Through analysis of two sets of regional plans prepared under cooperative and coercive intergovernmental mandates in Florida and New Zealand, this study examines variation in mandate design features and their influence on plan quality. New Zealand's cooperative mandate has greater flexibility and permits more discretionary action to regional councils, while Florida's coercive mandate emphasizes technical capacity building, strong but limited use of coercion and financial support. Key policy implications of this study concern the design of regulatory mandates, and how the two approaches can learn from one another. Florida's approach leads to stronger plan fact basis and regulatory policies in plans, but could benefit from New Zealand's key mandate strength of building subnational political commitment to advance plan-making. New Zealand's approach leads to strong goals, but lacks strengths of specificity in setting goals, technical capacity building, selected use of strong coercion and funding which are emphasized in Florida's mandate. Thus mandates that lead to high quality regional plans would represent a combination of the two approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerkeP R, 1994, “Evaluating environmental plan quality: The case of planning for sustainable development in New Zealand”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management37155–169
2.
BerkeP RBeatleyT, 1992Planning for Earthquakes: Risk, Politics and Policy (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
3.
BerkeP RFrenchS, 1994, “The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality”Journal of Planning Education and Research13237–250
4.
BerkePRoegnigkDKaiserEBurbyR, 1996, “Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management3979–96
5.
BuhrsTBartlettR V, 1993Environmental Policy in New Zealand (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
6.
BurbyRDaltonL, 1994, “Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting development of hazardous areas”Public Administration Review53229–238
7.
BurbyRMayP, with BerkePDaltonLFrenchSKaiserE, 1997Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
8.
BurbyRPattersonR, 1993, “Improving compliance with state environmental regulations”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12753–772
9.
ConnerlyCMullerN, 1993, “Evaluating housing elements in growth management comprehensive plans”, in Growth Management: The Planning Challenge of the 1990s Ed. SteinJ, (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)pp 185–199
10.
DaltonLBurbyR, 1994, “Mandates, plans and planners: Building local commitment to development management”Journal of the American Planning Association60444–461
11.
DeGroveJ M, 1984Land, Growth and Politics (APA Planners Press, Chicago, IL)
12.
DeGroveJ, 1992The New Frontier for Land Use Policy: Planning and Growth Management in the States (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA)
13.
DeyleR ESmithR, 1995, “Storm hazard mitigation planning and post-storm redevelopment policies”, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
14.
DixonJ E, 1993, “The integration of EIA and planning in New Zealand: Changing process and practice”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management36238–251
15.
EricksenN, 1986, “Creating flood disasters?”, National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, Wellington, publication 77
16.
FaludiA, 1987A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning (Pergamon Press, New York)
17.
FishmanR, (Ed.), 1978, “The state of art in local planning”, in Housing for All Under Law (Ballinger Press, Cambridge, MA) appendix to chapter 5
18.
GaleD E, 1992, “Eight state sponsored growth management programs: A comparative analysis”Journal of the American Planning Association58425–439
19.
GodschalkDBrowerDBeatleyT, 1989Catastrophic Coastal Storms (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
20.
GogginM LBowenA O'MLesterJO'TooleL JJr, 1990Implementation Theory and Practice, Toward a Third Generation (Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL)
21.
HealeyP, 1993, “The communicative work of development plans”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2083–104
22.
HealyR GRosenbergJ S, 1979Land Use and the States2nd edition (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
23.
HollanderEPollockLRecklingerJBealF, 1988, “General development plans”, in The Practice of Local Government Planning2nd edition, Eds SoFGetzelsJ, (International City Management Association, Washington, DC) pp 60–94
24.
InnesJ, 1992, “Group processes and the social construction of growth management”Journal of the American Planning Association58440–453
25.
JacquesA R, 1994, “Florida's local government comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan amendment review process: Including an assessment of the changes to this process from the 1993 Florida legislative session”, College of Urban and Public Affairs, University of New Orleans, New Orleans
26.
JohnsonH, 1995Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE)
27.
KaiserEGodschalkD, 1995, “Twentieth century land use planning: A stalwart family tree”Journal of the American Planning Association61365–385
28.
KaiserE JGodschalkD RChapinF S, 1995Urban Land Use Planning4th edition (University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL)
29.
KentT J, 1991The Urban General Plan (American Planning Association, Chicago, IL)
30.
LowryK, 1985, “Assessing the implementation of federal coastal policy”Journal of the American Planning Association51288–298
31.
MayP, 1993, “Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12634–663
32.
MayP, 1995, “Can cooperation be mandated? Implementing intergovernmental environmental management in New South Wales and New Zealand”Publius25(1) 89–113
33.
MayPBurbyR, 1996, “Coercive versus cooperative policies: Comparing intergovernmental mandate performance”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15(2) 171–201
34.
MayPHandmerJ, 1992, “Regulatory policy design: Cooperative versus deterrent mandates”Australian Journal of Public Administration51(March) 45–53
35.
MayPBurbyREricksenNHandmerJDixonJMichaelsSSmithD I, 1996Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to Hazards and Sustainability (Routledge, London)
36.
MazmanianD ASabatierP A, 1989Implementation and Public Policy (Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL)
37.
MemonP A, 1993Keeping New Zealand Green: Recent Environmental Reforms (University of Otago Press, Dunedin)
38.
MemonP AGleesonB J, 1995, “Towards a new planning paradigm? Reflections on New Zealand's Resource Management Act”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22109–124
39.
MemonP APerkinsH C, (Eds), 1993Environmental Planning in New Zealand (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North)
40.
MilroyB, 1991, “Into postmodern weightlessness”Journal of Planning Education and Research10(3) 181–187
41.
MontzBDixonJ E, 1993, “From law to practice: EIA in New Zealand”Environmental Impact Assessment Review1389–108
42.
SitarzD, (Ed.), 1993Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Island Press, Govelo, Ca)
43.
SouthworthM, 1989, “Theory and practice of contemporary urban design”Town Planning Review60369–402
44.
ThrogmortenJ, 1993, “Planning as rhetorical activity: Survey research as a trope in arguments about electrical power planning in Chicago”Journal of the American Planning Association59334–356
