IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v61y2018i13p2257-2279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do mandates matter for plan quality? Jurisdictional aggregation for a watershed level comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle Spurlock

Abstract

Despite the prominent ecological and economic roles played by local water bodies, jurisdictions routinely fail to take action to protect water resources. To combat this failure to act, mandates can intervene in the land-development process by requiring the creation of a plan. This study compares two watersheds – one watershed planning under Maryland's mandate and one watershed planning without a mandate in North Carolina. Using established plan quality content analysis methods, (1) the quality of plans and (2) the impact of a mandate on the quality of plans are explored with respect to water resource protection. Low overall plan quality scores reveal that policies and practices aimed at protecting water resources are not consistently incorporated into plans at the jurisdictional or watershed level. The findings also suggest, but cannot conclude, that a planning mandate without specific guidance on water resource protection may be an insufficient condition for higher quality plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielle Spurlock, 2018. "Do mandates matter for plan quality? Jurisdictional aggregation for a watershed level comparison," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(13), pages 2257-2279, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:61:y:2018:i:13:p:2257-2279
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1391070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2017.1391070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2017.1391070?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:61:y:2018:i:13:p:2257-2279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.