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

Dustin Allred · Arnab Chakraborty

32 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the American Planning Association

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Planning and Governance Local Governance and Planning Regional Economics and Spatial Analysis

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

1995Local Indicators of Spatial Association—LISA 2006Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies 1997Collaborative Planning 2000Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies 1997Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?2018Planning with Complexity 1989Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century 2010Planning with Complexity

Cited by

2016Evaluation Theory and Practice: Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning 2021Effect of Cross-Departmental Collaboration on Performance: Evidence from the Federal Highway Administration 2020Implementing regional smart growth without regional authority: The limits of information for nudging local land use 2023Zoning In on Transit-Oriented Development 2018Toward the Dreams and Realities of Temporary Paradise? Lynch and Appleyard’s Look at the Special Landscape of San Diego/Tijuana 2019Collaborative metropolitan governance: An evaluation of local adoption in Denver

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.