Do Local Development Outcomes Follow Voluntary Regional Plans? Evidence From Sacramento Region's Blueprint Plan

Dustin Allred and Arnab Chakraborty

Journal of the American Planning Association, 2015, vol. 81, issue 2, 104-120

Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findings: We examine the post-plan impacts of the Sacramento region's 2004 Blueprint, a widely celebrated regional process, to better understand the impact of regional planning on local development patterns. We assess whether residential development after the plan was adopted (2004-2011) occurred in neighborhoods that better met Blueprint principles. We also assess whether the locations of post-plan residential development better met the priorities of Blueprint than pre-plan development (2001-2003), comparing these results by jurisdictions. The focus on residential developments limits our assessment; our use of census tract data as a proxy for neighborhood may also be problematic. We find that neighborhoods that best met Blueprint principles did not receive most new residential development. Moreover, highly rated neighborhoods received less residential development after the regional plan was adopted than before. However, some residential development did locate in neighborhoods that better met some plan principles: transportation choice, housing choice and diversity, and use of existing assets. In addition, development in some jurisdictions did follow Blueprint more than others. We conclude that some principles are easier to implement in some regions and in some local jurisdictions because of place-specific needs or the parochial interests of local jurisdictions. Takeaway for practice: Planners should continually promote and advocate for regional principles while encouraging plan adoption at the local level by giving priority to principles with the most local support or support in specific jurisdictions as they negotiate interests in conflict. Planners should evaluate plan impacts to improve their own effectiveness regionally and to improve regional planning processes in general.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2015.1067574 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:81:y:2015:i:2:p:104-120

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rjpa20

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1067574

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the American Planning Association is currently edited by Sandi Rosenbloom

More articles in Journal of the American Planning Association from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().