal Futures

Committee's recommendations andeffortsto

implement those recommendations, see Godschalk

(2000a).

Thistextwastaken fromthe

DCM

web

page

describingtheeffortsofthe

CRC's

PlanningReview Team, at: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/

Land o20Use°o20Planning'lup_mainpage. htm

(August 10. 2000).

Two

recentassessments ofthe

CAMA

land use

planning program areprovided byHinkley and

Kaiser (1999)and Godschalk(2000b).

Attheextreme, ifthe purpose of planning isto

serve solely oreven primarilyasan

awareness-raising process, then implementation might

somewhat

tautologicallybe

deemed

"successful" simply if. at a

minimum,

theplan itselfwas produced (see Talen 1996:250-51).

See generally Burb\ etal. (1993):

May

(1993):

Berkeand

French (1994); Dalton and Burby (1994):

Burby and Dalton (1994); Burbyand

May

(1997).

!:

It should be notedthat

much

ofthiswork has

addressed as a primary question the extenttowhich

the useofastate planningmandateaffects the

quality of planningefforts. Thus, the thrustof

much

ofthis workhas focusedonthequestionof

how

well

localitieshave complied with a state's planning

mandates in developing their plans-that is, looking

atthe implementation ofthe stateplanningmandates

in terms oflocal plan makingefforts-rather than at

thequestion of

how

well the localitieshaveactually

implemented theplans produced(see,e.g..

May

1993).

The

term"policy-related" factors is used hereto

distinguish between variablesthat are underthe

control ofa state orlocalgovernment

more

so than

"setting-related" variables, such as

community

location orwealth.

14

Ina nutshell, Burbyetal. (1993:4), studying

state-planning mandates designedto address the

mitigation ofnatural hazards, found that "the most

effective mandates arethosethatare comprehensive

in whatthey require oflocal governments, have

strongsanctions for noncompliance with mandate

provisions, andbuild local planning capacity and

commitment

through grants-in-aid and technical assistance."

' _{Natural hazardsmitigation}

fits here too. not asan

activitythat causesthe degradation ofa natural

resource,although such

may

occur, butprimarily as

a locally-beneficial land usedevelopment pattern

thatcan yield substantial state or national costs in

the

way

of

demands

for post-disasterreliefand

assistance.

10

Of

course, inaskingwhethera local plan

adequately internalizes and advancesthe state's

goals, it isalso necessaryto considerwhetherthe

state'splanning mandate itselfclearly articulates

thosegoalsandthe state's expectations regarding

local efforts toadvance them.

In thecontextofcoastal development in North

Carolina in particular, "growth accommodation"

takes shape as aconcern forhavingadequate

facilities (e.g.,water, wastewater, roadways) in place

to

accommodate

locally andregionally desirable

economic development, especiallywith regard to

tourist-based developmentalongcoastal waterfronts

and job-generating commercial and industrial

development inland.

15

Forexample, the

AEC

permitting program

distinguishes between larger projectsthat might

engender greaterenvironmental impacts, reserving

thepermittingdecisions forthose projects to the

state, while permitting decisions forsmaller projects

can be delegatedto thelocalities (15N.C.

Administrative

Code

7H). Similarly, local

CAMA

plans mustcomply with fairlyextensive

administrative rulesor "guidelines" promulgated by

thestate, which ascurrently written and

administered are fairly prescriptiveprocedurally but

which leave substantive policydecisionsprimarilyto

thelocalgovernments

(Owens

1985;see 15N.C. Berke.PhilipR.,J.Crawford,J.Dixon.

andN.

Ericksen.

Administrative

Code

7B). 1999.

Do

cooperative environmental

19

SeeN.C. General Statutes 113A-110(a). planning mandates produce

good

plans?

20

One

issue thathas beenraised repeatedlypertains Empiricalresultsfromthe

New

Zealand

to the ideathatalocal land use plan isnot thesame experience. Environment

and

PlanningB:

thing as a zoning ordinance-and should not contain Planning

and

Design26:643-64.

thedetail or specificitynormally found ina zoning

ordinance-but rather the policy-making

document

Berke. Philip R.. andSteven P. French. 1994.

The

usedto determinewhether azoning ordinanceor influence ofstate planningmandates on

some

other local government land

management

tool local plan quality. _{Journal of Planning}

isneededand. ifso.what it wouldbe designedtodo. Education

and

Research 13:237-50.

It

may

bethe case, however, thataland use plan

map

andassociated policies pertainingto areasthat Bollens, ScottA. 1992. State growth management:

are particularly important sociallyor particularly Intergovernmental frameworks and policy

sensitive environmentally should contain detail

more

objectives. Journal ofthe

American

like that ofa zoning ordinance. In hisdiscussion of PlanningAssociation58(4): 454-66.

the history behind

CAMA"s

enactment. Heath

(1974:373) concludedthat it was"difficulttopredict Bryson. John M., Paul Bromiley,andY.

Soo

Jung.

theshape andcontent ofthe plans tobedeveloped 1990. Influences of contextandprocesson

o

undertheAct" since there

was

no settledbody of projectplanning success. Journal of

eg

in

CO

planning concepts, noclear legislative history, and Planning Education

and

Research

noclearor consistent philosophy orpolicy intheact 9(3):183-95.

itselfto settle the question.

He

furthernoted in a

footnote(id.at373.note83).however,that:"Viewing

theActasa land use lawyer, Professor PhilipGreen

Burby.

Raymond

J., and LindaC. Dalton. 1994.

Plans canmatter! Therole of land use

CJ

2

believes thatthe plans called forbytheAct, at least plans and state planning mandates in

1

fordesignated areas of environmental concern. limiting the development ofhazardous

^

i

should be

more

likethe typical zoning ordinance areas. Public AdministrationReview

|

than

the typical cityorcountyplan. This 54(3):229-38.

2

O

ft:

interpretation would fiteasily withthe consistency

requirements ofthe Act. butit remains tobe seen

whether any ofthe planningunits will actually share

. 1994. Mandates. Plans, and Planners:

u

Building local

commitment

to development

thisview." management. Journal oftheAmerican PlanningAssociation 60(4):444-61

.

References

Alexander. Ernest R.. andAndreas Faludi. 1989. Burby.

Raymond

J., and PeterJ. May. 1997.

Planning and plan implementation: Notes

Making

Governments Plan: State

on evaluation criteria. Environment

and

Experiments in\fanaging

Land

Use.

PlanningB: Planning

and

Design Baltimore.

MD:

John Hopkins Press.

16(2):127-40.

Burby,

Raymond

J.. PeterJ. May. andRobertC.

Alterman, Rachelle. and Morris Hill. 1978. Paterson. 1998. Improving compliance Implementation ofurban land use plans. with regulations: Choicesand outcomes for

Journal oftheAmericanInstitute of local government. Journal oftheAmerican

Planners 33(3):274-85. PlanningAssociation 64(3):324-34.

Baer. William C. 1997. General plan evaluation Burby.

Raymond

J., and Robert G. Paterson. 1993.

criteria:

An

approachto makingbetter ImprovingCompliance with state

plans. JournaloftheAmerican Planning environmental regulations. _{Journal of}