IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjpaxx/v87y2021i2p181-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are We Planning for Equity?

Author

Listed:
  • Carolyn G. Loh
  • Rose Kim

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings Social equity goals are supposed to be prioritized in planning along with economic and environmental goals, yet in practice they are often de-emphasized. We developed a publicly available plan equity evaluation tool to investigate to what extent and in what ways local governments incorporate goals and recommendations that would advance equitable outcomes in their comprehensive plans. Using plan content analysis, we find that most plans do not talk about equity, nor do they include many goals and recommendations that would advance equity. More recent plans, plans in communities with more planning capacity, plans in coastal communities, and plans with strong public participation processes have stronger equity orientations. Limitations of our study include that we had a small sample size of 48 plans in a single state, our coding was partly conducted by volunteers, and our study is limited to plan content and so did not investigate existing conditions or equitable outcomes.Takeaway for practice Plans should make equity a guiding principle. Planning processes need to be multifaceted. Plans should identify vulnerable people and geographic areas and ensure equitable protection from hazards and equitable distribution of amenities. Future land use changes should be more transparent.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolyn G. Loh & Rose Kim, 2021. "Are We Planning for Equity?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 87(2), pages 181-196, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:87:y:2021:i:2:p:181-196
    DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1829498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2020.1829498
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01944363.2020.1829498?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:rjpaxx:v:87:y:2021:i:2:p:181-196. 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/rjpa20 .

    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.