Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

Efraim Ben-Zadok

doi:10.1080/19463131003707398

Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

Ben-Zadok, Efraim 2009-01-01 00:00:00 International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, May–November 2009, 64–88 TJUE Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Efraim Ben-Zadok* School of Public Administration, College of Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA (Received 2 October 2009; final version received 11 February 2010) The purpose of this study is to improve understanding about the process aspects of sustainable community planning. After making a distinction between substance and process in planning, the study evaluates the selection of process tools for sustainable community planning, their different roles, and implementation impacts. Further knowledge of process tools is needed because they convey the unique longitudinal context of planning and visioning for sustainable communities. The contribution to practice lies in increasing planners’ awareness regarding process tools in sustainabil- ity plans and the need to promote these tools. Overall, the implementation of regulation, evaluation, and education process tools in the Florida Demonstration Project was successful. Process aspects received considerable attention throughout the Project’s five years. Discretionary implementation and regional planning were two major weaknesses of the Florida case. Civic engagement, public accept- ance, and individual learning were noted as crucial forces in planning and implementing longer-range sustainability. Keywords: sustainable community planning; process tools; implementation; evaluation; demonstration project; Florida 1. Introduction contributed three innovative processes to planning literature and practice: pre-planning for a whole Perhaps the most influential planning text of the new community, unifying landownership to secure twentieth century, by Ebenezer Howard, has public control over planning, and experimenting in renewed relevance for contemporary ideas of progressive municipal and cooperative forms of sustainability (Hall and Ward 1998). The book social enterprise (Osborn 1969, pp. 32–33, Hall appeared in 1898 under the title Tomorrow: A 1983). Peaceful Path to Real Reform and was republished The centennial anniversary of the Garden with slight revisions in 1902 as Garden Cities of City also marked the emergence of ‘sustainabil- Tomorrow. Under the new title, Howard’s phys- ity’, a new paradigm that might reshape the ical, environmental, and economic ideas became planning profession. Principles of planning for popular and ‘probably had more influence on new sustainable environment, economy, and equity town development and city planning than any (the three Es) are incorporated into plans in an other single approach to urban problems’ (Clapp effort to improve environmental protection, local 1971, p. 23). A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, the economic development, and fair service delivery original subtitle, remained a symbolic reminder of (Jepson 2001). These principles, which reflect Howard’s process approach and social vision that Howard’s ideas that influenced generations of received little attention. Indeed, the Garden City *Email: benzadok@fau.edu ISSN 1946-3138 print/ISSN 1946-3146 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/19463131003707398 http://www.informaworld.com International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 65 European and US planners, address what to do to continuous plan formulation, revision, evaluation, advance sustainability. Specific answers are pro- and negotiation (Campbell 1996, Berke and Con- vided through a host of plan substantive ele- roy 2000). ments and their measured outcomes. Examples The general purpose of this study is to of substantive elements are agricultural land improve understanding about the centrality of preservation, water reuse, parks and greenways, process aspects in the sustainability paradigm infrastructure construction, infill development, and to advance a process-oriented definition of public transit, and affordable housing (Berke and planning for sustainability. The study thus pro- Conroy 2000). vides an evaluation of implementation of process The urban and regional planning literature tools for sustainable community planning (SCP). extensively covers the above elements. How- The purpose of the evaluation is to increase ever, almost like a recurrence of Garden City knowledge regarding process tools in SCP, their history, little attention has been paid to the pro- different roles, and implementation impacts. cess of moving towards sustainable ‘three Es’. Process tools and substantive elements are the Perhaps because plans often do not stress admin- basic components of SCP; regulations regarding istrative and procedural aspects, the literature is these components are documented in a manda- almost silent on process principles (Berke 2002). tory plan for SCP. The plan is formulated and These principles address how to advance sus- implemented in a defined spatial unit, namely, a tainability. Specific answers may be provided community-wide, large-scale municipal unit through plan process tools – namely, tools for (more details below). continuous advancement of the planning-imple- The contribution of the study to the litera- mentation process. Examples of process tools ture of planning for sustainability begins with are evaluation indicators, citizen committees, the conceptualisation of SCP and process tools urban design demonstration projects, technical and continues with an evaluation of these tools, assistance programmes, business retention pro- their different roles, and implementation grammes, and tax incentives (Portney 2005, impacts. Further knowledge about process tools Saha and Paterson 2008). is needed because they convey the unique longi- Process-oriented planning has been guiding tudinal context of planning and visioning for urban and regional development since the sustainable communities. In contrast, informa- 1960s. For planning scholarship and practice, the tion is already available regarding substantive emerging sustainability paradigm could serve as a elements in planning for sustainability. The ‘common good’ to improve process/procedural contribution to planning practice lies in increas- approaches, alongside substantive/design approaches ing planners’ awareness regarding process tools (Berke 2002). This study suggests a move in this dir- in plans for sustainability and the need to pro- ection by adding knowledge about long-range mote these tools. planning-implementation process and the central The study originates in the familiar notion that role this plays in the sustainability paradigm. The plans for sustainability tend to be idealistic, super- study argues that process lies at the heart of the ficial, and vague. Lacking clear identity, their paradigm because sustainability is conditioned on strategies and goals may not differ from those of the community’s long-term capacity to continue to traditional comprehensive plans. More ideas and reproduce and revitalise itself without sacrificing claims of sustainability continue to appear in plans, future resources. Furthermore, sustainability is but the question of their uniqueness and translation conditioned on intergenerational responsibility to into practice remains open. More research is needed maintain local standards of living within the limits regarding the translation of sustainability concepts of natural resources. Hence, achieving an inte- into planning practice and how these guide imple- grated vision of community sustainability requires mentation actions and experiences (Campbell 66 E. Ben-Zadok 1996, Beatley and Manning 1998, Berke 2002, businesses, universities, and environmental and Conroy 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007). community groups (Mazmanian and Kraft 1999). Because demonstration and pilot projects tend Berke and Conroy (2000) provided a good to follow experimental and innovative agendas, example of six broad SD principles: harmony with they provide ideal settings for sustainability stud- nature, polluters pay, responsible regionalism, ies. These projects can be influential in drawing liveable built environment, place-based economy, cutting-edge lessons and encouraging local profes- and equity. Another example is the 10 principles sional thinking and public/private actions (Forsyth of the President’s Council on Sustainable Devel- 2002, Chifos 2007, Conroy and Beatley 2007). opment (1996). However, SD is still criticised as a The study thus presents a case method of five local holistic and abstract idea, unfit to lead policy communities; the sole participants in a State of development and lacking the specifics to be trans- Florida pilot initiative entitled the Sustainable lated into planning practice. Some of the confu- Communities Demonstration Project. These com- sion around SD lies in its applications to different munities formulated, mandated, and implemented geographical scales, from a small-scale housing SCP from 1996 to 2001. The project is evaluated subdivision or a recreation park to a large-scale through both content and data analysis of second- community with a variety of residential, commer- ary sources, two techniques supplemented by a cial, employment, service, and social activities. In methodological procedure. The secondary sources the United States, for example, many communities include state-level legislation, state–local regula- are adopting SD initiatives in an incremental and tory documents and reports, census statistics, and piecemeal manner because the intergovernmental academic studies. system is decentralised and local communities are The next section provides a theoretical discus- fragmented. However, local parochial actions sion of SCP. The section thereafter introduces the diminish the role of SD as an overarching long- Florida Project and the five communities. The term framework for comprehensive sustainability three subsequent sections – methods, results and initiatives. Such actions often result in small-scale discussion – cover the selection of process tools for piecemeal initiatives or short-term programmes the evaluation and the evaluation itself. The final (Mega 1996, Jepson 2001, Berke 2002, Conroy section draws conclusions and policy implications. 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007, Saha and Paterson 2008). Although the differences between principles of 2. Sustainable community planning SD and those of sustainable community are unclear Four SCP features mentioned above are discussed in the literature, the sustainable community con- below: (1) community-wide, large-scale municipal cept offers a spatial approach encompassing a unit, (2) mandatory plan, (3) substantive elements, whole community with distinct demographic and and (4) process tools. The first two represent the social characteristics. Hempel (1999), for example, basic working requirements for SCP. They origi- proposed the following six sustainable community nated in studies that discuss the limitations of sus- principles: ecological integrity, economic vitality, tainable development (SD). SD has influenced civic democracy, social well-being, high-quality of numerous urban and regional plans and gained sig- life, and reciprocal obligation among community nificant momentum in planning literature during members. The community covers a large-scale the last two decades. The SD concept was intro- geographic area where residents have specific envi- duced in the 1987 World Commission on Environ- ronmental and economic concerns. A sustainable ment and Development and then embraced by the community works to preserve ecological and 1992 United Nations Earth Summit and the 1996 economic resources. The community links its future US President’s Council on Sustainable Develop- sustainability to quality of life, political participation, ment. It was adopted worldwide across governments, and consumption habits. On the neighbourhood International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 67 level, design is related to urban liveability; trans- activity, public facility, transportation mode, and portation planning is related to environmental pro- housing type. These studies often argue that such tection (Hempel 1998, 1999, Portney 2005). elements are also typical of local comprehensive SCP is grounded in the sustainable community plans. They do not find significant differences concept. The spatial unit to apply SCP is a between planning documents with SD as an organ- community-wide, large-scale municipal unit: a ised framework and those without such a frame- community with distinct demographic and social work. Perhaps more interesting are the studies that characteristics and diversified activities, located measure the degree of substantive elements by within the jurisdiction of an autonomous local gov- using specific evaluation indicators. Common indi- ernment. This spatial unit, the first SCP requirement cators are the rates of elements such as water pollu- above, appears compatible with SD. SD proposes tion, water use, gas emission, recycled material, an overarching framework to guide integrated solid waste, job growth, unemployment, housing visionary planning and to encounter urban and sub- value, homeownership, vacant businesses, hospital urban sprawl. Sprawl is a spatial phenomenon with beds, and vehicle miles travelled (Kline 1995, economic and social characteristics. The contempo- Haughton 1999, Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy rary anti-sprawl reaction serves as a reminder of the 2000, Lindsey 2003, Jepson 2004a, Haywood anti-urban reaction towards the problems of the 2005, Saha and Paterson 2008). Evaluation indi- industrial city in the late nineteenth century. That cators that assess the continuous progress of sub- city was the underlying spatial–economic–social stantive local plan elements towards sustainability phenomenon behind Howard’s criticism. The Gar- provide an important example of process tools in den City encountered the problems of the industrial this study. A technical assistance programme to a city through planning for several community-wide, community, to plan for sustainability, constitutes large-scale new towns in the region. This integra- another example. A common process tool that tive planning approach was conducive to a unified appears in this study is a housing demonstration social action (Howard 1965, Berke 2002). project to educate residents about sustainable The second requirement for SCP is a manda- urban design. If a housing subdivision is plainly tory plan, a legally binding document. The plan residential, however, it should be counted as a for SCP consists of mandatory rules, written in substantive element. Although not immediately explicit style implying political commitment for apparent, it is important to distinguish between long-term sustainability. Because of confusion process tools and substantive elements in local around multiple meanings and ‘buzzword’ uses of plans. SD, sustainability plans often suffer from an uncom- Effective process tools of SCP promote long- mitted, symbolic/rhetoric style. A clear commitment range planning, monitor its continuous progress, may be implied through a formal sustainability and educate residents and communities to com- plan, especially as part of long-term comprehens- ply with responsible planning. These tools ive/general/strategic local plan. Another example account for present capacities without sacrificing of a serious commitment is a local office for sus- future resources. They anticipate the needs of tainability programmes (Andrews 1997, Jepson present and future generations towards communi- 2005, Saha and Paterson 2008). ties and environments (Berke and Conroy 2000, The mandatory plan includes the two basic Jepson 2001, Berke 2002). This process notion is components of SCP: substantive elements and reflected in the most popular definition of SD: process tools. Substantive elements are largely cov- ‘development that meets the needs of the present ered in studies demonstrating the extent that sus- without compromising the ability of future tainability principles guide community-wide plans. generations to meet their own needs’ (World Examples of elements are natural/environmental Commission on Environment and Development resource, specific land use, economic development 1987, p. 43). 68 E. Ben-Zadok Policy implementation literature explains that Florida’s metropolitan areas grew by 23.5% lack of information about process tools is related during the 1990s, reaching 16 million residents in to excessive emphasis on the evaluation of out- 2000. Close to one-half of the population lived in comes rather than processes. But, for example, a unincorporated areas, mainly outlying suburbs. ‘degraded environment’ as an evaluative outcome One-half of the counties had less than 80,000 does not inform the interaction of development residents (Editorial 2001, University of Florida, interests and weak planning institutions. Perhaps Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2002, this dynamic process has resulted in that outcome. pp. 14–16). Anti-sprawl, compact development, Policy literature needs more information about sustainability, and natural resource issues began to implementation processes and, in particular, how capture Florida’s growth agenda in the early 1990s. they generate specific outcomes (Pressman and Suburban sprawl and managing the location of Wildavsky 1973, Nakamura and Smallwood 1980, growth, rather than managing growth, became the Ingram 1990, deLeon 1999, Sabatier 1999, Ben- main problem. The policy response was sprawl Zadok and Gale 2001). containment and increased density in urban areas (DeGrove and Turner 1998, deHaven-Smith 2000). The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable 3. Florida sustainable communities’ South Florida described in its 1995 report how demonstration project residential and commercial developments stretch Florida’s population grew by 32.7% during the towards environmental and ecological systems 1980s, reaching 12.9 million residents in 1990 and damage air, water, wildlife, and agriculture. (University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and This uncontrolled sprawl harmed the quality of Business Research 2000, p. 47). The purpose of life and curbed compact development. In South the decade’s most prominent legislation, the 1985 Florida, the state’s most populated region, the Florida Growth Management Act (GMA), was to problem was in defiance of most SD principles restrain population growth, to control residential (Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South and commercial developments, and to protect nat- Florida 1995, pp. 13–23). The Commission’s ural resources and agricultural lands. The 1985 recommendations resulted in a state-wide amend- Florida GMA was originally entitled the Local ment to the GMA, namely, the 1996 Sustainable Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Communities Demonstration Project, or Chapter Development Regulation Act. Its formal reference 163.3244 of the GMA. It was the only legislation in this article is Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161– that focussed explicitly on sustainability and 3243, 1987. Post-1987 legislative changes in title, encouraged SCP in Florida localities (Florida section numbers, and their content appear in this Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245 1999). The article under the reference Florida Statutes, Chap- implementation of this legislative amendment ter 163.2511–3245, 1999 or Florida Statutes, from 1996 to 2001 constitutes the case for this Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009. The original GMA study. The amendment’s preamble portion called acronym is kept throughout this article. The GMA on communities participating in the project to implementation began with consistency, the policy adopt six broad principles of sustainability: that mandated state-centralised, top-down com- (1) limited urban sprawl, (2) healthy and clean pliance among state, regional, and local plans. environment, (3) restoration of ecosystems, (4) A relatively weak and not yet clear SD require- protection of wildlife and natural areas, (5) effi- ment, compact development, was linked to three cient use of land and other resources, and (6) crea- secondary provisions of the Act: economic devel- tion of quality communities and jobs. The opment, affordable housing, and natural resource preamble authorised the Florida Department of protection (DeGrove 1992, pp. 11–22, Florida Community Affairs (DCA), the state land plan- Statutes, Chapter 163.3161–3243 1987). ning agency, to administer the project, invite International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 69 applications, and select five communities ‘of dif- as a general document including compliance con- ferent sizes and characteristics’ (Florida Statutes, ditions and procedures. It could be effective for Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (1) (2)). up to five years, subject to revoking if the local- The 1996 project began with the DCA and out- ity neither complied nor showed progress side agencies reviewing and assigning scores to 28 towards sustainability goals. The locality had to local applications. These assessments first assured submit an annual self-monitoring report, including that the community set an urban development updates on amendments, to the DCA. The DCA boundary (UDB) and was supported by its had to submit to the legislature an annual report, Regional Planning Council (RPC). Assessments including implementation successes and failures also accounted for the extent to which the locality of the whole project and recommendations to demonstrated, in a local plan or land development either modify or repeal it (Florida Statutes, Chap- regulations, sound planning track records that met ter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (4) (7) (8)). 