When Do Plans Matter?

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Plans often sit on the shelf and fail to promote action. This raises the question of how and when plans matter. This is especially important in sustainability planning where local governments are more likely to take actions with short-term benefits that are easy to adopt. How can planners promote more sustainability actions, especially those with longer term benefits? In this study we examine factors influencing local sustainability actions by tracking 651 U.S. local governments’ adoption of 34 sustainability actions from 2010 to 2015. We differentiate places that recently adopted a sustainability plan from those that have had a plan for a longer period and those that have never adopted a sustainability plan. We use difference-in-difference (DID) modeling to assess what effect plans have on the level of sustainability actions. We find a plan may have its greatest effect in motivating actions when it is newly created. Places that adopted a plan between 2010 and 2015 exhibited a significant increase in sustainability actions during those same years. By contrast, places that already had a plan in 2010 showed higher initial levels of sustainability actions but did not show a higher level of growth in the number of actions adopted compared with places without plans. In general, we find local governments with higher levels of sustainability actions articulate social equity goals, devote staff and budget resources to the effort, engage the public, and promote interdepartmental coordination. Local governments under Republican control enact fewer sustainability actions.

Takeaway for practice: Sustainability plans are most effective in spurring local sustainability actions when they are newly created. However, this initiation impact in motivating actions wanes over time. Promoting continued adoption of sustainability actions requires a comprehensive approach with attention to political support, public participation, social equity, interdepartmental coordination, and local capacity.

Keywords:

• difference-in-difference modeling
• local government
• public participation
• sustainability
• sustainability plan

Research support

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, grant no. 2014-68006-21834.

Notes

Notes

1 The true effect of a sustainability plan on sustainability actions δ can be expressed as $\mathrm{\delta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}=(\overline{{\mathrm{Actions}}_{2015,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{w}/\mathrm{plan}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}–\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\overline{{\mathrm{Actions}}_{2010,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{w}/\mathrm{plan}}})\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}–(\overline{{\mathrm{Actions}}_{2015,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{w}/\text{o plan}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}–\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\overline{{\mathrm{Actions}}_{2010,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{w}/\text{o plan}}}),$

where δ is the difference in the change of sustainability actions between places with and without a plan (see Figure 3).

2 In the empirical model, the effects of the plans over time δ₁ and δ₂ can be obtained by estimating the following function: $$\mathrm{Actions}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\beta }_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}2010\mathrm{PLAN}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\beta }}_{2}2015\mathrm{PLAN}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\delta }}_1\mathit{T}\mathrm{*}2010\mathrm{PLAN}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\delta }}_2\mathit{T}\mathrm{*}2015\mathrm{PLAN}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}{\mathrm{\delta }}_0\mathit{T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{\mu }.$$ When running the DID model, we combine the 2010 and 2015 data and control for the time fixed effect by including a time dummy T, where 0 indicates the year 2010 and 1 indicates the year 2015. There are three groups for comparison: places without plans, places that had a plan in 2010 (measured by variable 2010PLAN), and places that adopted a plan between 2010 and 2015 (measured by variable 2015PLAN). The DID model presents two types of group differences: 1) The starting point differences are shown by β₀, β₁, and β₂. They show the average sustainability actions conducted by places without plans (β₀), places that had a plan in 2010 (β₁), and places that adopted a plan between 2010 and 2015 (β₂) in 2010. 2) The parameters of interest are the differences over time, shown by the coefficients of the interaction term, δ₁ and δ₂. δ₁ shows whether the change in number of actions from 2010 to 2015 of places that had a plan in 2010 is significantly different from that of places without plans, and δ₂ shows whether the change in number of actions over time of places that adopted a plan between 2010 and 2015 is significantly different from that of places without plans.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, grant no. 2014-68006-21834.

Notes on contributors

Lu Liao

LU LIAO ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University.

Mildred E. Warner

MILDRED E. WARNER ([email protected]) is a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University.

George C. Homsy

GEORGE C. HOMSY ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Binghamton University.