Enhancing Big Ideas Through Regional Planning: Cross-Jurisdictional 'Value Added' in Washington State
2014
- 648Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage648
- Downloads545
- Abstract Views103
Artifact Description
This paper argues that enhancing multi-jurisdictional planning - i.e. regionalism in various forms -- should be at the center of how we ameliorate most of our major developmental challenges. Put another way, efforts to improve the planning profession’s contribution to concerns like “climate action,” “economic development,” “social equity,” “local government capacity,” and so on, all require more attention to stronger regional planning processes. The paper is divided into three sections. In the first section, we develop the over-arching theme that experiments in regionalism longer refer to significant institutional-structural reforms - in particular, to consolidation or centralization of planning authority -- but instead to far less threatening, more politically viable, and also less ambitious efforts to build incremental, horizontal collaborations that frequently lack much formal authority because they rely heavily on voluntary reciprocity. We then turn to a lengthy discussion of five different regional planning experiences in Washington State: (1) efforts by the Yakima Council of Governments to making homelessness a “cross-cutting” regional issue; (2)Walla Walla’s efforts to strengthen regional watershed planning; (3) a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Columbia River Gorge Commission; (4) a critical reflection on the importance of tribes in regional planning and possible future dynamics in the Whatcom-La Connor-Swinomish area; and (5) a discussion of recent efforts in the Olympia-Thurston County to coordinate local climate action through enhanced regional collaborations. The final section of the paper recapitulates the main ideas and offers preliminary suggestions as we move forward.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know