12 general criteria mentioned in the statute. The The DCA annual reports and the designation 12 criteria included the promotion of (1) infill agreements were the main sources for content development and redevelopment; (2) housing for and data analysis in the evaluation described low-income, elderly, or disabled people; (3) effective below. The DCA annual report opened and con- intergovernmental coordination; (4) economic cluded with a general qualitative assessment on diversity and growth while encouraging rural the project and the five communities. The rest of character and environmental protection; (5) pub- the report was a compilation of the annual reports lic urban and rural spaces and recreation opportu- and qualitative assessments from each of the five nities; (6) transportation and land uses that communities. The five agreements, the basic support public transit and pedestrian-friendly local SCP documents, also served as the main modes; (7) urban design to foster community source for the method of this study. Each agree- identity, sense of place, and safe neighbourhoods; ment was a mandatory plan, a state–local partner- (8) redevelopment of blighted areas; (9) disaster ship contract for formulation and implementation preparedness programmes, especially in coastal of general/strategic SCP. The document opened areas; (10) mixed-use development; (11) finan- with a brief preamble statement including the cial and administrative capabilities to implement promotion of demonstration and innovation val- the designation; and (12) effective adoption and ues, general strategic goals to achieve local long- enforcement of local comprehensive plan (Florida term sustainability, and the urban boundary’s Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (3) jurisdiction for applying SCP. The rest of the (b)). All assessments were forwarded to the Sus- document described the projects, the substantive tainable Communities Selection Committee. The elements and process tools targeted for local committee reviewed applications, heard public implementation. The size, comprehensive scope, comments, assigned scores, and in December detailed description, and degree of commitment 1996, issued a final report recommending 12 for the implementation of each local project all applications. The DCA secretary selected five varied greatly in each agreement (The DCA applications in January 1997. The department annual reports appear in the References, under and each of the five communities established a Florida DCA; the five designation agreements Sustainable Communities Team, charged to nego- appear under the co-authorship of Florida DCA tiate a written agreement. The secretary and elected and the individual community (Florida DCA and commission/council of each community approved City of Boca Raton 1997)). each of the five designation agreements that were Each of the five designated communities had signed between May and November 1997 (Florida distinct demographic and social characteristics Department of Community Affairs 1997, pp. 1–3). and constituted an autonomous local government. The legislation described the designation agreement With respect to the first, Martin County statistics 70 E. Ben-Zadok from 1990 to 2000 indicate that it was mid-size by 4.1.1. Selection both land area and population relative to the rest of SD studies usually select specific items for evalua- the Florida counties. Sparsely populated with tion, based on content analysis of plans or survey moderate housing prices, this southeast coastal of government officials. After review and content county experienced high growth in the 1990s. analysis of all possible substantive elements and Martin’s major concerns regarding sustainability process tools in the five agreements, elements and were environmental preservation, open space and tools were selected for this evaluation if they were recreation, disaster preparedness, and affordable significant and enforced. The first criterion was the housing. Tampa and Hillsborough on the west- selection of only significant elements and tools and central coast received a joint city/county designa- elimination of all other items. Significance of ele- tion to target redevelopment, infill, anti-crime, and ments and tools was determined by relatively large sprawl issues. Hillsborough County had a large size, comprehensive scope, and detailed imple- population, high growth, and housing prices mentation description. The selection ruled out around the state average. Tampa was one of the many small, unspecified, and varied items in the most populated, dense, and slow-growth commu- agreements. The diversity of items is perhaps nities relative to the rest of Florida’s largest cities. related to multiple meanings of sustainability and Orlando in east-central Florida was also one of the the lack of focus in translating the concept into largest cities. Home of Disney World and other planning practice. Other items ruled out during huge tourist attractions, Orlando’s housing prices the review were atypical of SCP and mandatory were a little above average. Its major concerns in comprehensive planning sections of the Flor- were environmental protection in sensitive areas, ida GMA (Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy infill and neighbourhood revitalisation, economic 2000, Jepson 2004a, Conroy 2006, Saha and and social programmes, public–private partner- Paterson 2008). The second criterion was selec- ships, and development incentives. Boca Raton tion of only enforced elements and process tools on the southeast coast was one of the smaller cit- and elimination of optional ones. After extensive ies, with high rates of growth, density, and housing review and content analysis of the agreements, price. As a middle- and upper-income community, selected elements and tools were those followed its concerns were environmental protection, quality by explicit commitment for implementation indi- of services, and downtown redevelopment. Last, cated by key words such as ‘require, must, will, Ocala in the east-central area was a relatively small adopt, or implement’. Eliminated items were and slow-growth historic town. As a low middle- those followed by less clear commitments, income community, it had a broad agenda for implied by key words such as ‘suggest, encour- improving local conditions (see Table 1; Figure 1). age, consider, intend, may, would, will address, will determine, will explore, shall define, or shall seek’ (Berke and Conroy 2000). The selection of enforced items only was 4. Methods necessary because of the broad discretionary style 4.1. Selection and classification of process tools of commitments to implement elements and tools All five designated communities met the two basic in the agreements. Various commitment levels via working requirements for SCP: each represented a flexible wording are often related to different lev- community-wide, large-scale municipal unit, and els of political compromises among stakeholders. each had a mandatory plan – a strategic SCP docu- Ideas of sustainability tend to gather competing ment. The plan, the designation agreement, interests of businesses, land developers, middle- included the two basic SCP components discussed class residents, and environmental lobbies. In below: substantive elements and process tools. transforming interests into legislation and plans, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 71 Table 1. Florida sustainable communities by demographic-social characteristics, 1990/2000. Sustainable community Demographic-social Martin Hillsborough City of City of City of City of characteristic County County Tampa Orlando Boca Raton Ocala County Martin Hillsborough Hillsborough Orange Palm Beach Marion State planning district Treasure Coast Tampa Bay Tampa Bay East-central Treasure Coast Withlacoochee State region Southeast West-central West-central East-central Southeast East-central Land area in square miles, 556 1,051 170 100 29 38 Persons (density) per 228 950 2,707 1,988 2,749 1,189 square mile, 2000 Population, 1990 100,900 834,054 280,015 164,674 61,486 42,045 Population, 2000 126,731 998,948 303,447 185,951 74,764 45,943 Population percentage 25.6 19.8 8.3 12.9 21.5 9.2 change, 1990–2000 Population rank in state, 29 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 67 counties, 2000 Population rank in state, n.a. n.a. 3 6 24 n.a. 35 largest cities, 2000 Housing units, 2000 65,471 425,962 135,776 88,486 37,547 20,501 Median price for S-F home 99,400 105,800 105,800 109,300 138,600 94,827 in MSA, US$, 2000 Note: Tampa/Hillsborough, a joint city/county designation, counts as one community in the Florida Project; n.a., not applicable. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a, 2000b, University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2002, p. 15, 16, 19, 64, 89. 72 E. Ben-Zadok Figure 1. Map of Florida sustainable communities, 1996–2001. these groups push compromised bills with flexible adopting numerous items, each set included only language. SCP documents, the signed agreements those significant and enforced elements/tools that in the five communities, often represent a mixture represented important and clear commitments. of real interests, symbolic rhetoric, and clear and The comparison of the two sets strengthened the vague commitments (Kraft and Mazmanian 1999, rationale that communities indeed committed only Mazmanian and Kraft 1999, Jepson 2005). to a limited number of elements/tools that were In the shortlist of selected substantive ele- worthy of evaluative effort. Of the numerous items ments and process tools that emerged after in the agreements, the small number of significant employing the two selection criteria, each item and enforced elements/tools selected for the list was both significant and enforced. Next, elements can also be explained by discretionary state–local were dropped from the list; tools were classified relationships. This relationship – state’s advisory and later evaluated for their implementation role and minimum supervision over local SCP – impacts. The comparison of the two sets that will be revisited later. The discretion in imple- reached the shortlist, elements versus tools, lent menting the 1996 project was unusual, considering external validity from one set to another. Although the previous coercive implementation of the the five communities exercised great flexibility in GMA. In general, the GMA’s consistency policy International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 73 prescribes integration of plans from top (state) to future resources. Beyond that, the literature pro- bottom (local). The state leads implementation via vides little insight into process tools or how to plan review regulations and enforcement of their classify them. All 10 tools appeared to promote consistency. Regulations are recorded in Rule 9J-5, long-range planning and vision, some implied a a chapter of the Florida Administrative Code, and shorter or longer time interval for planning, some implemented by the DCA. Although localities for- paid more attention to the continuous process of mulate local comprehensive plans and monitor improving sustainability. The classification is their routine enforcement, plans must be consist- grounded in the distinct roles of the tools in SCP. ent with regional and state plans, and only then Three exploratory roles were identified, each serv- can be approved by the DCA (Gale 1992, Bollens ing a specific function and including three to four 1993, Innes 1993). tools that made the shortlist. The first role in the The following brief summary compares the classification is regulation, which has a legal func- two sets of findings, substantive elements versus tion. Second is evaluation, which is crucial for process tools. Data were compiled from the five political/policy accountability. Third is education, designation agreements: Florida Department of representing a public teaching/learning function Community Affairs and City of Boca Raton (see Table 2). (1997), Florida Department of Community Affairs Regulation tools are binding laws incorporated and City of Ocala (1997), Florida Department of into each agreement at the beginning of the SCP Community Affairs and City of Orlando (1997), process. They constitute the legal base to launch Florida Department of Community Affairs and SCP and to begin implementation. In contrast to City of Tampa and Hillsborough County (1997), distributive policies, which are less contentious and Florida Department of Community Affairs and because they allocate benefit or service a particu- Martin County (1997). Of the many items in the five lar group, regulation tools are adversarial because designation agreements, only 15 elements and 10 they impose uniform restrictions on all stakehold- tools were counted as significant and also enforced ers (Anderson 2000, pp. 9–13). SD literature cov- and thus reached the shortlist. Within this total of the ers regulation tools, primarily urban growth/ final 25 selected items, communities still made their service boundaries and similar zoning measures own flexible choices. Specifically, only five tools (Jepson 2004a, Saha and Paterson 2008). With were not mandated by the state and were appropri- some local flexibility on details, the same regula- ated for implementation in the five communities. tion tools were mandated in all five communities. Only two elements, environmental protection and Evaluation and education tools, on the other hand, affordable housing, were implemented in four com- were chosen by each locality and were then appro- munities. Finally, eight elements and tools, close to priated for implementation. one-third of the total 25, appeared in only one agree- Evaluation tools are used to assess progress ment. Among these were agricultural land preserva- towards meeting goals while the implementation tion, water reuse, and visioning plan. of SCP is underway. They are used for periodic monitoring of the ongoing implementation process and for forecasting purposes. They are especially 4.1.2. Classification important for intermediate evaluation of a long- The 10 selected process tools that made the short- range process to improve sustainability. Choices list were further analysed regarding their contribu- of evaluation tools in communities can be polit- tion to SCP, which is a long-range planning and ical, depending on competing local interests. visioning process including continuous plan for- However, collaboration among community groups mulation, implementation, evaluation, and revi- may reduce tensions around these tools (Campbell sion. It also aims to increase understanding of the 1996, Wheeler 2000, Lindsey 2003). SD literature community’s present capacities while not wasting covers evaluation tools, primarily indicators to track 74 E. Ben-Zadok Table 2. Florida sustainable communities by process tools for sustainable community planning (SCP): implementation, 1997–2000. Process tool for SCP Combined: Sustainable community implementation level/ effort of process tool in Tampa/ City of Boca Tool: description of tool five communities Martin County Hillsborough City of Orlando Raton City of Ocala I Regulation tool High/varied/low Urban development High. Same as urban Used. Primary Used. Urban Used. City limits Used. City Used. Urban boundary (UDB), service area line or urban service service area of limits service area of separates urban and city limits. Each UDB area city or county water & sewers non-urban land uses differs by specific criteria Exemption to local Varied. Adoption levels Low-level activity: High-level activity. High-level activity. No activity Low-level activity. comprehensive plan of exempted LCPAs two exempted 17 small and 12 Three sets of Two exempted amendment. varied in five LCPAs adopted large exempted exempted LCPAs Exemption from state– communities in in Tampa LCPAs regional review to 1999–2000 LCPA in UDB and outside high-hazard coast Exemption to Low. No adoption of No activity. Unused High-level activity No activity. No activity. No activity. development regional exempted DRIs in because of state for existing and Exemption for Unused Exemption for impact. Exemption four communities in oversight new DRIs. 46 existing DRIs because of existing DRIs from state–regional 1999–2000; high- (9 + 37) only state only review to DRI in UDB level adoption in one exempted oversight and outside high- community hazard coast International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 75 II Evaluation tool High/varied(2)/low Visioning plan. Low. No effort in four; Extensive plan No effort No effort No effort No effort Comprehensive, extensive plan in one effort integrates various community evaluation tools Evaluation criteria. High. Similar criteria Used Used Used Used Used Criteria to evaluate used in five progress and outcomes communities Evaluation indicators. Varied. Effort levels Extensive effort; Moderate effort; Extensive effort; Little effort; Little effort; Develop and apply varied in five developed and developed, little developed and developed developed only indicators to evaluate communities applied application applied only progress and outcomes Citizen feedback. Citizen Varied. Extensive effort Extensive effort Extensive effort Extensive effort No effort No effort feedback to SCP in three; none in two (plus) process communities III Education tool High(2)/varied Housing demonstration Varied. Effort levels Moderate effort Little effort Extensive effort Little effort Moderate effort project. ‘Smart’ urban varied in five design housing communities prototype Technical assistance. Aid High. Equal delivery to Used Used Used Used Used via state–local network five communities Information High. Equal delivery to Used Used Used. Plus local Used Used dissemination. State- five communities website wide website informs localities Note: Tampa/Hillsborough, a joint city/county designation, counts as one community in Florida Project. Sources: Florida Department of Community Affairs 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Boca Raton 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Ocala 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Orlando 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Tampa and Hillsborough County 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and Martin County 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs 1998, 2000, Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning 2000. 76 E. Ben-Zadok progress and citizen/neighbourhood participation planning process: Urban Development Boundary groups that intervene and influence the course of (UDB), Exemption to Local Comprehensive Plan implementation (Innes and Booher 2000, Jepson Amendment (LCPA), and Exemption to Develop- 2004a, 2004b, Portney 2005, Evans et al. 2006, Sod- ment of Regional Impact (DRI) (Table 2-I). These erberg and Kain 2006, Saha and Paterson 2008). state-mandated tools, all key and legally binding Education tools also are employed during the in the 1996 legislation, outlined the jurisdictions implementation of SCP. They aim to increase targeted for implementation of SCP (Florida Stat- understanding of sustainability values and to teach utes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (4) techniques to improve community sustainability. (5)). The UDB, the basic required tool in each They focus on public education via programmes community, separated urban and rural land uses. that produce relatively remote and uncertain long- Proposed LCPA and DRI within the UDB and out- term impacts (Nakamura and Smallwood 1980, p. side the coastal high-hazard area were exempted 76). These programmes tend to be less tangible, from state and regional reviews (see below). If the lacking the immediate and apparent impacts of reg- LCPA or DRI was outside the UDB and within the ulation and evaluation tools. Programmes often pro- coastal high-hazard area, the reviews were applic- mote universal values, such as the protection of able. Each of the five UDBs was identical to either environmental and natural resources for future gen- the urban service area line or the city limits. Urban erations. They lack concrete incentives for imple- service area in the GMA is a built-up area where mentation and hardly mobilise residents and public facilities and services such as roads, officials. Government and non-profit organisations schools, sewage, and recreation are already in thus have an important role in educating citizens to place. Each UDB also included additional specific appreciate such programmes and values. Academic criteria. For example, in the city of Ocala, the planning programmes can also help by increasing urban service area was marked after the water and involvement and curriculum development in this sewer service area; in Martin County it outlined area (Jepson 2001, Weitz 2001). SD literature cov- the relatively dense coastal zone (Table 2-I). ers education tools, primarily local pilot pro- Following the GMA requirement to adopt a grammes and demonstration projects (Chifos 2007, local comprehensive plan consistent with regional Conroy and Beatley 2007). and state plans, a locality could adopt an amend- Regulation, evaluation, and education are three ment to the plan and submit the proposed LCPA for distinct roles that together represent the planning- DCA approval. The five agreements exempted the implementation process in the five Florida communi- LCPA from DCA review and issuance of objec- ties. With each including three to four tools of SCP, tions, recommendations, and comments. Instead, a they are covered in this order in the following results locality could adopt a proposed LCPA at a single and discussion sections. The implementation effort is hearing. Affected persons wishing to challenge the evaluated through both content and data analysis of amendment’s compliance could file a petition for secondary sources, primarily the DCA and legisla- an administrative hearing. The DCA reported that ture reports, which cover the project from 1997 to only two amendments, which Ocala citizens chal- 2000, with several update materials to 2001. lenged, would not pass if they were subjected to state review. The five communities varied in levels of adoption of exempt LCPAs. In 1999–2000, for example, Tampa/Hillsborough and Orlando had 5. Results multiple exemptions, Martin County and Ocala 5.1. Implementation of process tools each enjoyed only two, and Boca Raton was inac- 5.1.1. Regulation tools tive in this area (Table 2-I) (Florida Department of Three regulation tools were incorporated into each Community Affairs 2000, Florida Senate, Commit- designation agreement at the beginning of the tee on Comprehensive Planning 2000). International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 77 A DRI in Florida constitutes any development into planning processes and to build consensus that, because of its location, magnitude, or charac- around critical issues in a ‘very politically polar- ter, affects the residents of more than one county. ised’ community (Adams 1997). Martin County The level of exemption from state review for DRI was the only community that chose to create a was determined in each agreement. Tampa/ visioning plan (Table 2-II). Throughout the first Hillsborough was the only community to receive 18 months of its designation, this county prepared the maximum exemption, enabling review of new the plan by developing 20 principles to achieve DRIs and amendments to existing DRIs. By far sustainability by the year 2020, 50 evaluation indi- the largest community in the Florida Project cators to measure progress, a compatible work (Table 1), this joint city/county unit had profes- plan for local initiatives, and a map of desired sional staff with extensive technical expertise. In locations and types of development. Related 1999–2000, for example, Tampa (9) and Hillsbor- citizen feedback activities included a review of ough (37) handled 46 reviews. Orlando and Ocala alternative future scenarios and consensus on sus- had an exemption for existing DRIs, but they did tainability goals and strategies (Florida Department not conduct any reviews during that time. Martin of Community Affairs and Martin County 1997, County and Boca Raton did not review because of Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000). state oversight over their DRIs (Table 2-I) (Florida Each designation agreement contained a separ- Department of Community Affairs 2000, Florida ate section on evaluation criteria and indicators. Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning Evaluation criteria were aimed to assess general 2000). progress and success in meeting local goals of sustainability. Evaluation indicators were developed and applied by the locality; goals were 5.1.2. Evaluation tools continuously measured against specific indicators. The 1996 legislation paid little attention to systematic This progress assessment was incorporated into evaluation and required only two evaluation the community’s annual self-monitoring report. reports lacking specific guidelines. Each com- Several agreements noted the limited ability of munity submitted an annual self-monitoring report communities to complete certain projects because to the DCA and, in turn, the department submitted of the experimental nature of the Florida Project or to the legislature an annual evaluation report of the shortage of funding. whole project. Taking a more intense approach, The agreements listed almost identical criteria every designation agreement included detailed for ‘evaluating success of designation’. The fol- descriptions of several important evaluation tools. lowing general criteria, all required for the annual These tools demonstrated the central role of evalu- report, were employed across-the-board in the five ation in the Florida Project and in SCP. Four of the communities (Table 2-II): progress and accom- tools are presented in this section: visioning plan, plishments made towards achieving general goals evaluation criteria, evaluation indicators, and citi- of the designation as measured by indicators; zen feedback (Table 2-II). progress and accomplishments made towards The visioning plan, the most comprehensive achieving the goals of specific planning initiatives evaluation tool in the project, included long-range and projects; adoption and implementation of goals and strategies for community sustainability comprehensive plans and plan amendments in (Campbell 1996). Their progress and outcomes accordance with the GMA; and successful imple- were monitored via integrated systems linking the mentation of DRI amendments. other three evaluation tools: criteria, indicators, All five agreements required the development and citizen feedback. The Martin County Planning of evaluation indicators to measure progress and Director said that the purpose of the visioning plan success in meeting the designation’s goals. The was to bring new leadership and citizen participation indicators represented an assortment of detailed 78 E. Ben-Zadok direct measures or broader definitions. Examples for 2000–2001. The Senate report later recom- were total recycled water used, number of afforda- mended additional funds to develop evaluation ble houses provided, number of homes rehabili- indicators in Florida communities (Florida Senate, tated, number of bus stops installed, number of Committee on Comprehensive Planning 2000). transit riders, expansion of bus routes in city, Citizen feedback, the final evaluation tool, was increase in jobs, net job growth rate, and unem- not required in the 1996 legislation. After state– ployment rate (for a full list of evaluation indica- local negotiation, voluntary citizen activities were tors, see the five designation agreements, incorporated into the designation agreements. The including attachments, mentioned above). The activities included review of planning and imple- five communities developed evaluation indicators, mentation via citizen committees and surveys. albeit not all applied them. In the absence of These evaluation efforts aimed to bring citizen application, Boca Raton and Ocala were marked input into the SCP process. Each agreement also for little effort. The other three communities contained a separate section on public participa- developed and applied indicators. Orlando and tion, advertising, and