What could improve or hinder the implementation of spatial planning towards environmental justice?

Figures & data

Table 1. Method for the ranking the frequency of variables.

Ranking descriptions	Aggregation of %
Most frequently used type of implementation	Sometimes and frequently
Most likely implementation type to support EJ	Likely and extremely likely
Most breaker (barrier) of spatial planning implementation towards EJ	Moderate barrier and extreme barrier
Most maker (enabler) of spatial planning implementation towards EJ	Very influential and extremely influential

Figure 1. Spatial planning implementation approaches in local municipalities (N = 71).

Table 2. The ranking on the use of implementation style.

No	Types of implementation	Sometimes and frequently (%)
1	Administrative	76
2	Inter-organisational	76
3	Intra-organisational	67
4	Political	61
5	Experimental	57
6	Collaborative	56
7	Symbolic	29

Table 3. The ranking on the likelihood of implementation style towards EJ.

No.	Types of implementation	Likely and extremely likely (%)
1	Administrative	76
2	Intra-organisational	73
3	Collaborative	72
4	Inter-organisational	72
5	Political	52
6	Experimental	49
7	Symbolic	35

Figure 2. Responses on structural barriers to implementation (n = 71).

Table 4. Ranking of structural barriers.

No.	Barrier	Moderate barrier and extreme barrier (%)
1	Lack of prioritisation of spatial planning	84
2	Uncoordinated planning	84
3	Poor organisational support	79
4	Orientation of plan (process than outcome)	76
5	Lack of leadership	76
6	Absence of spatial planning policy	76
7	Ineffective collaboration	73
8	Failure to communicate	73
9	Inconsistency in policy implementation	71
10	Organisational culture	71
11	Inter-organisational disputes and conflicts	67

Table 5. Ranking of structural enablers.

No.	Enabler	Very influential and extremely influential (%)
1	Adoption of spatial planning implementation strategy	84
2	Appropriate and improved management leadership	83
3	Responsive organisational structure	80
4	Improved inter-organisational coordination and cooperation	79
5	Change in organisational culture	79
6	Improved collaboration	79

Table 6. Responses on political barriers (n = 71).

Political Barrier	Not a barrier	Somewhat a barrier	Moderate barrier	Extreme barrier	No Response	Total
Pressure	3%	11%	27%	59%	0%	100%
Interference	4%	8%	27%	59%	1%	100%
Lack of leadership	8%	10%	35%	44%	3%	100%
Poor support	4%	11%	27%	52%	6%	100%

Table 7. Ranking of political barriers.

No.	Barrier	Moderate barrier and extreme barrier (%)
1	Pressure	86
2	Interference	86
3	Poor support	79
4	Lack of leadership	79

Figure 3. Responses on the administrative barriers (n = 71).

Table 8. Ranking of administrative barriers.

No.	Barrier	Moderate barrier and extreme barrier (%)
1	Inadequate tools of trade	85
2	Delays in implementation	76
3	Red tape	76
4	Lack of capacity building	74
5	Absence of plan monitoring and evaluation	72
6	Separation of plan formulation and plan implementation.	71
7	Planning practice, attitude, and culture	69
8	Unclear policy documents	66
9	Absence of spatial planning policies	64

Figure 4. Responses on administrative enablers (n = 71).

Table 9. Ranking of administrative enablers.

No.	Barrier	Very influential and extremely influential (%)
1	Competent and skilful personnel	90
2	Adequate financial resources	88
3	Adoption of simple to read spatial planning policies	83
4	Continuous capacity building	83
5	Plan monitoring and evaluation	83
6	Simultaneous plan formulation and implementation	80
7	Adoption of spatial planning implementation strategy	80
8	Change in planning practice, attitude, and culture	80

Figure 5. Responses on the contextual barriers (n = 71).