hearings. These evaluation Martin County demonstrated an extensive effort, inputs to localities applied to persons affected by Tampa/Hillsborough a moderate one. Hence, there plan amendments. They are not reported in this were noticeable differences among the five com- article because they are mandated in the GMA. munities in this area (Table 2-II). Citizen feedback to SCP covered a broad scope of The Orlando 1998 report included an extens- evaluation activities in communities. It registered ive analysis of citywide sustainability indicators an extensive effort in the designation agreements and their detailed measurements for previous and of Martin County, Tampa/Hillsborough, and upcoming years (City of Orlando 1998). After Orlando but no activity in Boca Raton and Ocala Martin County developed 20 principles and 50 (Table 2-II). Martin organised several public parti- respective indicators in the first 18 months of the cipation activities to create its visioning plan, designation, it started to collect data through direct including strategic visioning process, a review of measurements. Examples of indicators from Mar- scenarios, and the development of evaluation indi- tin were the number of acres for agricultural use, cators. Martin initiated a visioning team, an advi- street miles for sidewalks/bike lanes, gateways/ sory committee to work with a consulting firm on entrance signs, building permits per neighbour- the visioning process, a Hazard Mitigation Strat- hood, and gated community residents. Marin com- egy Team, which involved residents, and a citizen pleted evaluation with a 2000 report covering each survey on quality of life. Tampa/Hillsborough also principle using several indicators measured per established an advisory committee to develop SD 1999, 2001 (expected) and against the final goal concepts, initiatives, and indicators. Orlando (Martin County Board of County Commissioners approached public participation as one of six tar- 2000). The principle ‘conserve and recycle pre- get areas for SCP. The city scored high, particu- cious community resources’, for example, was larly on citizen feedback, because of continuous measured by indicators such as the ratio between monitoring and reporting of implementation recycled and landfill material. between 1997 and 2000. Orlando aimed to increase The DCA contracted with a private consulting citizen participation by tapping local leadership firm to make indicator software available to all and reaching out to stakeholders who did not parti- communities without charge. The purpose was to cipate in traditional comprehensive planning. bridge implementation gaps among communities Neighbourhood training workshops assisted in and to encourage the application of indicators. developing neighbourhood plans and sustainabil- However, after Tampa and Orlando began to work ity indicators throughout the year 2000. Orlando with the firm in 1999, funding for the INDEX soft- even conducted a visual preference study and had ware was slashed and the project was not budgeted a comprehensive website that documented all SCP International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 79 activities to 2001 (Florida Department of Commu- were active in 1997–1998, concentrating on smart nity Affairs and City of Orlando 1997, Florida urban design and construction of affordable and Department of Community Affairs and City of energy-efficient housing. Martin approved the site Tampa and Hillsborough County 1997, Florida and preliminary plan for its urban design project and Department of Community Affairs and Martin also began to plan for a $300,000 state-sponsored County 1997, Florida Department of Community resource centre including an environmentally sen- Affairs 1998, 2000). sitive water and sewer system. Orlando was active continuously from 1997 to 2000. The city con- tracted for a housing project emphasising ‘smart’ 5.1.3. Education tools urban design. It anticipated funding for the ‘Growing Smart’, the American Planning Associa- project but could not secure a site. Orlando also tion project launched in 1994, provides a good organised a demonstration project to reverse example of advancing professional education neighbourhood deterioration and stabilise multi- regarding sustainability. It aimed to assist states in family and lower-income housing. (The above modernising their planning/zoning statutes and summary is based on the five designation agree- disseminating related material to state planning ments mentioned above and the following two agencies and legislatures. Most states also initiated reports: Florida Department of Community Affairs public and community education programmes to (1998) and (2000)). increase awareness around sustainability issues. Delivery of technical assistance to communi- This is an important issue for Florida because of ties was an important aspect of the 1996 legisla- the centrality of the state’s growth issues and a tion. State agencies were supposed to assist and host of extensive and complicated GMA laws. A fund programmes in designated communities and 2001 survey of planning programmes in the to enter project agreements with developers and United States indicated that Florida State Univer- businesses (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511– sity and University of Florida are among the three 3245, 1999 [(3244) (5) (a)] [(3244)(6)]). The DCA accredited graduate planning programmes offering was initially uncertain how to move on this legis- growth management courses. The architecture lative goal, but finally began implementation in school at the University of Miami is home to sev- late 1997. The emerging module was a state– eral ‘smart growth’ and ‘new urbanism’ pioneers, local network based on the delivery of technical among them the co-authors of one of the first assistance to all Florida localities that wished to books on the subject. In general, academic plan- participate. The network was led by the five des- ning departments began to enrich programmes and ignated communities, with each receiving curricula through instruction and reading material $100,000 as general funding for technical assist- about sustainability, particularly in courses on ance (Table 2-II). planning statute reform (Duany and Plater-Zyberk Florida Sustainable Communities Network 1991, Weitz 2001). covered about 40 localities, including all 28 des- The Florida Project approached public and ignation’s applicants, RPCs, and non-profit and community education via three major tools: hous- private agencies. The network aimed to assist ing demonstration project, technical assistance, communities in planning for long-term SD bey- and information dissemination. The DCA encour- ond conventional comprehensive planning, aged ‘smart’ urban design of housing demonstra- inform communities on best SCP practices, and tion projects, including mixed land uses and create a network for information exchange public transportation. Such efforts varied from low among all communities engaged in SCP (Peter- level in Tampa/Hillsborough and Boca Raton to son 2000). The DCA contracted with the archi- moderate in Martin County and Ocala and high tecture school at Florida A&M University to level in Orlando (Table 2-III). Martin and Ocala create and maintain the network for three years, 80 E. Ben-Zadok with a total budget of one million US dollars. communities. They were the LCPA exemption, The network conducted a series of state–local evaluation indicators, citizen feedback, and hous- technical assistance forums, such as round table ing demonstration project. Four other tools discussions, state-wide and regional workshops, received high scores because each was used in all and outreach activities for sharing plans and five communities: the UDB, evaluation criteria, experiences among communities. It also funded technical assistance, and information dissemina- the INDEX indicator software, mentioned earl- tion (Table 2, ‘Combined’ column). ier, an activity free of charge to communities. Overall, implementation of process tools for General funding continued to October 2000 but SCP was successful. Note that each of the 10 was not renewed for 2000–2001 (Florida Depart- selected tools was implemented in one or more of ment of Community Affairs 1997, Florida the five designated communities; calculating 10 Department of Community Affairs 2000). tools × 5 communities gives a total of 50 cases. Of The network had an information dissemina- these 50 possible cases, only 11 registered no tion arm, a website called the Florida Sustaina- implementation, which merely reflected the flexi- ble Communities Centre, which was accessible ble style of making choices in the designation to Florida public and all local communities. The agreements. Specifically, four communities did website included four channels: news, resources, not commit to a visioning plan, two did not com- forum, and directory. It served as an interactive mit to citizen feedback, four did not take advant- electronic forum for communities to present sus- age of the DRI, and one did not use the LCPA tainability plans and to disseminate information exemption. Of the total 39 implemented cases, about new books, articles, and implementation little and moderate implementation efforts were stories. Before the website was closed in 2000, it registered in only six and three cases. But a total recorded 9000 users per month. It is noteworthy of 30 cases, including the used marks, recorded a that Orlando supplemented information dissemi- high level of implementation impact (Table 2, nation through its own website covering all SCP ‘Sustainable Community’ columns). activities between 1997 and 2001 (Table 2-III) The final finding on implementation of pro- (Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive cess tools regards the emergence of two groups Planning 2000, Peterson 2000, City of Orlando of communities, after aggregating the implemen- 2001). tation levels and efforts of all 10 tools in each community. The first group, with relatively high implementation impact, especially in the use of 5.1.4. Summary evaluation tools, included Martin County, Of the three roles representing the SCP process Tampa/Hillsborough, and Orlando. These were in the five communities, evaluation scored the larger and relatively diversified communities highest implementation effort. With four ‘signi- with more resources and technical expertise. The ficant and enforced’ tools, evaluation registered second group, with relatively moderate imple- one high, two varied, and one low effort score. mentation impact, included Boca Raton and With three tools each, education was second reg- Ocala. These were smaller and relatively homo- istering two high and one varied score; regula- geneous communities with less resources and tion came third. Regarding implementation of technical expertise (Table 2, ‘Sustainable Com- individual process tools, the visioning plan and munity’ columns). In the first group, each com- DRI exemption, each was implemented in only munity scored ‘high’, ‘extensive’, and ‘used’ for one of the five communities and thus scored a the implementation of seven or eight tools. In low implementation level. Four tools were more the second group, each community scored ‘used’ popular and had varied performance, i.e. differ- for the implementation of four tools and even ent levels of implementation across the five less for the rest. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 81 6. Discussion referred to best development practices (Ewing 1997) as a general guide for a sustainable com- 6.1. Implementation of process tools munity. After the book was published by the DCA 6.1.1. Discretion (and later by the American Planning Association), This section takes the discretionary implementa- it was recommended as a guide to Florida officials tion of process tools as the underlying theme that and developers. explains most of the results. After a decade of The Florida Senate report concluded that the GMA implementation, Florida legislature and the new state–local labour division worked well and DCA were facing much pressure from localities that implementation ran smoothly with minimal and developers to ease the coercive review of conflicts. The two government levels learned to consistency among state, regional, and local solve problems together and thus improved their plans. State and local officials began to de- relationship. Localities shifted from regulatory emphasise certain tools and promote others. The compliance to long-term outcome-oriented projects. 1996 legislation marked a policy shift towards They did not exploit their discretionary power and increased discretion in state–local relations in an acted responsibly, even without rigorous state effort to facilitate negotiations and feasible polit- oversight. The report noted that local discretion ical solutions among competing interests. This and experimentation facilitated compromises shift was reflected in many flexible state and local among competing stakeholders, provided incen- tools in the five DCA community designation tives to communities to initiate SCP processes, agreements (Pellham 1992, Deyle and Smith and helped to affirm and implement the designa- 1998, Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001). SD ideas suited tion agreements (Florida Senate, Committee on the new state–local partnership because they are Comprehensive Planning 2000). But the Florida often implemented through negotiated conflicts Project did not answer the question of whether dis- among local interest and citizen groups. The cretionary tools and guidelines improve pro- groups tend to generate multiple meanings of SD gramme performance. In fact, the senate report to facilitate flexible solutions. This lack of focus criticised the DCA for not applying specific plan in translating SD into planning practice may components to all communities. Because each explain the diversity of items and the different community developed its own terms of sustaina- levels of implementation commitments in the des- bility, performance evaluation across communities ignation agreements (Campbell 1996, Beatley and became difficult. The department later provided Manning 1998, Hempel 1999, Mazmanian and indicator software for performance evaluation to Kraft 1999, Berke and Conroy 2000). The many communities that chose to use it. But in the final optional items that proliferated in the agreements analysis, reduction in state oversight and an reflected much flexibility. Most were voluntary, increase in local discretion were not assessed in with performance evaluation subjected to the dis- relation to corresponding measures of sustainability cretion of state–local administrators and planners. in communities (Florida Senate, Committee on Indeed, only ‘enforced’ items with clear imple- Comprehensive Planning 2000). mentation commitments were ultimately selected for this study. The designation agreements show that regular 6.1.2. Regulation tools projects were still enforced according to local com- The UDB was one tool that did not facilitate local prehensive plans, subjected to DCA Rule 9J-5 for discretion because it separated urban and non- minimum criteria. In addition, the broad guidelines urban land uses. Exemption from review of LCPA in the agreements provided great discretion to local- and DRI gave communities tremendous discretion. ities to develop implementation rules with min- It also saved supervision effort to the state, which, imum state supervision. Agreements occasionally instead, counted on quality local planning. The 82 E. Ben-Zadok LCPA and DRI exemptions from state and report on limited planning activities in small regional reviews exemplified the great discre- communities with scarce funding resources (Liou tionary power granted to localities in the designa- and Dicker 1994). tion agreements. These flexible regulation tools The three larger communities demonstrated could facilitate compromises between state–local extensive effort regarding citizen feedback, includ- governments and local developers and businesses. ing local committees and similar resident activi- The DCA nonetheless noted the lack of interest in ties. But the actual intensity and impact of citizen exemption from review of new and existing DRIs; engagement over SCP decisions is still an open the DRI was not tested at all in four communities question that must be substantiated (Selman (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000). 2001). Throughout the 1990s, Florida citizens had Perhaps regulation tools were utilised less than little influence over local planning priorities. Plan- evaluation/education tools because their imple- ning processes were controlled by the DCA, local- mentation demanded significant local resources ities, developers, lobbyists, and paid consultants. and technical expertise to perform complex regu- In local plan amendment and project approval latory reviews. However, granting absolute power processes, local officials worked closely with to communities over DRI reviews was a problem- developers; citizens found the discussion and atic approach from the beginning. This is because professional jargon difficult to follow (deHaven- Florida regional planning system was dwindling in Smith 1998, Grosso 2000). Special needs of socio- the 1990s. The review power of RPCs over con- economic and racial groups were also handled sistency of local plans was diminishing because of with inadequate citizen participation (Turner and pressure from developers (Starnes 1993, deHaven- Murray 2001). Smith 1998). DRI exemptions from state and Martin County was most active in evaluation, regional reviews could only further cripple the partly in effort to encourage conflict resolution RPCs in their efforts to coordinate anti-sprawl pol- among citizen groups. It was the only community icies among adjacent communities. Although the to develop a visioning plan, whereas all other com- Florida Project aimed to demonstrate how to con- munities preferred immediate and practical plans. trol urban and suburban sprawl, it did not address The visioning plan was a broad and comprehensive the regional planning issue. It suffered from lim- evaluation tool in comparison to a host of specific ited local capacities to conduct regional reviews technical evaluation elements in other designation and showed little interest in DRI exemptions. agreements. Its goals were subjected to constant monitoring, evaluation, and citizen review. Evaluation criteria and indicators were two 6.1.3. Evaluation tools tools to assess whether goals met expected out- The Florida Project promoted evaluation as a cent- comes during implementation. These tools were ral and unique function of SCP. Evaluation was agreed upon by competing local interests because emphasised in Martin County, Tampa/Hillsbor- they both had important economic and political ough, and Orlando. These larger communities implications. Hence, subjective interpretation and were more diversified, had more resources and multiple meanings of SD were reflected in the technical expertise, and used evaluation tools to variety of indicators that were developed and build consensus among competing groups and to applied in the five communities. Whether evalua- organise support for SCP. In general, this group of tion covers private consumption habits or public larger communities performed better in implement- policies, such as economic development, discre- ing process tools in the Florida Project. Smaller tionary selection of indicators to measure SD communities with less resources and technical entails some bias because the concept is neither know-how could not perform well in a project suf- apparent nor agreeable to stakeholders. A limited fering from limited state funding. GMA studies agreement among stakeholders can be reached by International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 83 developing indicators for partial constructs based 7. Conclusions and policy implications on several principles rather than many principles Ideas of SD have gained popularity in the public of sustainability. Still, the mere employment of discourse and academic literature since the late indicators to measure progress towards goals 1980s. Drawn from a broad reform movement, already implies a serious commitment to sustaina- these ideas generated multiple meanings and polit- bility (Hempel 1999, Kraft and Mazmanian 1999, ical controversies. Liberals criticised the ‘sustaina- Lindsey 2003, Saha and Paterson 2008). ble’ component for a fixed division of duties between present and future systems and lack of inspiration to change the status quo. Environmen- 6.1.4. Education tools talists criticised ‘development’ for damaging nat- Because communities might prefer immediate and ural resources and encouraging consumption and practical incentives, they lent only moderate sup- waste. State and local legislatures transformed SD port to education tools. Rather than providing such ideas into laws and planning agencies have trans- incentives, these tools promote public acceptance lated the laws into urban and regional plans. But and life-long learning of sustainability ideas. This planning literature criticises SD as an all-encom- was the abstract rationale behind two education passing framework that generated multiple inter- tools, technical assistance and information dissemi- pretations to suit competing local interests. The nation. They were delivered from state to local, a literature suggests that impact ‘on the ground’ is centralised arrangement that required minimal local less evident and SD needs further development budgets and was especially favoured by small com- into planning practice. The question then remains munities with scarce resources. The DCA then open regarding the uniqueness and translation of sought to expand this arrangement beyond the win- SD ideas into effective legislation and implementa- ning communities. It promised to work with all tion. A partial answer may lie in the sustainable programme applicants to improve plans for sus- community concept. Focussing on the geographi- tainability and to increase their prospects to enjoy cal area and the municipal unit to apply sustainable broader legislation in the future (DeGrove 2005, strategies, this community-wide concept covers the p. 72). This resulted in Florida Sustainable Commu- distinct demographic and social characteristics of nities Network, a DCA-led state–local arrangement. the local population. It also accounts for environ- Lack of resources forced efficiency in the deliv- mental, economic, and equity concerns of the resi- ery of education tools. Although the DCA delivered dents (Ophuls 1996, Andrews 1997, Beatley and technical assistance and information dissemination Manning 1998, Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy tools to all communities, state-level delivery did not 2000, Lindsey 2003, Jepson 2005, Portney 2005, include funding for local-level education tools, Conroy 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007). which remained undeveloped in communities. The Local plans and demonstration projects pro- senate report concluded that the two state-level moting SD and sustainable community ideas tools served the mission of the Florida Project well. received increased public and private funding in The report recommended future programmes to the United States throughout the 1990s. Busi- continue low-cost, across-the-board equal delivery nesses and developers also began to realise the to communities. But it also pinpointed the general high costs of sprawl and expressed sympathy to lack of state funding for these activities as a major sustainability plans and projects. Anti-sprawl weakness of the project (Florida Senate, Committee strategies received much attention and the balance on Comprehensive Planning 2000). On the other of political forces appeared to tilt in favour of hand, the relative popularity of local housing dem- more compact developments. In Florida, the onstration projects supported the notion of commu- 1996–2001 Sustainable Communities Demonstra- nities as laboratories for innovative designs. tion Project signalled a small-funded pledge for 84 E. Ben-Zadok sustainability. Demonstration projects nonethe- The discretionary approach of the SCP docu- less may produce creative lessons; communities ments stood in contrast to the previous state– can learn through experiences and examples from regional–local strict plan consistency of Florida other locales (Leo et al. 1998, Burchell et al. 2000, GMA. But this approach was consistent with the Chifos 2007). literature’s criticism regarding ambiguity and pro- The Florida Project made state and local fessional disagreement around SD ideas. Of the governments more familiar with sustainability numerous optional items listed in the agreements, strategies and encouraged them to work together many were insignificant, small in size, and were on improved planning techniques. The designation not followed by numerical performance measure- agreements should have been more explicit on ments. This practice endowed state–local adminis- commitment to substantive elements and process trators and planners with much flexibility in tools, but their sustainability language and terms implementation. In the annual reports used for this were not mere symbols (Lindsey 2003). The evaluation, they often recorded implementation agreements went beyond the ‘sustainable, smart, outcomes in qualitative rather than numerical liveable community’ buzzwords that are often values. used in professional and layman vocabularies. Discretionary implementation processes may They were successful in promoting sustainability work in some responsible communities with sound goals and in giving considerable attention to pro- planning practices. In most Florida communities, cedural and process aspects. Indeed, similar however, discretion tends to facilitate negotiations DCA–local agreements were executed in Florida’s and short-term trade-offs among developers, local 2002 Local Government Comprehensive Plan- politicians, and the state. The state then should ning Certification Program or Chapter 163.3246 of force communities to incorporate explicit rules the GMA. Succeeding the 1996 project, this pro- and detailed incentives into local sustainability gramme also allowed communities with exemplary programmes. It should also monitor the implemen- planning and compact development practices to tation of these programmes. Future sustainable operate with reduced state and regional oversight community designations should be encouraged in (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009). communities that enjoy reasonable levels of The 1997 agreements constituted mandatory resources, technical know-how, and funding. plans for sustainability in the five project’s com- Ultimately, implementation of SCP in communi- munities. The agreements served as the main ties must confront Florida’s political reality and sources to evaluate the different roles and imple- willingness to advance this kind of planning. The mentation impacts of process tools for SCP. These traditional implementation constraints of the state SCP documents appeared to encourage communi- include strong interest groups and developers, ties to consider the limits of their resources and to citizens who mistrust local government, localities think about long-range planning. A tri-role series short on budgets and technical expertise, and of process tools was implemented successfully short-term agendas limited by legislative terms along this planning continuum. Especially empha- (Starnes 1993, Faludi 1999, Evers et al. 2000, sised was the role of periodic evaluation and FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and related plan revisions. It was followed by public Urban Problems 2000, pp. 64–67; Ben-Zadok and education via programmes to promote and inform Gale 2001). about community sustainability. Less emphasised These constraints also contributed to flexible was regulation, legal tools to begin the planning implementation of regional planning, another process. Additional roles and process tools should major weakness of the Florida Project. Not only be investigated in an effort to advance the concept was the DRI exemption the only regional process of SCP and distinguish it from comprehensive tool in the project, it also allowed communities to planning. conduct their own reviews with minimum state International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 85 supervision. Because coordination of anti-sprawl and individual learning of sustainability ideas policies among communities is crucial for sustain- through life-long education. The same social and able regional planning, Florida RPCs should be individual forces that were at the heart of Eben- re-empowered to maintain state standards. ezer Howard’s reforms (Hall 1983, President’s Although the UDB was an excellent example of a Council on Sustainable Development 1996, p. 12, community-wide anti-sprawl tool with metro- Selman 2001, Evans et al. 2006, Edge and McAl- regional implications, it did not apply to other lister 2009). communities in the region. In contrast, Oregon’s urban growth boundary is mandated by every city and, thus, it can cut potential utilitarian trade-offs Notes on contributor between economic development and environmen- Effraim Ben-Zadok. School of Public Administration, tal protection (Weitz and Moore 1998). College of Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA. Regional government institutions for reconcil- Email: benzadok@fau.edu. ing differences among communities are critical for effective anti-sprawl and sustainability policies. Like many programmes in the United States, the References Florida Project barely touched the problem of Adams, S., 1997. Martin county: Florida sustainable com- competition among local communities and the munities demonstration project. Tallahassee: Florida need for metro-regional coordination. Acknowl- Sustainable Communities Center (December 10). edging this problem, smart growth agendas promote Anderson, J.E., 2000. Public policymaking. Boston: regional efficiency, environmental protection, and Houghton Mifflin. Andrews, R.N., 1997. National environmental policies: fiscal responsibility in land-use decisions (Porter The United States. In: M. Jaenicke and H.J. Weidner, 1998, Burchell et al. 2000, Weitz 2001). Simi- eds. National environmental policies: a comparative larly, sustainable communities should benefit from study of capacity building. New York: Springer fair resource allocation and extend preservation Verlag, 25–43. efforts beyond their boundaries. They should work Beatley, W.C. and Manning, K., 1998. The ecology of place: planning for environment, economy and together for responsible development–environ- community. Washington, DC: Island Press. ment policies that account for the needs of all Ben-Zadok, E. and Gale, D.E., 2001. Innovation and communities in the region, state and even world- reform, intentional inaction, and tactical break- wide (World Commission on Environment and down: the implementation record of the Florida Development 1987, Mega 1996, President’s concurrency policy. Urban affairs review, 36 (6), 836–871. Council on Sustainable Development 1996, Berke, P.R., 2002. Does sustainable development offer Vitousek et al. 1997, Haughton 1999, Wheeler a new direction for planning? Challenges for the 2000, Feiock and Stream 2001). twenty-first century. Journal of planning literature, Indeed, linking local–regional–state–global 17 (1), 21–36. spaces and present–future needs are abstract and Berke, P.R. and Conroy, M.M., 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 costly ideas. Sustainable community initiatives comprehensive plans. Journal of the American often take place in higher-income communities. planning association, 66 (1), 21–33. Hence, it is important to ensure equity in deliver- Bollens, S.A., 1993. Integrating environmental and ing tools and incentives to all localities in the economic policies at the state level. In: J.M. region and state. This was a central issue in Stein, ed. Growth management: the planning challenge of the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Earth Sum- 143–161. mit (Hempel 1999, p. 57, United Nations Environ- Burchell, R.W., Listokin, D., and Galley, C.C., 2000. mental Programme 2000). Ultimately, the process Smart growth: more than a ghost of urban policy and progress of sustainable community reforms past, less than a bold new horizon. Housing policy depend on civic engagement, public acceptance, debate, 11 (4), 821–879. 86 E. Ben-Zadok Campbell, S., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just Editorial, 2001. Growth brings pluses, minuses. The cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of Sun-sentinel, 31 December. sustainable development. Journal of the American Evans, B., et al., 2006. Governing local sustainability. planning association, 62, 296–312. Journal of environmental planning and manage- Chifos, C., 2007. The sustainable communities experi- ment, 49 (6), 849–867. ment in the United States; insights from three Evers, D., Ben-Zadok, E., and Faludi, A., 2000. The Neth- federal-level initiatives. Journal of planning educa- erlands and Florida: two growth management strate- tion and research, 26, 435–449. gies. International planning studies, 5 (1), 7–23. City of Orlando, 1998. Sustainable communities demon- Ewing, R., 1997. Best development practices: doing stration project: annual progress report. Orlando: the right thing and making money at the same City of Orlando (July). time. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Commu- City of Orlando, 2001. Sustainable communities demon- nity Affairs. stration project: annual progress report. Orlando: Faludi, A., 1999. Patterns of doctorinal development. City of Orlando (July). Journal of planning education and research, 18, Clapp, J.A., 1971. New towns and urban policy. New 334–344. York: Dunellen. FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Conroy, M.M., 2006. Moving the middle ahead: Problems, 2000. Imaging the region: South Florida challenges and opportunities of sustainability in via indicators and public opinions. Fort Lauderdale: Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Journal of planning FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and education and research, 26, 18–27. Urban Problems. Conroy, M.M. and Beatley, T., 2007. Getting it done: an Feiock, R.C. and Stream, C., 2001. Environmental exploration of US of sustainability efforts in prac- protection versus economic development: a false trade- tice. Planning, practice & research, 22 (1), 25–40. off? Public administration review, 61 (3), 313–319. DeGrove, J.M., 1992. The new frontier for land policy Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1997. Sus- planning and growth management in the states. tainable communities demonstration project: 1997 Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. report to legislature. Tallahassee: Florida Depart- DeGrove, J.M., 2005. Planning policy and politics: ment of Community Affairs (December). smart growth and the states. Cambridge: Lincoln Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1998. Sus- Institute of Land Policy. tainable communities demonstration project: 1998 DeGrove, J.M. and Turner, R., 1998. Local govern- report to legislature. Tallahassee: Florida Depart- ment: coping with massive and sustained growth. ment of Community Affairs (December). In: R.J. Huckshorn, ed. Government and politics in Flor- Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2000. Flor- ida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 169–192. ida sustainable communities demonstration project: deHaven-Smith, L., 1998. The unfinished agenda in annual report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of growth management and environmental protection. Community Affairs (December). In: R.J. Huckshorn, ed. Government and politics in Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, Boca Raton, 1997. Sustainable communities desig- 233–265. nation agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department deHaven-Smith, L., 2000. Facing up to the political of Community Affairs (November 12). realities of growth management. Florida planning, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of 7 (5), 1, 14–17. Ocala, 1997. Sustainable communities designation deLeon, P., 1999. The missing link revisited: contempo- agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of rary implementation research. Policy studies Community Affairs (May 27). review, 16 (3/4), 311–338. Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Deyle, R. and Smith, R.A., 1998. Local government com- Orlando, 1997. Sustainable communities designa- pliance with state planning mandates: the effects of tion agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of state implementation in Florida. Journal of the Amer- Community Affairs (July 14). ican planning association, 64 (4), 457–469. Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E., 1991. Towns and Tampa and Hillsborough County, 1997. Sustainable townmaking principles. New York: Rizzoli Press. communities’ designation agreement. Tallahassee: Edge, S. and McAllister, M.L., 2009. Place-based local Florida Department of Community Affairs (July 8). governance and sustainable communities: lessons Florida Department of Community Affairs and Martin from Canadian biosphere reserves. Journal of County, 1997. Sustainable communities designation environmental planning and management, 52 (3), agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of 279–295. Community Affairs (November 4). International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 87 Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning, J.M. Stein, ed. Growth management: the planning 2000. Sustainable communities demonstration challenge of the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, project. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Com- 18–43. munity Affairs (November). Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 2000. Indicators for sus- Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161–3243, 1987. County tainable communities: a strategy building on com- and municipal planning and land development regu- plexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning lation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. theory & practice, 1 (2), 173–186. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999. Growth Jepson, E.J., 2001. Sustainability and planning: diverse policy; county and municipal planning; land devel- concepts and close associations. Journal of plan- opment regulation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. ning literature, 15, 499–510. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009. Growth Jepson, E.J., 2004a. The adoption of sustainable devel- policy; county and municipal planning; land devel- opment policies and techniques in US cities: how opment regulation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. wide, how deep, and what role for planners? Forsyth, A., 2002. Planning lessons from three US new Journal of planning education and research, 23, towns of the 1960s and 1970s: Irvine, Columbia, 229–241. and the Woodlands. Journal of the American Jepson, E.J., 2004b. Human nature and sustainable planning association, 68 (4), 387–415. development: a strategic challenge for planners? Gale, D.E., 1992. Eight state - sponsored growth Journal of planning literature, 19 (1), 3–15. management programs: a comparative analysis. Jepson, E.J., 2005. Sustainability: much more than busi- Journal of the American planning association, 58 ness as usual. State and local government review, (4), 425–439. 37 (2), 166–171. Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Flor- Kline, E., 1995. Sustainable community indicators: ida, 1995. Initial report. Tallahassee: Governor’s examples from Cambridge. Boston, MA: Tufts Commission for Sustainable South Florida University Consortium for Regional Sustainability. (October). Kraft, M.E. and Mazmanian, D.A., 1999. Conclusion: Grosso, R., 2000. More people, less land – how to man- toward sustainable communities. In: D.A. Mazma- age our growth. The Miami Herald, 30 January. nian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sustainable Hall, P., 1983. Ebenezer howard: has his time come at communities: transition and transformations in last? Town and country planning, 52 (2), 42–47. environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Hall, P. and Ward, C., 1998. Sociable cities: the legacy Press, 285–311. of Ebenezer Howard. New York: Wiley. Leo, C., et al., 1998. Is urban sprawl back on the polit- Haughton, G., 1999. Environmental justice and the ical agenda? Local growth control, regional growth sustainable city. Journal of planning education and management, and politics. Urban affairs review, 34 research, 18 (4), 233–243. (2), 179–212. Haywood, R., 2005. Co-ordinating urban development, Lindsey, G., 2003. Sustainability and urban greenways: stations and railway services as a component of indicators in Indianapolis. Journal of the American urban sustainability: an achievable planning goal in planning association, 69 (2), 165–180. Britain? Planning theory & practice, 6 (1), 71–97. Liou, K.T. and Dicker, T.J., 1994. The effect of the Hempel, L.C., 1998. Sustainable communities: from Growth Management Act on local comprehensive vision to action. Claremont, CA: Claremont Gradu- planning expenditures: the South Florida experi- ate University. ence. Public administration review, 54 (3), 239– Hempel, L.C., 1999. Conceptual and analytical chal- 244. lenges in building sustainable communities. In: Martin County Board of County Commissioners, 2000. D.A. Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sus- Martin county: indicators of sustainability. Stuart: tainable communities: transition and transforma- Martin County Board of County Commissioners tions in environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The (October). MIT Press, 43–74. Mazmanian, D.A. and Kraft, M.E., 1999. The three Howard, E., 1965. Garden cities of tomorrow. Cambridge, epochs of the environmental movement. In: D.A. MA: The MIT Press (first published in 1902). Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sustaina- Ingram, H., 1990. Implementation: a review and ble communities: transition and transformations in suggested framework. In: N.B. Lynn and A. Wil- environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT davsky, eds. Public administration: the state of the Press, 3–41. art. Chatham: Chatham House, 462–480. Mega, V., 1996. Our city, our future: towards sustaina- Innes, J.E., 1993. Implementing state growth management ble development in European cities. Environment in the United States: strategies for coordination. In: and urbanization, 8 (1), 33–54. 88 E. Ben-Zadok Nakamura, R.T. and Smallwood, F., 1980. The politics to support complex knowledge management. Jour- of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s nal of environmental planning and management, Press. 49 (1), 21–39. Ophuls, W., 1996. Unsustainable liberty, sustainable Starnes, E.M., 1993. Substate frameworks for growth freedom. In: D. Pirages, ed. Building sustainable management: Florida and Georgia. In: J.M. Stein, societies: a blueprint for a post – industrial world. ed. Growth management: the planning challenge of Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 76–95. Osborn, F.J., 1969. Green-belt cities. New York: Turner, R.S. and Murray, M., 2001. Managing growth Schocken Books. in a climate of urban diversity: South Florida’s Pellham, T.G., 1992. Adequate public facilities require- Eastward Ho! Initiative. Journal of planning educa- ments: reflections on Florida’s concurrency system tion and research, 20, 308–328. for managing growth. Florida state university law United Nations Environmental Programme, 2000. review, 19 (4), 974–1053. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations. Peterson, L., ed., 2000. Envisioning Florida’s future: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Busi- a guide for planning sustainable communities. ness Research, 2000. Florida statistical abstracts Tallahassee: Florida Sustainable Communities 2000. Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Network. Economic and Business Research. Porter, D.R., 1998. The states: growing smarter. In: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Busi- Urban Land Institute, ed. Smart growth: economy, ness Research, 2002. Florida statistical abstracts community, environment. Washington, DC: Urban 2002. Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Land Institute, 28–35. Economic and Business Research. Portney, K., 2005. Civic engagement and sustainable U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a. State and county cities in the United States. Public administration quick facts, Florida-county. Washington, DC. review, 65 (5), 579–591. Available from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996. states [Accessed 26 October 2003]. Sustainable America: a new consensus for prosperity, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b. Summary file 1, opportunity, and a healthy environment for the future. Florida-place. Washington, DC. http://factfinder. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. census.gov/servlet/ [Accessed 26 October 2003]. Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A., 1973. Implementa- Vitousek, P., et al., 1997. Human domination of earth’s tion. Berkeley: University of California Press. ecosystems. Science, 222, 494–499. Sabatier, P.A., 1999. The need for better theories. In: Weitz, J., 2001. Growing smart sm: coming to a class- P.A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the policy process. room near you? Journal of planning education and Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 3–17. research, 21, 84–91. Saha, D. and Paterson, R.J., 2008. Local government Weitz, J. and Moore, T., 1998. Development inside efforts to promote the ‘Three Es’ of sustainable urban growth boundaries: Oregon’s empirical evid- development: survey in medium to large cities in ence of contiguous urban form. Journal of the the United States. Journal of planning education American planning association, 64 (4), 424–440. and research, 28, 21–37. Wheeler, S.M., 2000. Planning for metropolitan sustain- Selman, P., 2001. Social capital, sustainability and envi- ability. Journal of planning education and research, ronmental planning. Planning theory & practice, 2 20 (2), 133–145. (1), 13–30. World Commission on Environment and Development, Soderberg, H. and Kain, J.-H., 2006. Assessment of 1987. Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford sustainable waste management alternatives: how University Press. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/process-tools-for-sustainable-community-planning-an-evaluation-of-RtqEOmZm0w

Loading next page...

References (48)

P. Berke, M. Conroy (2000)
Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?
Journal of the American Planning Association, 66
M. Conroy (2006)
Moving the Middle Ahead
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26
P. Vitousek, H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, J. Melillo (1997)
Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems
Renewable Energy
G. Brundtland, M. Khalid (1987)
Our common future
Efraim Ben-zadok, D. Gale (2001)
Innovation and Reform, Intentional Inaction, and Tactical Breakdown
Urban Affairs Review, 36
Judith Innes, D. Booher (2000)
Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence
Planning Theory & Practice, 1
Edward Jepson (2004)
The Adoption of Sustainable Development Policies and Techniques in U.S. Cities
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23
Ann Forsyth (2002)
Planning Lessons from Three U.S. New Towns of the 1960s and 1970s: Irvine, Columbia, and The Woodlands
Journal of the American Planning Association, 68
K. Liou, T. Dicker (1994)
The Effect of the Growth Management Act on Local Comprehensive Planning Expenditures: The South Florida Experience
Public Administration Review, 54
Edward Jepson (2001)
Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations
Journal of Planning Literature, 15
Devashree Saha, R. Paterson (2008)
Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28
L. Hempel (2009)
Conceptual and Analytical Challenges in Building Sustainable Communities
R. Ewing, M. Deanna, C. Heflin, D. Porter (1996)
Best Development Practices
Kent Portney (2005)
Civic Engagement and Sustainable Cities in the United States
Public Administration Review, 65
G. Lindsey (2003)
Sustainability and Urban Greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis
Journal of the American Planning Association, 69
B. Evans, M. Joas, Susan Sundback, K. Theobald (2006)
Governing local sustainability
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49
Edward Jepson (2005)
Sustainability: Much More Than Business as Usual
State and Local Government Review, 37
P. Hall, C. Ward (1998)
Sociable Cities; The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard
P. Berke (2002)
Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for Planning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century
Journal of Planning Literature, 17
D. Evers, Efraim Ben-zadok, A. Faludi (2000)
The Netherlands and Florida: Two Growth Management Strategies
International Planning Studies, 5
J. Clapp (1971)
New Towns and Urban Policy; Planning Metropolitan Growth
V. Mega (1996)
Our city, our future: towards sustainable development in European cities
Environment & Urbanization, 8
J. Weitz, T. Moore (1998)
Development inside Urban Growth Boundaries: Oregon's Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form
Journal of The American Planning Association, 64
J. Weitz (2001)
Growing SmartSM
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21
M. Conroy, T. Beatley (2007)
Getting it done: An exploration of US sustainability efforts in practice
Planning Practice & Research, 22
H. Söderberg, Jaan-Henrik Kain (2006)
Assessments of sustainable waste management alternatives: How to support complex knowledge management
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49
Rochard Feiock, Christopher Stream (2001)
Environmental Protection Versus Economic Development: A False Trade‐Off?
Public Administration Review, 61
Sara Edge, M. McAllister (2009)
Place-based local governance and sustainable communities: lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52
P. Deleon (2005)
The Missing Link Revisited
Review of Policy Research, 16
R. Burchell, D. Listokin, C. Galley (2000)
Smart growth: More than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon
Housing Policy Debate, 11
C. Leo, M. Beavis, Andrew Carver, R. Turner (1998)
Is Urban Sprawl Back on the Political Agenda?
Urban Affairs Review, 34
R. Elmore, R. Nakamura, Frank Smallwood (1980)
The politics of policy implementation
A. Faludi (1999)
Patterns of Doctrinal Development
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18
Edward Jepson (2004)
Human Nature and Sustainable Development: A Strategic Challenge for Planners
Journal of Planning Literature, 19
F. Osborn (1969)
Green-belt cities
P. Selman (2001)
Social Capital, Sustainability and Environmental Planning
Planning Theory & Practice, 2
Thomas Pelham (1992)
Adequate Public Facilities Requirements: Reflections on Florida's Concurrency System for Managing Growth
Florida State University Law Review, 19
R. Haywood (2005)
Co-ordinating Urban Development, Stations and Railway Services as a Component of Urban Sustainability: An Achievable Planning Goal in Britain?
Planning Theory & Practice, 6
R. Deyle, Richard Smith (1998)
Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates: The Effects of State Implementation in Florida
Journal of The American Planning Association, 64
J. Degrove (1992)
The New Frontier for Land Policy: Planning and Growth Management in the States
E. Howard (1903)
Garden Cities Of To-Morrow
Organization & Environment, 16
D. Mazmanian, M. Kraft (2008)
The Three Epochs of the Environmental Movement
C. Chifos (2007)
The Sustainable Communities Experiment in the United States
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26
T. Beatley, K. Manning (1997)
The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy, and Community
R. Turner, Margaret Murray (2001)
Managing Growth in a Climate of Urban Diversity
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20
S. Wheeler (2000)
Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20
Scott Campbell (1996)
Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable
D. Gale (1992)
Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs: A Comparative Analysis
Journal of The American Planning Association, 58

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Copyright: Copyright Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 1946-3146
eISSN: 1946-3138
DOI: 10.1080/19463131003707398
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, May–November 2009, 64–88 TJUE Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development Efraim Ben-Zadok* School of Public Administration, College of Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA (Received 2 October 2009; final version received 11 February 2010) The purpose of this study is to improve understanding about the process aspects of sustainable community planning. After making a distinction between substance and process in planning, the study evaluates the selection of process tools for sustainable community planning, their different roles, and implementation impacts. Further knowledge of process tools is needed because they convey the unique longitudinal context of planning and visioning for sustainable communities. The contribution to practice lies in increasing planners’ awareness regarding process tools in sustainabil- ity plans and the need to promote these tools. Overall, the implementation of regulation, evaluation, and education process tools in the Florida Demonstration Project was successful. Process aspects received considerable attention throughout the Project’s five years. Discretionary implementation and regional planning were two major weaknesses of the Florida case. Civic engagement, public accept- ance, and individual learning were noted as crucial forces in planning and implementing longer-range sustainability. Keywords: sustainable community planning; process tools; implementation; evaluation; demonstration project; Florida 1. Introduction contributed three innovative processes to planning literature and practice: pre-planning for a whole Perhaps the most influential planning text of the new community, unifying landownership to secure twentieth century, by Ebenezer Howard, has public control over planning, and experimenting in renewed relevance for contemporary ideas of progressive municipal and cooperative forms of sustainability (Hall and Ward 1998). The book social enterprise (Osborn 1969, pp. 32–33, Hall appeared in 1898 under the title Tomorrow: A 1983). Peaceful Path to Real Reform and was republished The centennial anniversary of the Garden with slight revisions in 1902 as Garden Cities of City also marked the emergence of ‘sustainabil- Tomorrow. Under the new title, Howard’s phys- ity’, a new paradigm that might reshape the ical, environmental, and economic ideas became planning profession. Principles of planning for popular and ‘probably had more influence on new sustainable environment, economy, and equity town development and city planning than any (the three Es) are incorporated into plans in an other single approach to urban problems’ (Clapp effort to improve environmental protection, local 1971, p. 23). A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, the economic development, and fair service delivery original subtitle, remained a symbolic reminder of (Jepson 2001). These principles, which reflect Howard’s process approach and social vision that Howard’s ideas that influenced generations of received little attention. Indeed, the Garden City *Email: benzadok@fau.edu ISSN 1946-3138 print/ISSN 1946-3146 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/19463131003707398 http://www.informaworld.com International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 65 European and US planners, address what to do to continuous plan formulation, revision, evaluation, advance sustainability. Specific answers are pro- and negotiation (Campbell 1996, Berke and Con- vided through a host of plan substantive ele- roy 2000). ments and their measured outcomes. Examples The general purpose of this study is to of substantive elements are agricultural land improve understanding about the centrality of preservation, water reuse, parks and greenways, process aspects in the sustainability paradigm infrastructure construction, infill development, and to advance a process-oriented definition of public transit, and affordable housing (Berke and planning for sustainability. The study thus pro- Conroy 2000). vides an evaluation of implementation of process The urban and regional planning literature tools for sustainable community planning (SCP). extensively covers the above elements. How- The purpose of the evaluation is to increase ever, almost like a recurrence of Garden City knowledge regarding process tools in SCP, their history, little attention has been paid to the pro- different roles, and implementation impacts. cess of moving towards sustainable ‘three Es’. Process tools and substantive elements are the Perhaps because plans often do not stress admin- basic components of SCP; regulations regarding istrative and procedural aspects, the literature is these components are documented in a manda- almost silent on process principles (Berke 2002). tory plan for SCP. The plan is formulated and These principles address how to advance sus- implemented in a defined spatial unit, namely, a tainability. Specific answers may be provided community-wide, large-scale municipal unit through plan process tools – namely, tools for (more details below). continuous advancement of the planning-imple- The contribution of the study to the litera- mentation process. Examples of process tools ture of planning for sustainability begins with are evaluation indicators, citizen committees, the conceptualisation of SCP and process tools urban design demonstration projects, technical and continues with an evaluation of these tools, assistance programmes, business retention pro- their different roles, and implementation grammes, and tax incentives (Portney 2005, impacts. Further knowledge about process tools Saha and Paterson 2008). is needed because they convey the unique longi- Process-oriented planning has been guiding tudinal context of planning and visioning for urban and regional development since the sustainable communities. In contrast, informa- 1960s. For planning scholarship and practice, the tion is already available regarding substantive emerging sustainability paradigm could serve as a elements in planning for sustainability. The ‘common good’ to improve process/procedural contribution to planning practice lies in increas- approaches, alongside substantive/design approaches ing planners’ awareness regarding process tools (Berke 2002). This study suggests a move in this dir- in plans for sustainability and the need to pro- ection by adding knowledge about long-range mote these tools. planning-implementation process and the central The study originates in the familiar notion that role this plays in the sustainability paradigm. The plans for sustainability tend to be idealistic, super- study argues that process lies at the heart of the ficial, and vague. Lacking clear identity, their paradigm because sustainability is conditioned on strategies and goals may not differ from those of the community’s long-term capacity to continue to traditional comprehensive plans. More ideas and reproduce and revitalise itself without sacrificing claims of sustainability continue to appear in plans, future resources. Furthermore, sustainability is but the question of their uniqueness and translation conditioned on intergenerational responsibility to into practice remains open. More research is needed maintain local standards of living within the limits regarding the translation of sustainability concepts of natural resources. Hence, achieving an inte- into planning practice and how these guide imple- grated vision of community sustainability requires mentation actions and experiences (Campbell 66 E. Ben-Zadok 1996, Beatley and Manning 1998, Berke 2002, businesses, universities, and environmental and Conroy 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007). community groups (Mazmanian and Kraft 1999). Because demonstration and pilot projects tend Berke and Conroy (2000) provided a good to follow experimental and innovative agendas, example of six broad SD principles: harmony with they provide ideal settings for sustainability stud- nature, polluters pay, responsible regionalism, ies. These projects can be influential in drawing liveable built environment, place-based economy, cutting-edge lessons and encouraging local profes- and equity. Another example is the 10 principles sional thinking and public/private actions (Forsyth of the President’s Council on Sustainable Devel- 2002, Chifos 2007, Conroy and Beatley 2007). opment (1996). However, SD is still criticised as a The study thus presents a case method of five local holistic and abstract idea, unfit to lead policy communities; the sole participants in a State of development and lacking the specifics to be trans- Florida pilot initiative entitled the Sustainable lated into planning practice. Some of the confu- Communities Demonstration Project. These com- sion around SD lies in its applications to different munities formulated, mandated, and implemented geographical scales, from a small-scale housing SCP from 1996 to 2001. The project is evaluated subdivision or a recreation park to a large-scale through both content and data analysis of second- community with a variety of residential, commer- ary sources, two techniques supplemented by a cial, employment, service, and social activities. In methodological procedure. The secondary sources the United States, for example, many communities include state-level legislation, state–local regula- are adopting SD initiatives in an incremental and tory documents and reports, census statistics, and piecemeal manner because the intergovernmental academic studies. system is decentralised and local communities are The next section provides a theoretical discus- fragmented. However, local parochial actions sion of SCP. The section thereafter introduces the diminish the role of SD as an overarching long- Florida Project and the five communities. The term framework for comprehensive sustainability three subsequent sections – methods, results and initiatives. Such actions often result in small-scale discussion – cover the selection of process tools for piecemeal initiatives or short-term programmes the evaluation and the evaluation itself. The final (Mega 1996, Jepson 2001, Berke 2002, Conroy section draws conclusions and policy implications. 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007, Saha and Paterson 2008). Although the differences between principles of 2. Sustainable community planning SD and those of sustainable community are unclear Four SCP features mentioned above are discussed in the literature, the sustainable community con- below: (1) community-wide, large-scale municipal cept offers a spatial approach encompassing a unit, (2) mandatory plan, (3) substantive elements, whole community with distinct demographic and and (4) process tools. The first two represent the social characteristics. Hempel (1999), for example, basic working requirements for SCP. They origi- proposed the following six sustainable community nated in studies that discuss the limitations of sus- principles: ecological integrity, economic vitality, tainable development (SD). SD has influenced civic democracy, social well-being, high-quality of numerous urban and regional plans and gained sig- life, and reciprocal obligation among community nificant momentum in planning literature during members. The community covers a large-scale the last two decades. The SD concept was intro- geographic area where residents have specific envi- duced in the 1987 World Commission on Environ- ronmental and economic concerns. A sustainable ment and Development and then embraced by the community works to preserve ecological and 1992 United Nations Earth Summit and the 1996 economic resources. The community links its future US President’s Council on Sustainable Develop- sustainability to quality of life, political participation, ment. It was adopted worldwide across governments, and consumption habits. On the neighbourhood International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 67 level, design is related to urban liveability; trans- activity, public facility, transportation mode, and portation planning is related to environmental pro- housing type. These studies often argue that such tection (Hempel 1998, 1999, Portney 2005). elements are also typical of local comprehensive SCP is grounded in the sustainable community plans. They do not find significant differences concept. The spatial unit to apply SCP is a between planning documents with SD as an organ- community-wide, large-scale municipal unit: a ised framework and those without such a frame- community with distinct demographic and social work. Perhaps more interesting are the studies that characteristics and diversified activities, located measure the degree of substantive elements by within the jurisdiction of an autonomous local gov- using specific evaluation indicators. Common indi- ernment. This spatial unit, the first SCP requirement cators are the rates of elements such as water pollu- above, appears compatible with SD. SD proposes tion, water use, gas emission, recycled material, an overarching framework to guide integrated solid waste, job growth, unemployment, housing visionary planning and to encounter urban and sub- value, homeownership, vacant businesses, hospital urban sprawl. Sprawl is a spatial phenomenon with beds, and vehicle miles travelled (Kline 1995, economic and social characteristics. The contempo- Haughton 1999, Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy rary anti-sprawl reaction serves as a reminder of the 2000, Lindsey 2003, Jepson 2004a, Haywood anti-urban reaction towards the problems of the 2005, Saha and Paterson 2008). Evaluation indi- industrial city in the late nineteenth century. That cators that assess the continuous progress of sub- city was the underlying spatial–economic–social stantive local plan elements towards sustainability phenomenon behind Howard’s criticism. The Gar- provide an important example of process tools in den City encountered the problems of the industrial this study. A technical assistance programme to a city through planning for several community-wide, community, to plan for sustainability, constitutes large-scale new towns in the region. This integra- another example. A common process tool that tive planning approach was conducive to a unified appears in this study is a housing demonstration social action (Howard 1965, Berke 2002). project to educate residents about sustainable The second requirement for SCP is a manda- urban design. If a housing subdivision is plainly tory plan, a legally binding document. The plan residential, however, it should be counted as a for SCP consists of mandatory rules, written in substantive element. Although not immediately explicit style implying political commitment for apparent, it is important to distinguish between long-term sustainability. Because of confusion process tools and substantive elements in local around multiple meanings and ‘buzzword’ uses of plans. SD, sustainability plans often suffer from an uncom- Effective process tools of SCP promote long- mitted, symbolic/rhetoric style. A clear commitment range planning, monitor its continuous progress, may be implied through a formal sustainability and educate residents and communities to com- plan, especially as part of long-term comprehens- ply with responsible planning. These tools ive/general/strategic local plan. Another example account for present capacities without sacrificing of a serious commitment is a local office for sus- future resources. They anticipate the needs of tainability programmes (Andrews 1997, Jepson present and future generations towards communi- 2005, Saha and Paterson 2008). ties and environments (Berke and Conroy 2000, The mandatory plan includes the two basic Jepson 2001, Berke 2002). This process notion is components of SCP: substantive elements and reflected in the most popular definition of SD: process tools. Substantive elements are largely cov- ‘development that meets the needs of the present ered in studies demonstrating the extent that sus- without compromising the ability of future tainability principles guide community-wide plans. generations to meet their own needs’ (World Examples of elements are natural/environmental Commission on Environment and Development resource, specific land use, economic development 1987, p. 43). 68 E. Ben-Zadok Policy implementation literature explains that Florida’s metropolitan areas grew by 23.5% lack of information about process tools is related during the 1990s, reaching 16 million residents in to excessive emphasis on the evaluation of out- 2000. Close to one-half of the population lived in comes rather than processes. But, for example, a unincorporated areas, mainly outlying suburbs. ‘degraded environment’ as an evaluative outcome One-half of the counties had less than 80,000 does not inform the interaction of development residents (Editorial 2001, University of Florida, interests and weak planning institutions. Perhaps Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2002, this dynamic process has resulted in that outcome. pp. 14–16). Anti-sprawl, compact development, Policy literature needs more information about sustainability, and natural resource issues began to implementation processes and, in particular, how capture Florida’s growth agenda in the early 1990s. they generate specific outcomes (Pressman and Suburban sprawl and managing the location of Wildavsky 1973, Nakamura and Smallwood 1980, growth, rather than managing growth, became the Ingram 1990, deLeon 1999, Sabatier 1999, Ben- main problem. The policy response was sprawl Zadok and Gale 2001). containment and increased density in urban areas (DeGrove and Turner 1998, deHaven-Smith 2000). The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable 3. Florida sustainable communities’ South Florida described in its 1995 report how demonstration project residential and commercial developments stretch Florida’s population grew by 32.7% during the towards environmental and ecological systems 1980s, reaching 12.9 million residents in 1990 and damage air, water, wildlife, and agriculture. (University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and This uncontrolled sprawl harmed the quality of Business Research 2000, p. 47). The purpose of life and curbed compact development. In South the decade’s most prominent legislation, the 1985 Florida, the state’s most populated region, the Florida Growth Management Act (GMA), was to problem was in defiance of most SD principles restrain population growth, to control residential (Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South and commercial developments, and to protect nat- Florida 1995, pp. 13–23). The Commission’s ural resources and agricultural lands. The 1985 recommendations resulted in a state-wide amend- Florida GMA was originally entitled the Local ment to the GMA, namely, the 1996 Sustainable Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Communities Demonstration Project, or Chapter Development Regulation Act. Its formal reference 163.3244 of the GMA. It was the only legislation in this article is Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161– that focussed explicitly on sustainability and 3243, 1987. Post-1987 legislative changes in title, encouraged SCP in Florida localities (Florida section numbers, and their content appear in this Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245 1999). The article under the reference Florida Statutes, Chap- implementation of this legislative amendment ter 163.2511–3245, 1999 or Florida Statutes, from 1996 to 2001 constitutes the case for this Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009. The original GMA study. The amendment’s preamble portion called acronym is kept throughout this article. The GMA on communities participating in the project to implementation began with consistency, the policy adopt six broad principles of sustainability: that mandated state-centralised, top-down com- (1) limited urban sprawl, (2) healthy and clean pliance among state, regional, and local plans. environment, (3) restoration of ecosystems, (4) A relatively weak and not yet clear SD require- protection of wildlife and natural areas, (5) effi- ment, compact development, was linked to three cient use of land and other resources, and (6) crea- secondary provisions of the Act: economic devel- tion of quality communities and jobs. The opment, affordable housing, and natural resource preamble authorised the Florida Department of protection (DeGrove 1992, pp. 11–22, Florida Community Affairs (DCA), the state land plan- Statutes, Chapter 163.3161–3243 1987). ning agency, to administer the project, invite International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 69 applications, and select five communities ‘of dif- as a general document including compliance con- ferent sizes and characteristics’ (Florida Statutes, ditions and procedures. It could be effective for Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (1) (2)). up to five years, subject to revoking if the local- The 1996 project began with the DCA and out- ity neither complied nor showed progress side agencies reviewing and assigning scores to 28 towards sustainability goals. The locality had to local applications. These assessments first assured submit an annual self-monitoring report, including that the community set an urban development updates on amendments, to the DCA. The DCA boundary (UDB) and was supported by its had to submit to the legislature an annual report, Regional Planning Council (RPC). Assessments including implementation successes and failures also accounted for the extent to which the locality of the whole project and recommendations to demonstrated, in a local plan or land development either modify or repeal it (Florida Statutes, Chap- regulations, sound planning track records that met ter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (4) (7) (8)). 12 general criteria mentioned in the statute. The The DCA annual reports and the designation 12 criteria included the promotion of (1) infill agreements were the main sources for content development and redevelopment; (2) housing for and data analysis in the evaluation described low-income, elderly, or disabled people; (3) effective below. The DCA annual report opened and con- intergovernmental coordination; (4) economic cluded with a general qualitative assessment on diversity and growth while encouraging rural the project and the five communities. The rest of character and environmental protection; (5) pub- the report was a compilation of the annual reports lic urban and rural spaces and recreation opportu- and qualitative assessments from each of the five nities; (6) transportation and land uses that communities. The five agreements, the basic support public transit and pedestrian-friendly local SCP documents, also served as the main modes; (7) urban design to foster community source for the method of this study. Each agree- identity, sense of place, and safe neighbourhoods; ment was a mandatory plan, a state–local partner- (8) redevelopment of blighted areas; (9) disaster ship contract for formulation and implementation preparedness programmes, especially in coastal of general/strategic SCP. The document opened areas; (10) mixed-use development; (11) finan- with a brief preamble statement including the cial and administrative capabilities to implement promotion of demonstration and innovation val- the designation; and (12) effective adoption and ues, general strategic goals to achieve local long- enforcement of local comprehensive plan (Florida term sustainability, and the urban boundary’s Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (3) jurisdiction for applying SCP. The rest of the (b)). All assessments were forwarded to the Sus- document described the projects, the substantive tainable Communities Selection Committee. The elements and process tools targeted for local committee reviewed applications, heard public implementation. The size, comprehensive scope, comments, assigned scores, and in December detailed description, and degree of commitment 1996, issued a final report recommending 12 for the implementation of each local project all applications. The DCA secretary selected five varied greatly in each agreement (The DCA applications in January 1997. The department annual reports appear in the References, under and each of the five communities established a Florida DCA; the five designation agreements Sustainable Communities Team, charged to nego- appear under the co-authorship of Florida DCA tiate a written agreement. The secretary and elected and the individual community (Florida DCA and commission/council of each community approved City of Boca Raton 1997)). each of the five designation agreements that were Each of the five designated communities had signed between May and November 1997 (Florida distinct demographic and social characteristics Department of Community Affairs 1997, pp. 1–3). and constituted an autonomous local government. The legislation described the designation agreement With respect to the first, Martin County statistics 70 E. Ben-Zadok from 1990 to 2000 indicate that it was mid-size by 4.1.1. Selection both land area and population relative to the rest of SD studies usually select specific items for evalua- the Florida counties. Sparsely populated with tion, based on content analysis of plans or survey moderate housing prices, this southeast coastal of government officials. After review and content county experienced high growth in the 1990s. analysis of all possible substantive elements and Martin’s major concerns regarding sustainability process tools in the five agreements, elements and were environmental preservation, open space and tools were selected for this evaluation if they were recreation, disaster preparedness, and affordable significant and enforced. The first criterion was the housing. Tampa and Hillsborough on the west- selection of only significant elements and tools and central coast received a joint city/county designa- elimination of all other items. Significance of ele- tion to target redevelopment, infill, anti-crime, and ments and tools was determined by relatively large sprawl issues. Hillsborough County had a large size, comprehensive scope, and detailed imple- population, high growth, and housing prices mentation description. The selection ruled out around the state average. Tampa was one of the many small, unspecified, and varied items in the most populated, dense, and slow-growth commu- agreements. The diversity of items is perhaps nities relative to the rest of Florida’s largest cities. related to multiple meanings of sustainability and Orlando in east-central Florida was also one of the the lack of focus in translating the concept into largest cities. Home of Disney World and other planning practice. Other items ruled out during huge tourist attractions, Orlando’s housing prices the review were atypical of SCP and mandatory were a little above average. Its major concerns in comprehensive planning sections of the Flor- were environmental protection in sensitive areas, ida GMA (Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy infill and neighbourhood revitalisation, economic 2000, Jepson 2004a, Conroy 2006, Saha and and social programmes, public–private partner- Paterson 2008). The second criterion was selec- ships, and development incentives. Boca Raton tion of only enforced elements and process tools on the southeast coast was one of the smaller cit- and elimination of optional ones. After extensive ies, with high rates of growth, density, and housing review and content analysis of the agreements, price. As a middle- and upper-income community, selected elements and tools were those followed its concerns were environmental protection, quality by explicit commitment for implementation indi- of services, and downtown redevelopment. Last, cated by key words such as ‘require, must, will, Ocala in the east-central area was a relatively small adopt, or implement’. Eliminated items were and slow-growth historic town. As a low middle- those followed by less clear commitments, income community, it had a broad agenda for implied by key words such as ‘suggest, encour- improving local conditions (see Table 1; Figure 1). age, consider, intend, may, would, will address, will determine, will explore, shall define, or shall seek’ (Berke and Conroy 2000). The selection of enforced items only was 4. Methods necessary because of the broad discretionary style 4.1. Selection and classification of process tools of commitments to implement elements and tools All five designated communities met the two basic in the agreements. Various commitment levels via working requirements for SCP: each represented a flexible wording are often related to different lev- community-wide, large-scale municipal unit, and els of political compromises among stakeholders. each had a mandatory plan – a strategic SCP docu- Ideas of sustainability tend to gather competing ment. The plan, the designation agreement, interests of businesses, land developers, middle- included the two basic SCP components discussed class residents, and environmental lobbies. In below: substantive elements and process tools. transforming interests into legislation and plans, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 71 Table 1. Florida sustainable communities by demographic-social characteristics, 1990/2000. Sustainable community Demographic-social Martin Hillsborough City of City of City of City of characteristic County County Tampa Orlando Boca Raton Ocala County Martin Hillsborough Hillsborough Orange Palm Beach Marion State planning district Treasure Coast Tampa Bay Tampa Bay East-central Treasure Coast Withlacoochee State region Southeast West-central West-central East-central Southeast East-central Land area in square miles, 556 1,051 170 100 29 38 Persons (density) per 228 950 2,707 1,988 2,749 1,189 square mile, 2000 Population, 1990 100,900 834,054 280,015 164,674 61,486 42,045 Population, 2000 126,731 998,948 303,447 185,951 74,764 45,943 Population percentage 25.6 19.8 8.3 12.9 21.5 9.2 change, 1990–2000 Population rank in state, 29 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 67 counties, 2000 Population rank in state, n.a. n.a. 3 6 24 n.a. 35 largest cities, 2000 Housing units, 2000 65,471 425,962 135,776 88,486 37,547 20,501 Median price for S-F home 99,400 105,800 105,800 109,300 138,600 94,827 in MSA, US$, 2000 Note: Tampa/Hillsborough, a joint city/county designation, counts as one community in the Florida Project; n.a., not applicable. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000a, 2000b, University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2002, p. 15, 16, 19, 64, 89. 72 E. Ben-Zadok Figure 1. Map of Florida sustainable communities, 1996–2001. these groups push compromised bills with flexible adopting numerous items, each set included only language. SCP documents, the signed agreements those significant and enforced elements/tools that in the five communities, often represent a mixture represented important and clear commitments. of real interests, symbolic rhetoric, and clear and The comparison of the two sets strengthened the vague commitments (Kraft and Mazmanian 1999, rationale that communities indeed committed only Mazmanian and Kraft 1999, Jepson 2005). to a limited number of elements/tools that were In the shortlist of selected substantive ele- worthy of evaluative effort. Of the numerous items ments and process tools that emerged after in the agreements, the small number of significant employing the two selection criteria, each item and enforced elements/tools selected for the list was both significant and enforced. Next, elements can also be explained by discretionary state–local were dropped from the list; tools were classified relationships. This relationship – state’s advisory and later evaluated for their implementation role and minimum supervision over local SCP – impacts. The comparison of the two sets that will be revisited later. The discretion in imple- reached the shortlist, elements versus tools, lent menting the 1996 project was unusual, considering external validity from one set to another. Although the previous coercive implementation of the the five communities exercised great flexibility in GMA. In general, the GMA’s consistency policy International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 73 prescribes integration of plans from top (state) to future resources. Beyond that, the literature pro- bottom (local). The state leads implementation via vides little insight into process tools or how to plan review regulations and enforcement of their classify them. All 10 tools appeared to promote consistency. Regulations are recorded in Rule 9J-5, long-range planning and vision, some implied a a chapter of the Florida Administrative Code, and shorter or longer time interval for planning, some implemented by the DCA. Although localities for- paid more attention to the continuous process of mulate local comprehensive plans and monitor improving sustainability. The classification is their routine enforcement, plans must be consist- grounded in the distinct roles of the tools in SCP. ent with regional and state plans, and only then Three exploratory roles were identified, each serv- can be approved by the DCA (Gale 1992, Bollens ing a specific function and including three to four 1993, Innes 1993). tools that made the shortlist. The first role in the The following brief summary compares the classification is regulation, which has a legal func- two sets of findings, substantive elements versus tion. Second is evaluation, which is crucial for process tools. Data were compiled from the five political/policy accountability. Third is education, designation agreements: Florida Department of representing a public teaching/learning function Community Affairs and City of Boca Raton (see Table 2). (1997), Florida Department of Community Affairs Regulation tools are binding laws incorporated and City of Ocala (1997), Florida Department of into each agreement at the beginning of the SCP Community Affairs and City of Orlando (1997), process. They constitute the legal base to launch Florida Department of Community Affairs and SCP and to begin implementation. In contrast to City of Tampa and Hillsborough County (1997), distributive policies, which are less contentious and Florida Department of Community Affairs and because they allocate benefit or service a particu- Martin County (1997). Of the many items in the five lar group, regulation tools are adversarial because designation agreements, only 15 elements and 10 they impose uniform restrictions on all stakehold- tools were counted as significant and also enforced ers (Anderson 2000, pp. 9–13). SD literature cov- and thus reached the shortlist. Within this total of the ers regulation tools, primarily urban growth/ final 25 selected items, communities still made their service boundaries and similar zoning measures own flexible choices. Specifically, only five tools (Jepson 2004a, Saha and Paterson 2008). With were not mandated by the state and were appropri- some local flexibility on details, the same regula- ated for implementation in the five communities. tion tools were mandated in all five communities. Only two elements, environmental protection and Evaluation and education tools, on the other hand, affordable housing, were implemented in four com- were chosen by each locality and were then appro- munities. Finally, eight elements and tools, close to priated for implementation. one-third of the total 25, appeared in only one agree- Evaluation tools are used to assess progress ment. Among these were agricultural land preserva- towards meeting goals while the implementation tion, water reuse, and visioning plan. of SCP is underway. They are used for periodic monitoring of the ongoing implementation process and for forecasting purposes. They are especially 4.1.2. Classification important for intermediate evaluation of a long- The 10 selected process tools that made the short- range process to improve sustainability. Choices list were further analysed regarding their contribu- of evaluation tools in communities can be polit- tion to SCP, which is a long-range planning and ical, depending on competing local interests. visioning process including continuous plan for- However, collaboration among community groups mulation, implementation, evaluation, and revi- may reduce tensions around these tools (Campbell sion. It also aims to increase understanding of the 1996, Wheeler 2000, Lindsey 2003). SD literature community’s present capacities while not wasting covers evaluation tools, primarily indicators to track 74 E. Ben-Zadok Table 2. Florida sustainable communities by process tools for sustainable community planning (SCP): implementation, 1997–2000. Process tool for SCP Combined: Sustainable community implementation level/ effort of process tool in Tampa/ City of Boca Tool: description of tool five communities Martin County Hillsborough City of Orlando Raton City of Ocala I Regulation tool High/varied/low Urban development High. Same as urban Used. Primary Used. Urban Used. City limits Used. City Used. Urban boundary (UDB), service area line or urban service service area of limits service area of separates urban and city limits. Each UDB area city or county water & sewers non-urban land uses differs by specific criteria Exemption to local Varied. Adoption levels Low-level activity: High-level activity. High-level activity. No activity Low-level activity. comprehensive plan of exempted LCPAs two exempted 17 small and 12 Three sets of Two exempted amendment. varied in five LCPAs adopted large exempted exempted LCPAs Exemption from state– communities in in Tampa LCPAs regional review to 1999–2000 LCPA in UDB and outside high-hazard coast Exemption to Low. No adoption of No activity. Unused High-level activity No activity. No activity. No activity. development regional exempted DRIs in because of state for existing and Exemption for Unused Exemption for impact. Exemption four communities in oversight new DRIs. 46 existing DRIs because of existing DRIs from state–regional 1999–2000; high- (9 + 37) only state only review to DRI in UDB level adoption in one exempted oversight and outside high- community hazard coast International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 75 II Evaluation tool High/varied(2)/low Visioning plan. Low. No effort in four; Extensive plan No effort No effort No effort No effort Comprehensive, extensive plan in one effort integrates various community evaluation tools Evaluation criteria. High. Similar criteria Used Used Used Used Used Criteria to evaluate used in five progress and outcomes communities Evaluation indicators. Varied. Effort levels Extensive effort; Moderate effort; Extensive effort; Little effort; Little effort; Develop and apply varied in five developed and developed, little developed and developed developed only indicators to evaluate communities applied application applied only progress and outcomes Citizen feedback. Citizen Varied. Extensive effort Extensive effort Extensive effort Extensive effort No effort No effort feedback to SCP in three; none in two (plus) process communities III Education tool High(2)/varied Housing demonstration Varied. Effort levels Moderate effort Little effort Extensive effort Little effort Moderate effort project. ‘Smart’ urban varied in five design housing communities prototype Technical assistance. Aid High. Equal delivery to Used Used Used Used Used via state–local network five communities Information High. Equal delivery to Used Used Used. Plus local Used Used dissemination. State- five communities website wide website informs localities Note: Tampa/Hillsborough, a joint city/county designation, counts as one community in Florida Project. Sources: Florida Department of Community Affairs 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Boca Raton 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Ocala 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Orlando 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Tampa and Hillsborough County 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs and Martin County 1997, Florida Department of Community Affairs 1998, 2000, Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning 2000. 76 E. Ben-Zadok progress and citizen/neighbourhood participation planning process: Urban Development Boundary groups that intervene and influence the course of (UDB), Exemption to Local Comprehensive Plan implementation (Innes and Booher 2000, Jepson Amendment (LCPA), and Exemption to Develop- 2004a, 2004b, Portney 2005, Evans et al. 2006, Sod- ment of Regional Impact (DRI) (Table 2-I). These erberg and Kain 2006, Saha and Paterson 2008). state-mandated tools, all key and legally binding Education tools also are employed during the in the 1996 legislation, outlined the jurisdictions implementation of SCP. They aim to increase targeted for implementation of SCP (Florida Stat- understanding of sustainability values and to teach utes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999 (3244) (4) techniques to improve community sustainability. (5)). The UDB, the basic required tool in each They focus on public education via programmes community, separated urban and rural land uses. that produce relatively remote and uncertain long- Proposed LCPA and DRI within the UDB and out- term impacts (Nakamura and Smallwood 1980, p. side the coastal high-hazard area were exempted 76). These programmes tend to be less tangible, from state and regional reviews (see below). If the lacking the immediate and apparent impacts of reg- LCPA or DRI was outside the UDB and within the ulation and evaluation tools. Programmes often pro- coastal high-hazard area, the reviews were applic- mote universal values, such as the protection of able. Each of the five UDBs was identical to either environmental and natural resources for future gen- the urban service area line or the city limits. Urban erations. They lack concrete incentives for imple- service area in the GMA is a built-up area where mentation and hardly mobilise residents and public facilities and services such as roads, officials. Government and non-profit organisations schools, sewage, and recreation are already in thus have an important role in educating citizens to place. Each UDB also included additional specific appreciate such programmes and values. Academic criteria. For example, in the city of Ocala, the planning programmes can also help by increasing urban service area was marked after the water and involvement and curriculum development in this sewer service area; in Martin County it outlined area (Jepson 2001, Weitz 2001). SD literature cov- the relatively dense coastal zone (Table 2-I). ers education tools, primarily local pilot pro- Following the GMA requirement to adopt a grammes and demonstration projects (Chifos 2007, local comprehensive plan consistent with regional Conroy and Beatley 2007). and state plans, a locality could adopt an amend- Regulation, evaluation, and education are three ment to the plan and submit the proposed LCPA for distinct roles that together represent the planning- DCA approval. The five agreements exempted the implementation process in the five Florida communi- LCPA from DCA review and issuance of objec- ties. With each including three to four tools of SCP, tions, recommendations, and comments. Instead, a they are covered in this order in the following results locality could adopt a proposed LCPA at a single and discussion sections. The implementation effort is hearing. Affected persons wishing to challenge the evaluated through both content and data analysis of amendment’s compliance could file a petition for secondary sources, primarily the DCA and legisla- an administrative hearing. The DCA reported that ture reports, which cover the project from 1997 to only two amendments, which Ocala citizens chal- 2000, with several update materials to 2001. lenged, would not pass if they were subjected to state review. The five communities varied in levels of adoption of exempt LCPAs. In 1999–2000, for example, Tampa/Hillsborough and Orlando had 5. Results multiple exemptions, Martin County and Ocala 5.1. Implementation of process tools each enjoyed only two, and Boca Raton was inac- 5.1.1. Regulation tools tive in this area (Table 2-I) (Florida Department of Three regulation tools were incorporated into each Community Affairs 2000, Florida Senate, Commit- designation agreement at the beginning of the tee on Comprehensive Planning 2000). International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 77 A DRI in Florida constitutes any development into planning processes and to build consensus that, because of its location, magnitude, or charac- around critical issues in a ‘very politically polar- ter, affects the residents of more than one county. ised’ community (Adams 1997). Martin County The level of exemption from state review for DRI was the only community that chose to create a was determined in each agreement. Tampa/ visioning plan (Table 2-II). Throughout the first Hillsborough was the only community to receive 18 months of its designation, this county prepared the maximum exemption, enabling review of new the plan by developing 20 principles to achieve DRIs and amendments to existing DRIs. By far sustainability by the year 2020, 50 evaluation indi- the largest community in the Florida Project cators to measure progress, a compatible work (Table 1), this joint city/county unit had profes- plan for local initiatives, and a map of desired sional staff with extensive technical expertise. In locations and types of development. Related 1999–2000, for example, Tampa (9) and Hillsbor- citizen feedback activities included a review of ough (37) handled 46 reviews. Orlando and Ocala alternative future scenarios and consensus on sus- had an exemption for existing DRIs, but they did tainability goals and strategies (Florida Department not conduct any reviews during that time. Martin of Community Affairs and Martin County 1997, County and Boca Raton did not review because of Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000). state oversight over their DRIs (Table 2-I) (Florida Each designation agreement contained a separ- Department of Community Affairs 2000, Florida ate section on evaluation criteria and indicators. Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning Evaluation criteria were aimed to assess general 2000). progress and success in meeting local goals of sustainability. Evaluation indicators were developed and applied by the locality; goals were 5.1.2. Evaluation tools continuously measured against specific indicators. The 1996 legislation paid little attention to systematic This progress assessment was incorporated into evaluation and required only two evaluation the community’s annual self-monitoring report. reports lacking specific guidelines. Each com- Several agreements noted the limited ability of munity submitted an annual self-monitoring report communities to complete certain projects because to the DCA and, in turn, the department submitted of the experimental nature of the Florida Project or to the legislature an annual evaluation report of the shortage of funding. whole project. Taking a more intense approach, The agreements listed almost identical criteria every designation agreement included detailed for ‘evaluating success of designation’. The fol- descriptions of several important evaluation tools. lowing general criteria, all required for the annual These tools demonstrated the central role of evalu- report, were employed across-the-board in the five ation in the Florida Project and in SCP. Four of the communities (Table 2-II): progress and accom- tools are presented in this section: visioning plan, plishments made towards achieving general goals evaluation criteria, evaluation indicators, and citi- of the designation as measured by indicators; zen feedback (Table 2-II). progress and accomplishments made towards The visioning plan, the most comprehensive achieving the goals of specific planning initiatives evaluation tool in the project, included long-range and projects; adoption and implementation of goals and strategies for community sustainability comprehensive plans and plan amendments in (Campbell 1996). Their progress and outcomes accordance with the GMA; and successful imple- were monitored via integrated systems linking the mentation of DRI amendments. other three evaluation tools: criteria, indicators, All five agreements required the development and citizen feedback. The Martin County Planning of evaluation indicators to measure progress and Director said that the purpose of the visioning plan success in meeting the designation’s goals. The was to bring new leadership and citizen participation indicators represented an assortment of detailed 78 E. Ben-Zadok direct measures or broader definitions. Examples for 2000–2001. The Senate report later recom- were total recycled water used, number of afforda- mended additional funds to develop evaluation ble houses provided, number of homes rehabili- indicators in Florida communities (Florida Senate, tated, number of bus stops installed, number of Committee on Comprehensive Planning 2000). transit riders, expansion of bus routes in city, Citizen feedback, the final evaluation tool, was increase in jobs, net job growth rate, and unem- not required in the 1996 legislation. After state– ployment rate (for a full list of evaluation indica- local negotiation, voluntary citizen activities were tors, see the five designation agreements, incorporated into the designation agreements. The including attachments, mentioned above). The activities included review of planning and imple- five communities developed evaluation indicators, mentation via citizen committees and surveys. albeit not all applied them. In the absence of These evaluation efforts aimed to bring citizen application, Boca Raton and Ocala were marked input into the SCP process. Each agreement also for little effort. The other three communities contained a separate section on public participa- developed and applied indicators. Orlando and tion, advertising, and hearings. These evaluation Martin County demonstrated an extensive effort, inputs to localities applied to persons affected by Tampa/Hillsborough a moderate one. Hence, there plan amendments. They are not reported in this were noticeable differences among the five com- article because they are mandated in the GMA. munities in this area (Table 2-II). Citizen feedback to SCP covered a broad scope of The Orlando 1998 report included an extens- evaluation activities in communities. It registered ive analysis of citywide sustainability indicators an extensive effort in the designation agreements and their detailed measurements for previous and of Martin County, Tampa/Hillsborough, and upcoming years (City of Orlando 1998). After Orlando but no activity in Boca Raton and Ocala Martin County developed 20 principles and 50 (Table 2-II). Martin organised several public parti- respective indicators in the first 18 months of the cipation activities to create its visioning plan, designation, it started to collect data through direct including strategic visioning process, a review of measurements. Examples of indicators from Mar- scenarios, and the development of evaluation indi- tin were the number of acres for agricultural use, cators. Martin initiated a visioning team, an advi- street miles for sidewalks/bike lanes, gateways/ sory committee to work with a consulting firm on entrance signs, building permits per neighbour- the visioning process, a Hazard Mitigation Strat- hood, and gated community residents. Marin com- egy Team, which involved residents, and a citizen pleted evaluation with a 2000 report covering each survey on quality of life. Tampa/Hillsborough also principle using several indicators measured per established an advisory committee to develop SD 1999, 2001 (expected) and against the final goal concepts, initiatives, and indicators. Orlando (Martin County Board of County Commissioners approached public participation as one of six tar- 2000). The principle ‘conserve and recycle pre- get areas for SCP. The city scored high, particu- cious community resources’, for example, was larly on citizen feedback, because of continuous measured by indicators such as the ratio between monitoring and reporting of implementation recycled and landfill material. between 1997 and 2000. Orlando aimed to increase The DCA contracted with a private consulting citizen participation by tapping local leadership firm to make indicator software available to all and reaching out to stakeholders who did not parti- communities without charge. The purpose was to cipate in traditional comprehensive planning. bridge implementation gaps among communities Neighbourhood training workshops assisted in and to encourage the application of indicators. developing neighbourhood plans and sustainabil- However, after Tampa and Orlando began to work ity indicators throughout the year 2000. Orlando with the firm in 1999, funding for the INDEX soft- even conducted a visual preference study and had ware was slashed and the project was not budgeted a comprehensive website that documented all SCP International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 79 activities to 2001 (Florida Department of Commu- were active in 1997–1998, concentrating on smart nity Affairs and City of Orlando 1997, Florida urban design and construction of affordable and Department of Community Affairs and City of energy-efficient housing. Martin approved the site Tampa and Hillsborough County 1997, Florida and preliminary plan for its urban design project and Department of Community Affairs and Martin also began to plan for a $300,000 state-sponsored County 1997, Florida Department of Community resource centre including an environmentally sen- Affairs 1998, 2000). sitive water and sewer system. Orlando was active continuously from 1997 to 2000. The city con- tracted for a housing project emphasising ‘smart’ 5.1.3. Education tools urban design. It anticipated funding for the ‘Growing Smart’, the American Planning Associa- project but could not secure a site. Orlando also tion project launched in 1994, provides a good organised a demonstration project to reverse example of advancing professional education neighbourhood deterioration and stabilise multi- regarding sustainability. It aimed to assist states in family and lower-income housing. (The above modernising their planning/zoning statutes and summary is based on the five designation agree- disseminating related material to state planning ments mentioned above and the following two agencies and legislatures. Most states also initiated reports: Florida Department of Community Affairs public and community education programmes to (1998) and (2000)). increase awareness around sustainability issues. Delivery of technical assistance to communi- This is an important issue for Florida because of ties was an important aspect of the 1996 legisla- the centrality of the state’s growth issues and a tion. State agencies were supposed to assist and host of extensive and complicated GMA laws. A fund programmes in designated communities and 2001 survey of planning programmes in the to enter project agreements with developers and United States indicated that Florida State Univer- businesses (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511– sity and University of Florida are among the three 3245, 1999 [(3244) (5) (a)] [(3244)(6)]). The DCA accredited graduate planning programmes offering was initially uncertain how to move on this legis- growth management courses. The architecture lative goal, but finally began implementation in school at the University of Miami is home to sev- late 1997. The emerging module was a state– eral ‘smart growth’ and ‘new urbanism’ pioneers, local network based on the delivery of technical among them the co-authors of one of the first assistance to all Florida localities that wished to books on the subject. In general, academic plan- participate. The network was led by the five des- ning departments began to enrich programmes and ignated communities, with each receiving curricula through instruction and reading material $100,000 as general funding for technical assist- about sustainability, particularly in courses on ance (Table 2-II). planning statute reform (Duany and Plater-Zyberk Florida Sustainable Communities Network 1991, Weitz 2001). covered about 40 localities, including all 28 des- The Florida Project approached public and ignation’s applicants, RPCs, and non-profit and community education via three major tools: hous- private agencies. The network aimed to assist ing demonstration project, technical assistance, communities in planning for long-term SD bey- and information dissemination. The DCA encour- ond conventional comprehensive planning, aged ‘smart’ urban design of housing demonstra- inform communities on best SCP practices, and tion projects, including mixed land uses and create a network for information exchange public transportation. Such efforts varied from low among all communities engaged in SCP (Peter- level in Tampa/Hillsborough and Boca Raton to son 2000). The DCA contracted with the archi- moderate in Martin County and Ocala and high tecture school at Florida A&M University to level in Orlando (Table 2-III). Martin and Ocala create and maintain the network for three years, 80 E. Ben-Zadok with a total budget of one million US dollars. communities. They were the LCPA exemption, The network conducted a series of state–local evaluation indicators, citizen feedback, and hous- technical assistance forums, such as round table ing demonstration project. Four other tools discussions, state-wide and regional workshops, received high scores because each was used in all and outreach activities for sharing plans and five communities: the UDB, evaluation criteria, experiences among communities. It also funded technical assistance, and information dissemina- the INDEX indicator software, mentioned earl- tion (Table 2, ‘Combined’ column). ier, an activity free of charge to communities. Overall, implementation of process tools for General funding continued to October 2000 but SCP was successful. Note that each of the 10 was not renewed for 2000–2001 (Florida Depart- selected tools was implemented in one or more of ment of Community Affairs 1997, Florida the five designated communities; calculating 10 Department of Community Affairs 2000). tools × 5 communities gives a total of 50 cases. Of The network had an information dissemina- these 50 possible cases, only 11 registered no tion arm, a website called the Florida Sustaina- implementation, which merely reflected the flexi- ble Communities Centre, which was accessible ble style of making choices in the designation to Florida public and all local communities. The agreements. Specifically, four communities did website included four channels: news, resources, not commit to a visioning plan, two did not com- forum, and directory. It served as an interactive mit to citizen feedback, four did not take advant- electronic forum for communities to present sus- age of the DRI, and one did not use the LCPA tainability plans and to disseminate information exemption. Of the total 39 implemented cases, about new books, articles, and implementation little and moderate implementation efforts were stories. Before the website was closed in 2000, it registered in only six and three cases. But a total recorded 9000 users per month. It is noteworthy of 30 cases, including the used marks, recorded a that Orlando supplemented information dissemi- high level of implementation impact (Table 2, nation through its own website covering all SCP ‘Sustainable Community’ columns). activities between 1997 and 2001 (Table 2-III) The final finding on implementation of pro- (Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive cess tools regards the emergence of two groups Planning 2000, Peterson 2000, City of Orlando of communities, after aggregating the implemen- 2001). tation levels and efforts of all 10 tools in each community. The first group, with relatively high implementation impact, especially in the use of 5.1.4. Summary evaluation tools, included Martin County, Of the three roles representing the SCP process Tampa/Hillsborough, and Orlando. These were in the five communities, evaluation scored the larger and relatively diversified communities highest implementation effort. With four ‘signi- with more resources and technical expertise. The ficant and enforced’ tools, evaluation registered second group, with relatively moderate imple- one high, two varied, and one low effort score. mentation impact, included Boca Raton and With three tools each, education was second reg- Ocala. These were smaller and relatively homo- istering two high and one varied score; regula- geneous communities with less resources and tion came third. Regarding implementation of technical expertise (Table 2, ‘Sustainable Com- individual process tools, the visioning plan and munity’ columns). In the first group, each com- DRI exemption, each was implemented in only munity scored ‘high’, ‘extensive’, and ‘used’ for one of the five communities and thus scored a the implementation of seven or eight tools. In low implementation level. Four tools were more the second group, each community scored ‘used’ popular and had varied performance, i.e. differ- for the implementation of four tools and even ent levels of implementation across the five less for the rest. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 81 6. Discussion referred to best development practices (Ewing 1997) as a general guide for a sustainable com- 6.1. Implementation of process tools munity. After the book was published by the DCA 6.1.1. Discretion (and later by the American Planning Association), This section takes the discretionary implementa- it was recommended as a guide to Florida officials tion of process tools as the underlying theme that and developers. explains most of the results. After a decade of The Florida Senate report concluded that the GMA implementation, Florida legislature and the new state–local labour division worked well and DCA were facing much pressure from localities that implementation ran smoothly with minimal and developers to ease the coercive review of conflicts. The two government levels learned to consistency among state, regional, and local solve problems together and thus improved their plans. State and local officials began to de- relationship. Localities shifted from regulatory emphasise certain tools and promote others. The compliance to long-term outcome-oriented projects. 1996 legislation marked a policy shift towards They did not exploit their discretionary power and increased discretion in state–local relations in an acted responsibly, even without rigorous state effort to facilitate negotiations and feasible polit- oversight. The report noted that local discretion ical solutions among competing interests. This and experimentation facilitated compromises shift was reflected in many flexible state and local among competing stakeholders, provided incen- tools in the five DCA community designation tives to communities to initiate SCP processes, agreements (Pellham 1992, Deyle and Smith and helped to affirm and implement the designa- 1998, Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001). SD ideas suited tion agreements (Florida Senate, Committee on the new state–local partnership because they are Comprehensive Planning 2000). But the Florida often implemented through negotiated conflicts Project did not answer the question of whether dis- among local interest and citizen groups. The cretionary tools and guidelines improve pro- groups tend to generate multiple meanings of SD gramme performance. In fact, the senate report to facilitate flexible solutions. This lack of focus criticised the DCA for not applying specific plan in translating SD into planning practice may components to all communities. Because each explain the diversity of items and the different community developed its own terms of sustaina- levels of implementation commitments in the des- bility, performance evaluation across communities ignation agreements (Campbell 1996, Beatley and became difficult. The department later provided Manning 1998, Hempel 1999, Mazmanian and indicator software for performance evaluation to Kraft 1999, Berke and Conroy 2000). The many communities that chose to use it. But in the final optional items that proliferated in the agreements analysis, reduction in state oversight and an reflected much flexibility. Most were voluntary, increase in local discretion were not assessed in with performance evaluation subjected to the dis- relation to corresponding measures of sustainability cretion of state–local administrators and planners. in communities (Florida Senate, Committee on Indeed, only ‘enforced’ items with clear imple- Comprehensive Planning 2000). mentation commitments were ultimately selected for this study. The designation agreements show that regular 6.1.2. Regulation tools projects were still enforced according to local com- The UDB was one tool that did not facilitate local prehensive plans, subjected to DCA Rule 9J-5 for discretion because it separated urban and non- minimum criteria. In addition, the broad guidelines urban land uses. Exemption from review of LCPA in the agreements provided great discretion to local- and DRI gave communities tremendous discretion. ities to develop implementation rules with min- It also saved supervision effort to the state, which, imum state supervision. Agreements occasionally instead, counted on quality local planning. The 82 E. Ben-Zadok LCPA and DRI exemptions from state and report on limited planning activities in small regional reviews exemplified the great discre- communities with scarce funding resources (Liou tionary power granted to localities in the designa- and Dicker 1994). tion agreements. These flexible regulation tools The three larger communities demonstrated could facilitate compromises between state–local extensive effort regarding citizen feedback, includ- governments and local developers and businesses. ing local committees and similar resident activi- The DCA nonetheless noted the lack of interest in ties. But the actual intensity and impact of citizen exemption from review of new and existing DRIs; engagement over SCP decisions is still an open the DRI was not tested at all in four communities question that must be substantiated (Selman (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000). 2001). Throughout the 1990s, Florida citizens had Perhaps regulation tools were utilised less than little influence over local planning priorities. Plan- evaluation/education tools because their imple- ning processes were controlled by the DCA, local- mentation demanded significant local resources ities, developers, lobbyists, and paid consultants. and technical expertise to perform complex regu- In local plan amendment and project approval latory reviews. However, granting absolute power processes, local officials worked closely with to communities over DRI reviews was a problem- developers; citizens found the discussion and atic approach from the beginning. This is because professional jargon difficult to follow (deHaven- Florida regional planning system was dwindling in Smith 1998, Grosso 2000). Special needs of socio- the 1990s. The review power of RPCs over con- economic and racial groups were also handled sistency of local plans was diminishing because of with inadequate citizen participation (Turner and pressure from developers (Starnes 1993, deHaven- Murray 2001). Smith 1998). DRI exemptions from state and Martin County was most active in evaluation, regional reviews could only further cripple the partly in effort to encourage conflict resolution RPCs in their efforts to coordinate anti-sprawl pol- among citizen groups. It was the only community icies among adjacent communities. Although the to develop a visioning plan, whereas all other com- Florida Project aimed to demonstrate how to con- munities preferred immediate and practical plans. trol urban and suburban sprawl, it did not address The visioning plan was a broad and comprehensive the regional planning issue. It suffered from lim- evaluation tool in comparison to a host of specific ited local capacities to conduct regional reviews technical evaluation elements in other designation and showed little interest in DRI exemptions. agreements. Its goals were subjected to constant monitoring, evaluation, and citizen review. Evaluation criteria and indicators were two 6.1.3. Evaluation tools tools to assess whether goals met expected out- The Florida Project promoted evaluation as a cent- comes during implementation. These tools were ral and unique function of SCP. Evaluation was agreed upon by competing local interests because emphasised in Martin County, Tampa/Hillsbor- they both had important economic and political ough, and Orlando. These larger communities implications. Hence, subjective interpretation and were more diversified, had more resources and multiple meanings of SD were reflected in the technical expertise, and used evaluation tools to variety of indicators that were developed and build consensus among competing groups and to applied in the five communities. Whether evalua- organise support for SCP. In general, this group of tion covers private consumption habits or public larger communities performed better in implement- policies, such as economic development, discre- ing process tools in the Florida Project. Smaller tionary selection of indicators to measure SD communities with less resources and technical entails some bias because the concept is neither know-how could not perform well in a project suf- apparent nor agreeable to stakeholders. A limited fering from limited state funding. GMA studies agreement among stakeholders can be reached by International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 83 developing indicators for partial constructs based 7. Conclusions and policy implications on several principles rather than many principles Ideas of SD have gained popularity in the public of sustainability. Still, the mere employment of discourse and academic literature since the late indicators to measure progress towards goals 1980s. Drawn from a broad reform movement, already implies a serious commitment to sustaina- these ideas generated multiple meanings and polit- bility (Hempel 1999, Kraft and Mazmanian 1999, ical controversies. Liberals criticised the ‘sustaina- Lindsey 2003, Saha and Paterson 2008). ble’ component for a fixed division of duties between present and future systems and lack of inspiration to change the status quo. Environmen- 6.1.4. Education tools talists criticised ‘development’ for damaging nat- Because communities might prefer immediate and ural resources and encouraging consumption and practical incentives, they lent only moderate sup- waste. State and local legislatures transformed SD port to education tools. Rather than providing such ideas into laws and planning agencies have trans- incentives, these tools promote public acceptance lated the laws into urban and regional plans. But and life-long learning of sustainability ideas. This planning literature criticises SD as an all-encom- was the abstract rationale behind two education passing framework that generated multiple inter- tools, technical assistance and information dissemi- pretations to suit competing local interests. The nation. They were delivered from state to local, a literature suggests that impact ‘on the ground’ is centralised arrangement that required minimal local less evident and SD needs further development budgets and was especially favoured by small com- into planning practice. The question then remains munities with scarce resources. The DCA then open regarding the uniqueness and translation of sought to expand this arrangement beyond the win- SD ideas into effective legislation and implementa- ning communities. It promised to work with all tion. A partial answer may lie in the sustainable programme applicants to improve plans for sus- community concept. Focussing on the geographi- tainability and to increase their prospects to enjoy cal area and the municipal unit to apply sustainable broader legislation in the future (DeGrove 2005, strategies, this community-wide concept covers the p. 72). This resulted in Florida Sustainable Commu- distinct demographic and social characteristics of nities Network, a DCA-led state–local arrangement. the local population. It also accounts for environ- Lack of resources forced efficiency in the deliv- mental, economic, and equity concerns of the resi- ery of education tools. Although the DCA delivered dents (Ophuls 1996, Andrews 1997, Beatley and technical assistance and information dissemination Manning 1998, Hempel 1999, Berke and Conroy tools to all communities, state-level delivery did not 2000, Lindsey 2003, Jepson 2005, Portney 2005, include funding for local-level education tools, Conroy 2006, Conroy and Beatley 2007). which remained undeveloped in communities. The Local plans and demonstration projects pro- senate report concluded that the two state-level moting SD and sustainable community ideas tools served the mission of the Florida Project well. received increased public and private funding in The report recommended future programmes to the United States throughout the 1990s. Busi- continue low-cost, across-the-board equal delivery nesses and developers also began to realise the to communities. But it also pinpointed the general high costs of sprawl and expressed sympathy to lack of state funding for these activities as a major sustainability plans and projects. Anti-sprawl weakness of the project (Florida Senate, Committee strategies received much attention and the balance on Comprehensive Planning 2000). On the other of political forces appeared to tilt in favour of hand, the relative popularity of local housing dem- more compact developments. In Florida, the onstration projects supported the notion of commu- 1996–2001 Sustainable Communities Demonstra- nities as laboratories for innovative designs. tion Project signalled a small-funded pledge for 84 E. Ben-Zadok sustainability. Demonstration projects nonethe- The discretionary approach of the SCP docu- less may produce creative lessons; communities ments stood in contrast to the previous state– can learn through experiences and examples from regional–local strict plan consistency of Florida other locales (Leo et al. 1998, Burchell et al. 2000, GMA. But this approach was consistent with the Chifos 2007). literature’s criticism regarding ambiguity and pro- The Florida Project made state and local fessional disagreement around SD ideas. Of the governments more familiar with sustainability numerous optional items listed in the agreements, strategies and encouraged them to work together many were insignificant, small in size, and were on improved planning techniques. The designation not followed by numerical performance measure- agreements should have been more explicit on ments. This practice endowed state–local adminis- commitment to substantive elements and process trators and planners with much flexibility in tools, but their sustainability language and terms implementation. In the annual reports used for this were not mere symbols (Lindsey 2003). The evaluation, they often recorded implementation agreements went beyond the ‘sustainable, smart, outcomes in qualitative rather than numerical liveable community’ buzzwords that are often values. used in professional and layman vocabularies. Discretionary implementation processes may They were successful in promoting sustainability work in some responsible communities with sound goals and in giving considerable attention to pro- planning practices. In most Florida communities, cedural and process aspects. Indeed, similar however, discretion tends to facilitate negotiations DCA–local agreements were executed in Florida’s and short-term trade-offs among developers, local 2002 Local Government Comprehensive Plan- politicians, and the state. The state then should ning Certification Program or Chapter 163.3246 of force communities to incorporate explicit rules the GMA. Succeeding the 1996 project, this pro- and detailed incentives into local sustainability gramme also allowed communities with exemplary programmes. It should also monitor the implemen- planning and compact development practices to tation of these programmes. Future sustainable operate with reduced state and regional oversight community designations should be encouraged in (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009). communities that enjoy reasonable levels of The 1997 agreements constituted mandatory resources, technical know-how, and funding. plans for sustainability in the five project’s com- Ultimately, implementation of SCP in communi- munities. The agreements served as the main ties must confront Florida’s political reality and sources to evaluate the different roles and imple- willingness to advance this kind of planning. The mentation impacts of process tools for SCP. These traditional implementation constraints of the state SCP documents appeared to encourage communi- include strong interest groups and developers, ties to consider the limits of their resources and to citizens who mistrust local government, localities think about long-range planning. A tri-role series short on budgets and technical expertise, and of process tools was implemented successfully short-term agendas limited by legislative terms along this planning continuum. Especially empha- (Starnes 1993, Faludi 1999, Evers et al. 2000, sised was the role of periodic evaluation and FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and related plan revisions. It was followed by public Urban Problems 2000, pp. 64–67; Ben-Zadok and education via programmes to promote and inform Gale 2001). about community sustainability. Less emphasised These constraints also contributed to flexible was regulation, legal tools to begin the planning implementation of regional planning, another process. Additional roles and process tools should major weakness of the Florida Project. Not only be investigated in an effort to advance the concept was the DRI exemption the only regional process of SCP and distinguish it from comprehensive tool in the project, it also allowed communities to planning. conduct their own reviews with minimum state International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 85 supervision. Because coordination of anti-sprawl and individual learning of sustainability ideas policies among communities is crucial for sustain- through life-long education. The same social and able regional planning, Florida RPCs should be individual forces that were at the heart of Eben- re-empowered to maintain state standards. ezer Howard’s reforms (Hall 1983, President’s Although the UDB was an excellent example of a Council on Sustainable Development 1996, p. 12, community-wide anti-sprawl tool with metro- Selman 2001, Evans et al. 2006, Edge and McAl- regional implications, it did not apply to other lister 2009). communities in the region. In contrast, Oregon’s urban growth boundary is mandated by every city and, thus, it can cut potential utilitarian trade-offs Notes on contributor between economic development and environmen- Effraim Ben-Zadok. School of Public Administration, tal protection (Weitz and Moore 1998). College of Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA. Regional government institutions for reconcil- Email: benzadok@fau.edu. ing differences among communities are critical for effective anti-sprawl and sustainability policies. Like many programmes in the United States, the References Florida Project barely touched the problem of Adams, S., 1997. Martin county: Florida sustainable com- competition among local communities and the munities demonstration project. Tallahassee: Florida need for metro-regional coordination. Acknowl- Sustainable Communities Center (December 10). edging this problem, smart growth agendas promote Anderson, J.E., 2000. Public policymaking. Boston: regional efficiency, environmental protection, and Houghton Mifflin. Andrews, R.N., 1997. National environmental policies: fiscal responsibility in land-use decisions (Porter The United States. In: M. Jaenicke and H.J. Weidner, 1998, Burchell et al. 2000, Weitz 2001). Simi- eds. National environmental policies: a comparative larly, sustainable communities should benefit from study of capacity building. New York: Springer fair resource allocation and extend preservation Verlag, 25–43. efforts beyond their boundaries. They should work Beatley, W.C. and Manning, K., 1998. The ecology of place: planning for environment, economy and together for responsible development–environ- community. Washington, DC: Island Press. ment policies that account for the needs of all Ben-Zadok, E. and Gale, D.E., 2001. Innovation and communities in the region, state and even world- reform, intentional inaction, and tactical break- wide (World Commission on Environment and down: the implementation record of the Florida Development 1987, Mega 1996, President’s concurrency policy. Urban affairs review, 36 (6), 836–871. Council on Sustainable Development 1996, Berke, P.R., 2002. Does sustainable development offer Vitousek et al. 1997, Haughton 1999, Wheeler a new direction for planning? Challenges for the 2000, Feiock and Stream 2001). twenty-first century. Journal of planning literature, Indeed, linking local–regional–state–global 17 (1), 21–36. spaces and present–future needs are abstract and Berke, P.R. and Conroy, M.M., 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 costly ideas. Sustainable community initiatives comprehensive plans. Journal of the American often take place in higher-income communities. planning association, 66 (1), 21–33. Hence, it is important to ensure equity in deliver- Bollens, S.A., 1993. Integrating environmental and ing tools and incentives to all localities in the economic policies at the state level. In: J.M. region and state. This was a central issue in Stein, ed. Growth management: the planning challenge of the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Earth Sum- 143–161. mit (Hempel 1999, p. 57, United Nations Environ- Burchell, R.W., Listokin, D., and Galley, C.C., 2000. mental Programme 2000). Ultimately, the process Smart growth: more than a ghost of urban policy and progress of sustainable community reforms past, less than a bold new horizon. Housing policy depend on civic engagement, public acceptance, debate, 11 (4), 821–879. 86 E. Ben-Zadok Campbell, S., 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just Editorial, 2001. Growth brings pluses, minuses. The cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of Sun-sentinel, 31 December. sustainable development. Journal of the American Evans, B., et al., 2006. Governing local sustainability. planning association, 62, 296–312. Journal of environmental planning and manage- Chifos, C., 2007. The sustainable communities experi- ment, 49 (6), 849–867. ment in the United States; insights from three Evers, D., Ben-Zadok, E., and Faludi, A., 2000. The Neth- federal-level initiatives. Journal of planning educa- erlands and Florida: two growth management strate- tion and research, 26, 435–449. gies. International planning studies, 5 (1), 7–23. City of Orlando, 1998. Sustainable communities demon- Ewing, R., 1997. Best development practices: doing stration project: annual progress report. Orlando: the right thing and making money at the same City of Orlando (July). time. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Commu- City of Orlando, 2001. Sustainable communities demon- nity Affairs. stration project: annual progress report. Orlando: Faludi, A., 1999. Patterns of doctorinal development. City of Orlando (July). Journal of planning education and research, 18, Clapp, J.A., 1971. New towns and urban policy. New 334–344. York: Dunellen. FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Conroy, M.M., 2006. Moving the middle ahead: Problems, 2000. Imaging the region: South Florida challenges and opportunities of sustainability in via indicators and public opinions. Fort Lauderdale: Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Journal of planning FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and education and research, 26, 18–27. Urban Problems. Conroy, M.M. and Beatley, T., 2007. Getting it done: an Feiock, R.C. and Stream, C., 2001. Environmental exploration of US of sustainability efforts in prac- protection versus economic development: a false trade- tice. Planning, practice & research, 22 (1), 25–40. off? Public administration review, 61 (3), 313–319. DeGrove, J.M., 1992. The new frontier for land policy Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1997. Sus- planning and growth management in the states. tainable communities demonstration project: 1997 Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. report to legislature. Tallahassee: Florida Depart- DeGrove, J.M., 2005. Planning policy and politics: ment of Community Affairs (December). smart growth and the states. Cambridge: Lincoln Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1998. Sus- Institute of Land Policy. tainable communities demonstration project: 1998 DeGrove, J.M. and Turner, R., 1998. Local govern- report to legislature. Tallahassee: Florida Depart- ment: coping with massive and sustained growth. ment of Community Affairs (December). In: R.J. Huckshorn, ed. Government and politics in Flor- Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2000. Flor- ida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 169–192. ida sustainable communities demonstration project: deHaven-Smith, L., 1998. The unfinished agenda in annual report. Tallahassee: Florida Department of growth management and environmental protection. Community Affairs (December). In: R.J. Huckshorn, ed. Government and politics in Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, Boca Raton, 1997. Sustainable communities desig- 233–265. nation agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department deHaven-Smith, L., 2000. Facing up to the political of Community Affairs (November 12). realities of growth management. Florida planning, Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of 7 (5), 1, 14–17. Ocala, 1997. Sustainable communities designation deLeon, P., 1999. The missing link revisited: contempo- agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of rary implementation research. Policy studies Community Affairs (May 27). review, 16 (3/4), 311–338. Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Deyle, R. and Smith, R.A., 1998. Local government com- Orlando, 1997. Sustainable communities designa- pliance with state planning mandates: the effects of tion agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of state implementation in Florida. Journal of the Amer- Community Affairs (July 14). ican planning association, 64 (4), 457–469. Florida Department of Community Affairs and City of Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E., 1991. Towns and Tampa and Hillsborough County, 1997. Sustainable townmaking principles. New York: Rizzoli Press. communities’ designation agreement. Tallahassee: Edge, S. and McAllister, M.L., 2009. Place-based local Florida Department of Community Affairs (July 8). governance and sustainable communities: lessons Florida Department of Community Affairs and Martin from Canadian biosphere reserves. Journal of County, 1997. Sustainable communities designation environmental planning and management, 52 (3), agreement. Tallahassee: Florida Department of 279–295. Community Affairs (November 4). International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 87 Florida Senate, Committee on Comprehensive Planning, J.M. Stein, ed. Growth management: the planning 2000. Sustainable communities demonstration challenge of the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, project. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Com- 18–43. munity Affairs (November). Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 2000. Indicators for sus- Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161–3243, 1987. County tainable communities: a strategy building on com- and municipal planning and land development regu- plexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning lation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. theory & practice, 1 (2), 173–186. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3245, 1999. Growth Jepson, E.J., 2001. Sustainability and planning: diverse policy; county and municipal planning; land devel- concepts and close associations. Journal of plan- opment regulation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. ning literature, 15, 499–510. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511–3247, 2009. Growth Jepson, E.J., 2004a. The adoption of sustainable devel- policy; county and municipal planning; land devel- opment policies and techniques in US cities: how opment regulation. Tallahassee: State of Florida. wide, how deep, and what role for planners? Forsyth, A., 2002. Planning lessons from three US new Journal of planning education and research, 23, towns of the 1960s and 1970s: Irvine, Columbia, 229–241. and the Woodlands. Journal of the American Jepson, E.J., 2004b. Human nature and sustainable planning association, 68 (4), 387–415. development: a strategic challenge for planners? Gale, D.E., 1992. Eight state - sponsored growth Journal of planning literature, 19 (1), 3–15. management programs: a comparative analysis. Jepson, E.J., 2005. Sustainability: much more than busi- Journal of the American planning association, 58 ness as usual. State and local government review, (4), 425–439. 37 (2), 166–171. Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Flor- Kline, E., 1995. Sustainable community indicators: ida, 1995. Initial report. Tallahassee: Governor’s examples from Cambridge. Boston, MA: Tufts Commission for Sustainable South Florida University Consortium for Regional Sustainability. (October). Kraft, M.E. and Mazmanian, D.A., 1999. Conclusion: Grosso, R., 2000. More people, less land – how to man- toward sustainable communities. In: D.A. Mazma- age our growth. The Miami Herald, 30 January. nian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sustainable Hall, P., 1983. Ebenezer howard: has his time come at communities: transition and transformations in last? Town and country planning, 52 (2), 42–47. environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Hall, P. and Ward, C., 1998. Sociable cities: the legacy Press, 285–311. of Ebenezer Howard. New York: Wiley. Leo, C., et al., 1998. Is urban sprawl back on the polit- Haughton, G., 1999. Environmental justice and the ical agenda? Local growth control, regional growth sustainable city. Journal of planning education and management, and politics. Urban affairs review, 34 research, 18 (4), 233–243. (2), 179–212. Haywood, R., 2005. Co-ordinating urban development, Lindsey, G., 2003. Sustainability and urban greenways: stations and railway services as a component of indicators in Indianapolis. Journal of the American urban sustainability: an achievable planning goal in planning association, 69 (2), 165–180. Britain? Planning theory & practice, 6 (1), 71–97. Liou, K.T. and Dicker, T.J., 1994. The effect of the Hempel, L.C., 1998. Sustainable communities: from Growth Management Act on local comprehensive vision to action. Claremont, CA: Claremont Gradu- planning expenditures: the South Florida experi- ate University. ence. Public administration review, 54 (3), 239– Hempel, L.C., 1999. Conceptual and analytical chal- 244. lenges in building sustainable communities. In: Martin County Board of County Commissioners, 2000. D.A. Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sus- Martin county: indicators of sustainability. Stuart: tainable communities: transition and transforma- Martin County Board of County Commissioners tions in environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The (October). MIT Press, 43–74. Mazmanian, D.A. and Kraft, M.E., 1999. The three Howard, E., 1965. Garden cities of tomorrow. Cambridge, epochs of the environmental movement. In: D.A. MA: The MIT Press (first published in 1902). Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft, eds. Toward sustaina- Ingram, H., 1990. Implementation: a review and ble communities: transition and transformations in suggested framework. In: N.B. Lynn and A. Wil- environmental policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT davsky, eds. Public administration: the state of the Press, 3–41. art. Chatham: Chatham House, 462–480. Mega, V., 1996. Our city, our future: towards sustaina- Innes, J.E., 1993. Implementing state growth management ble development in European cities. Environment in the United States: strategies for coordination. In: and urbanization, 8 (1), 33–54. 88 E. Ben-Zadok Nakamura, R.T. and Smallwood, F., 1980. The politics to support complex knowledge management. Jour- of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s nal of environmental planning and management, Press. 49 (1), 21–39. Ophuls, W., 1996. Unsustainable liberty, sustainable Starnes, E.M., 1993. Substate frameworks for growth freedom. In: D. Pirages, ed. Building sustainable management: Florida and Georgia. In: J.M. Stein, societies: a blueprint for a post – industrial world. ed. Growth management: the planning challenge of Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. the 1990s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 76–95. Osborn, F.J., 1969. Green-belt cities. New York: Turner, R.S. and Murray, M., 2001. Managing growth Schocken Books. in a climate of urban diversity: South Florida’s Pellham, T.G., 1992. Adequate public facilities require- Eastward Ho! Initiative. Journal of planning educa- ments: reflections on Florida’s concurrency system tion and research, 20, 308–328. for managing growth. Florida state university law United Nations Environmental Programme, 2000. review, 19 (4), 974–1053. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations. Peterson, L., ed., 2000. Envisioning Florida’s future: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Busi- a guide for planning sustainable communities. ness Research, 2000. Florida statistical abstracts Tallahassee: Florida Sustainable Communities 2000. Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Network. Economic and Business Research. Porter, D.R., 1998. The states: growing smarter. In: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Busi- Urban Land Institute, ed. Smart growth: economy, ness Research, 2002. Florida statistical abstracts community, environment. Washington, DC: Urban 2002. Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Land Institute, 28–35. Economic and Business Research. Portney, K., 2005. Civic engagement and sustainable U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a. State and county cities in the United States. Public administration quick facts, Florida-county. Washington, DC. review, 65 (5), 579–591. Available from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996. states [Accessed 26 October 2003]. Sustainable America: a new consensus for prosperity, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b. Summary file 1, opportunity, and a healthy environment for the future. Florida-place. Washington, DC. http://factfinder. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. census.gov/servlet/ [Accessed 26 October 2003]. Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A., 1973. Implementa- Vitousek, P., et al., 1997. Human domination of earth’s tion. Berkeley: University of California Press. ecosystems. Science, 222, 494–499. Sabatier, P.A., 1999. The need for better theories. In: Weitz, J., 2001. Growing smart sm: coming to a class- P.A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the policy process. room near you? Journal of planning education and Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 3–17. research, 21, 84–91. Saha, D. and Paterson, R.J., 2008. Local government Weitz, J. and Moore, T., 1998. Development inside efforts to promote the ‘Three Es’ of sustainable urban growth boundaries: Oregon’s empirical evid- development: survey in medium to large cities in ence of contiguous urban form. Journal of the the United States. Journal of planning education American planning association, 64 (4), 424–440. and research, 28, 21–37. Wheeler, S.M., 2000. Planning for metropolitan sustain- Selman, P., 2001. Social capital, sustainability and envi- ability. Journal of planning education and research, ronmental planning. Planning theory & practice, 2 20 (2), 133–145. (1), 13–30. World Commission on Environment and Development, Soderberg, H. and Kain, J.-H., 2006. Assessment of 1987. Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford sustainable waste management alternatives: how University Press.

Journal

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 2009

Keywords: sustainable community planning; process tools; implementation; evaluation; demonstration project; Florida

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

Process tools for sustainable community planning: an evaluation of Florida demonstration project communities

References (48)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies