planning.org/policy
Table of Contents
03 Introduction
06 Equity in All Policies
07 Cross-Cutting Equity Issues
11 Equity in All Policies in Practice
23 For Further Reading
24 Resources
The American Planning Association advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and prosperous communi-
ties that expand opportunity for all through good planning.
APA’s advocacy is based on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. These guides address the critical
policy issues confronting planners and communities by
identifying solutions for local, state, and federal policy makers.
Policy guides are led by the APA Legislative and Policy Com-
mittee, ratied by the APA Board of Directors, and developed
through the careful and extensive involvement of planners
across the country. APA policy guides articulate and advance
the principles of good planning in law and regulation.
Policy Guide Authors
Lynn Ross, aicp, Co-chair
Susan Wood,
aicp, Co-chair
David Burgy,
aicp
Carlton Eley
Monica Guerra
Tierra Howard,
aicp
Edna Ledesma
Anindita Mitra,
aicp
Manuel Ochoa,
aicp
Adam Perkins,
aicp
Candace Stowell,
aicp
Miguel Vazquez,
aicp
Technical Reviewers
Nicole Bennett, aicp
Kara Drane,
aicp
Vivian Kahn,
faicp
Kim Mickelson, aicp
Task Force
Fiona Akins, aicp
Aldea Coleman
Fleming El-Amin,
aicp
George Homewood,
faicp
Derek Hull
Carrie Makarewicz
Sherwin Racehorse
Zunilda Rodriguez,
aicp
Clarence Sirmons,
aicp
Neal Stone,
aicp
Larry Vasquez
Shellie Zias-Roe,
aicp cep
Legislative and Policy Committee
George Homewood, faicp, Chair
Whit Blanton,
faicp
Brian Campbell, faicp
Aldea Coleman
Kara Drane,
aicp
Jessica Garrow, aicp
Daniel Haake, aicp
Charles Liuzzo
Sarah Marchant,
aicp
Wendy E. Moeller, faicp
Ramona Mullahey
Pete Parkinson,
aicp
Jennifer Raitt
Dan Reuter,
faicp
Edward Sullivan
Susan Wood,
aicp
APA Board of Directors
Kurt E. Christiansen, faicp,
APA President
Cynthia Bowen,
faicp,
APA Immediate Past President
Wendy E. Moeller,
faicp,
Secretary, Director Region IV
Courtenay D. Mercer,
aicp,
Treasurer, Director Region I
Deborah Alaimo Lawlor,
faicp, pp,
AICP President
Rodger Lentz,
aicp, Director Region II
Wendy D. Shabay,
aicp, Director Region III
Leo Asuncion, Jr.,
aicp, Director Region V
Kristen Asp,
aicp, Director Region VI
Kara W. Drane,
aicp, Director at Large
Lauren Driscoll,
aicp, Director at Large
Marjorie Press, Director at Large, Focused
Fleming El-Amin,
aicp,
Director at Large, Focused
Ben Hitchings,
faicp,
Director, Chapter Presidents Council Chair
David Fields,
aicp,
Director, Divisions Council Chair
Rachael Thompson Panik,
Director, Student Representatives
Council Chair
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
Cover: Planning for Equity means applying an
equity lens—for just and fair inclusion into a
society in which all can participate, prosper,
and reach their full potential—to everything
planners do. From the way planners work
with community members creating a shared
vision for their neighborhoods to advocating
for policies that connect people to oppor-
tunities at the local, state, and federal levels,
planning for equity is planning for all. (Credits,
clockwise from top left: Pitt County Planning
Department; iStock/gettyimages.com; OLIN/
Sahar Coston-Hardy; James Willamor, Flickr
(CC BY-SA 2.0); Steven J. Van Steenhuyse;
William Wright Photography)
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 3
Introduction
The Planning for Equity Policy Guide rearms the commitment of the
American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest Groups,
and Student Organizations to promote equity and explicitly remove
barriers in policies and regulations that perpetuate inequity in the
United States.
Equity is dened as “just and fair inclusion into a society in which all
can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Unlocking the
promise of the nation by unleashing the promise in us all.” The inclusive,
holistic nature of this denition provides the foundation for considering
and applying equity in all facets of planning, all levels of planning, all
means of planning, and in all planning policies. Planning for equity is
intended to challenge those planning practices that result in policies,
programs, and regulations that disproportionately impact and stymie
the progress of certain segments of the population more than others.
Done with intention, equity is a thread that is woven through the fabric
of all plans, regulations, developments, and policy options.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support measures and policies to
both address the inequities that exist today in urban, suburban, and
rural settings and to prevent the creation of new inequities. Disparities
or inequities in health, income, opportunity, mobility, and choice are
apparent in every community irrespective of their size or location. As a
result, entire groups of people, due to their income, race, age, gender,
sexual orientation, immigration status, religion, and/or disability experi-
ence limited access to opportunity and advancement. Inequity, which is
measurable, is marked by two key attributes that often work together:
■ Disproportionality. When the outcomes of a project or plan create
or amplify disparities in only part of a community, the disproportion-
ate impacts can lead to further social and economic impairment of
some groups while others receive the full benet of the eort.
■ Institutionalized. Inequity is often embedded in methodologies
that justify systemic policies, ignore negative outcomes and
disproportionate impacts, and do not extend adequate support to
the aected areas and their residents.
Planning for equity provides the rationale, structure, and
accountability for an opposite yet measurable approach to plan-
ning designed to combat inequity. Planning for equity does not
stie growth or serve as an impediment to development. Instead,
planning for equity works to (1) create and extend opportunities to
each member of the community; (2) recognize and help to build
the capacity of each member of the community; (3) acknowledge
and take action when the attributes of inequity are present; and (4)
adopt new approaches to planning that fully embrace equity.
Historical Context
It is important for planners to recognize the past and present role the
planning profession has played in creating and perpetuating discrimi-
natory practices against communities of color, the LGBTQ communities,
women, and persons with disabilities. For example, zoning, which is
intended to separate incompatible land uses, has also been used to
exclude certain population groups from single-family neighborhoods
and to exclude multifamily rental housing from neighborhoods with
better access to jobs, transit, and amenities.
The most egregious examples are the racial zoning ordinances that
were introduced in the early part of the 20th century and became
widely used by city planners, with the rst documented racial zon-
ing ordinance in Baltimore in 1910. Although the U.S. Supreme Court
outlawed racial zoning ordinances with its 1917 decision in Buchanan
v. Warley, many cities continued to adopt racial zoning ordinances
(e.g., Atlanta, Indianapolis, Richmond, Birmingham, West Palm Beach,
Portland). Similar practices in the form of covenants (privately enforced
restrictions associated with individual developments) followed. These
practices were further exacerbated through exclusionary low-interest
home mortgage programs oered through the Federal Housing Admin-
istration that prevailed in the mid-20th century. Though such openly
discriminatory practices are illegal today, limitations on multifamily
dwellings, aordable homes, group homes for persons with disabilities,
and similar housing opportunities for underserved people, including
the formerly incarcerated, continue to perpetuate exclusionary prac-
tices. Equally damaging, the legacy of these policies still contributes
to a “slippery slope” that makes it dicult to secure a foothold in the
economic mainstream.
APA and its members have a long history of eorts to promote
equity (see Resource 1 for a table outlining planning for equity key
milestones) including the establishment of APA’s Agenda for America’s
Communities program, which followed the 1992 Los Angeles riots. One
outcome was the 1994 publication Planning and Community Equity. In
this publication, APA dened community equity as “the expansion of
opportunities for betterment that are available to those communities
most in need of them, creating more choices for those who have few.”
In 2000, APA created its rst member-led task force to explore diversity
in the eld and in 2004, members organized the rst Diversity Summit
at the National Planning Conference. APA’s Chapters and Divisions have
also made great strides in this area by developing equity, diversity, and
inclusion focused programs and, in the case of a growing number of
Chapters and Sections, establishing diversity committees to provide
ongoing focus and leadership. More recently, in 2016, APA partnered
with Enterprise Community Partners, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy,
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 4
and National League of Cities to support the creation of the U.S.
Housing and Urban Development Prosperity Playbook initiative. This
endeavor helped identify best practices that support economic mobil-
ity, including expanding aordable housing and providing access to
opportunity, education, and jobs.
In the last two years, APA has reached a number of signicant mile-
stones, including establishing the Diversity Committee (2017), adopting
a Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (2018), introducing the Planning for
Inclusiveness and Social Justice educational track at the annual National
Planning Conference (2018), and establishing a Social Equity Task Force
(2018) to assist APA in identifying the set of resources and tools members
need access to for their own capacity building.
APA’s Legislative and Policy Committee (LPC) convened member
discussions at the 2015 Policy and Advocacy Conference and at the
2016 National Planning Conference on topics for future policy guides.
Ideas were solicited from the Chapter Presidents Council Advocacy
Committee, Divisions Council Policy Committee, and the APA Amicus
Committee. The Diversity Task Force (now the Diversity Committee)
recommended work on an equity policy guide and APA’s Legislative
Priorities for 2016 were centered around “a platform for stronger,
healthier and more just communities through planning.” In the summer
of 2016, the APA Board of Directors and the AICP Commission identied
social equity as one of two high-priority topics demanding new APA
policy guidance, oering the greatest opportunity for supporting local
planning, advancing planning research and practice, and leading policy
change. In late 2017, and in recognition of the need to represent the
full breadth of membership, a broader team of nearly 30 APA members
formed to move the guide forward with a transparent process that
engaged hundreds of APA members and allied professionals along the way.
Several existing APA Policy Guides have focused on a variety of issues
that complement planning for equity. These include the following: Aging
in Community (2014), Factory Built Housing (2001), Food Planning
(2007), Smart Growth (2012), Hazard Mitigation (2014), Homelessness
(2003), Housing (2006), Public Redevelopment (2004), Surface
Transportation (2010), and Healthy Communities (2017). Some of these
guides address equity explicitly; however, the topic of planning for equity
is one that is multifaceted and of growing concern throughout the eld of
planning. Going forward, all APA Policy Guides should build on the equity
in all policies framing used in this Planning for Equity Policy Guide.
The Role and Responsibility of Planners
Planning is a professional discipline and it has been informed by years
of institutional knowledge. Some of this knowledge represents the basis
for the professional ethics of planners. Professional planners subscribe
to ethics for multiple purposes. Ethics inform the responsibilities of
practitioners to the public. They represent standards that protect the
integrity of the profession and play a part in maintaining public condence.
Ethics is not a trivial matter for planners. Instead, it is a core value
that cannot be ignored. Applying principles of equity is an ethical
responsibility. The goal of social justice is not met when underserved
populations shoulder the weight of untenable living conditions,
and subsequently experience no material benefit after community
improvements are implemented. Instead, social justice requires the
examination of both the positive and negative impacts of commu-
nity improvements on all community members so that all members
benefit and no one group or neighborhood is unfairly disadvan-
taged. This results in “paying it forward,” by improving conditions for
future residents.
It is not uncommon for professional planners to suggest the language
within the code of ethics is aspirational. This is at least in part because
unlike other allied professions, certication is not required to practice
as a planner. However, it is important for planners to remember that
the provisions within the code were not prepared to function as a
prescriptive guide. Instead, the code is a serious charge to planning
professionals. Fullling it will require planners to be bold in their
pursuits, to be curious about who is doing good work, and to be
mindful that well-intentioned actions can have negative impacts.
Planners need to examine and become aware of their own blind spots
and implicit biases, and their relationship and intersectionality with
power and privilege in the societal and organizational structures.
The APA Statement of Ethical Principles in Planning (1992) provides
many ethical standards for professional planners, resident planners,
as well as elected and appointed ocials. The planning process exists
to “serve the public interest” and in order to serve the public interest,
planning participants must “strive to expand choice and opportunity for
all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of
disadvantaged groups and persons.”
For professional certied planners, the AICP Code of Ethics (2016)
calls out several key principles with Part A presenting “Principles to
Which We Aspire.” Most relevant to this Policy Guide is found in Part A,
Principle 1(f):
We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and
opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to
plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and
economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies,
institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs.
The progress towards the above aspirations can be realized since equity
is measurable and, in many cases, visible. While equity is not necessarily
instinctive for all planners, when prioritized as a goal, planning for
equity results in tangible outcomes that can be dened, measured,
and celebrated.
Ethics is important when framing and implementing public policy,
including policy for the built environment. Governments, through
policy, created systemic inequity. The American GI Bill is largely seen as
responsible for the rise of the American middle class after World War II;
however, the benets of the policy were not accessible to all Americans
who served in the armed forces. The inequitable administration of this
policy, just like redlining of neighborhoods, left many families of color
without the same prospects for wealth development.
In a like manner, historic trends reveal communities that were
weakened by redlining were often subject to other injurious policies,
including freeway construction, urban renewal, and benign neglect. Of
course, troubling trends occur and/or are scaled-up when responsible
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 5
parties are less motivated to make corrections. Equally troubling has
been the drafting of new planning policies and public policies in
recent years that are conspicuously silent about equity by failing to
include direct references or provisions. Although these policies are
intended to spark or continue reinvestment, the failure to acknowl-
edge equity in planning policy actually institutionalizes inequity. It
is the responsibility of planning schools and the planning profession
to educate planners so that they are knowledgeable about past
inequities and the role planning has played in their creation. Without
this understanding, it is unlikely that we will be able to positively aect
troubling trends.
If policy, in part, created the trend of “toxic inequality” that presently
burdens communities, regions, and the nation, policy will need to
be one of the tools to rectify it. To serve the public interest, planners
must ensure proposed policies will serve and benet all residents of
a community. The basis of the planning profession is to create better
communities, which means clean air, clean water, decent housing, open
space and recreation, safe neighborhoods, transportation options, and
good schools in every neighborhood.
The planning profession must be deliberate and send clearer signals
that social equity is central to encouraging a comprehensive solution. If
planners’ toolboxes can be used to exclude, limit, and segregate, then
the same tools and regulatory frameworks can be used to implement
policies that result in fair, equitable communities. The Planning for
Equity Policy Guide has been prepared in consideration of the role
planning has played in creating inequities, while also underscoring the
power that planners have to level the playing eld.
Diversity and Inclusion in the
Planning Profession
In addition to the ethical responsibilities of planners, planning for equity
also requires the profession to better understand the implications of
diversity and inclusion on the planning eld. If the eld is not diverse
and inclusive, planners will be limited both as individuals and as mem-
bers of the larger profession in advancing equity.
To address diversity and inclusion, planners need to be nely attuned
to the demographic changes occurring in the United States with regard
to age, gender, race, nationality, and many other characteristics. Across
the United States, non-white races and ethnic groups are fast becoming
the majority, diverse cultural and religious backgrounds are becoming
ubiquitous, and gender roles and norms are being redened. In 2018,
for the rst time in U.S. history, there is no majority race among children
under the age of 18. By 2042, there will be no racial majority in the
United States. However, the demographics within the planning profes-
sion have not kept pace with demographic changes happening in the
communities we serve. While in recent years diversity has increased
among APA membership, there is still signicant work to be done to
ensure a more representative planning profession.
Looking closely at diversity within the planning eld, APA membership
surveys show a shift in the demographics of the profession (see Resource
2). In 2016, less than 30 percent of APA planners with 20 or more years of
experience were women, and seven percent were minorities. However,
planners who have entered the eld within the last ve years are more
diverse at 45 percent women and 15 percent minorities.
When looking at the academic pipeline into the profession, there
is a critical gap between the diversity of students in planning schools
and their participation in APA. Based on student data from the Planning
Accreditation Board, about 30 percent of planning students are racial
minorities whereas only 15 percent of planners with less than ve years
of experience are racial or ethnic minorities.
APA membership surveys also reveal that the diversity of the
profession varies across the United States, with more diversity among
planners in those regions with larger minority populations. It is critical that
planning continues to foster diversity and inclusion within the
profession for APA members and nonmembers alike in order to ensure
a more inclusive representation of voices in the planning discourse.
This implies avoiding tokenism and intentionally managing and support-
ing diversity and inclusion in order to create space for diverse voices and
encourage retention. APA’s vision is to advance planning through leader-
ship in education, research, advocacy, and ethical practice (see Appendix
3 for additional recommendations to APA on achieving this vision). That
vision cannot be achieved without ensuring that current planners, as well
as the next generation of practitioners, understand and embrace the fun-
damental importance of diversity and inclusion in the makeup of the eld.
APA has four active population-related Divisions (Latinos and
Planning, LGBTQ and Planning, Planning and the Black Community, and
Women and Planning); a Planning with Underserved Populations Inter-
est Group and a Tribal Planning Interest Group; and a growing number
of diversity committees and initiatives at the Chapter level, such as the
APA NY Metro’s annual Hindsight Conference, and the National level,
such as the annual Diversity Forum and the APA Ambassador Program.
Additionally, APA recently adopted its rst Diversity and Inclusion Strat-
egy and a statement on what diversity means for the organization:
“Diversity is an inclusive concept which encompasses, but
is not limited to, race, ethnicity, class, gender, age, sexual-
ity, ability, educational attainment, spiritual beliefs, creed,
culture, tribal aliation, nationality, immigration status,
political beliefs, and veteran status. With greater diversity,
we can be more creative, eective, and just, and bring more
varied perspectives, experiences, backgrounds, talents, and
interests to the practice of planning and to the communities
we serve. We recognize that achieving diversity and inclu-
sion is an evolutionary process that requires an ongoing
renewal of our commitment.”
These are notable accomplishments that demonstrate progress in a
maturing profession. Still, more work needs to occur. It is paramount for
planning professionals to exercise a strategy to genuinely “make great
communities for all” through addressing the planning pillars of diversity,
inclusion, and equity within and outside APA’s connes. The policy out-
comes recommended in this document as well as the recommended
actions in APA’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy and the Planning for
Equity Framework are designed to serve as guidance to planners and
planning organizations.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 6
Equity In All Policies
To serve the public interest, all planners must ensure that proposed
policies and regulations will serve and benet all residents of a
community in ways that reduce or eliminate inequity. This policy guide
purports that the most eective approach to achieve this is by adopting
an “equity in all policies” approach, but what does that mean? Many
planners and allied professionals are familiar with “health in all policies,”
which is a strategy for addressing the complex factors that inuence
health and equity. Similarly, equity in all policies recognizes that there
are several complex factors that inuence the practice of planning. To
make advancements in equity, planners need a holistic approach and
specic guidance. An equity in all policies approach can also be thought
of as using an “equity lens” to view, frame, and consider the policies and
practices of planning.
An equity in all policies approach challenges those planning
practices and actions that disproportionately impact and stymie the
progress of certain segments of the population. These impacts can
manifest in many forms, including negative health outcomes, con-
centrated poverty, and displacement. In planning for equity, local
stakeholders, through their meaningful participation in decision-making
processes, engage in the creation and betterment of their environment.
The foundation of the planning profession is to create better commu-
nities, which means clean air, clean water, decent housing, open space
and recreation, safe neighborhoods, transportation options, access to
employment opportunities, and good schools in every neighborhood.
Weaving in equity in all policies is astute and necessary. As stated in
Planning and Community Equity, “Our professional responsibility to help
create good communities requires attention to community equity in
the distribution of resources, especially in an era of resource scarcity.
We cannot, for long, have healthy prosperous communities that are
insulated from impoverished ones.”
Understanding why equity is important and incorporating principles
and practices of equity in all facets of planning is essential for equitable
planning. Data-driven accountability—including developing indicators
and performance measures—is critical to discover the true picture
of equity in a community and how to develop the broad range of
strategies required to address those most impacted as part of an overall
community strategy to improve lives.
This policy guide outlines a number of recommended policy actions
across a range of areas of planning practice. First, underscoring the
importance of equity in all planning practices are several issues that cut
across topical areas in this policy guide, including gentrication, envi-
ronmental justice, and community engagement and empowerment.
The policy guide also explores topics such as climate change, educa-
tion, energy and resource consumption, health equity, housing, mobility
and transportation, public space, and heritage preservation. While many
of these topics have been addressed in existing policy guides, this pol-
icy guide examines these topics specically through an equity lens and
focuses on achieving equitable outcomes.
Finally, it is also important to note that this guide does not address
every aspect of planning practice. In those cases, planners and other
allied professionals using this guide should draw inspiration from the
AICP Code of Ethics, related specic recommendations in this guide,
and the equity in all policies approach to determine an equitable course
of action. The policy guide is a living document that will benet from
regular review and updates as APA members and allied professionals
expand their equity knowledge base through research and practice.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 7
Cross-Cutting Equity Issues
Gentrication
The term gentrication was rst coined in 1964 by sociologist Ruth
Glass. In published research, Glass observed that “once this process
of ‘gentrication’ starts in a district, it goes on rapidly until all or most
of the original working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole
social character of the district is changed.” Building on the work of
Glass, the Regional Plan Association denes gentrication as “the form
of neighborhood change characterized by the arrival of higher-income
and often-time higher-educated residents, along with increasing rents,
property values and cost-of-living, and decreasing non-white popula-
tions.” The National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders
(NALCAB) denes gentrication as “a type of neighborhood change in
which real estate price appreciation leads to involuntary displacement
and signicant cultural change.” This mostly occurs because the nega-
tive impacts of development such as loss of community and culture are
not priced in their entirety. As noted in Next City’s 2018 gentrication
timeline, the term “gentrication” has increasingly been associated with
impacts and externalities that are injurious or have clear social impacts.
Gentrication is sometimes conated with development or revitaliza-
tion; however, these terms are not interchangeable. Gentrication is a
process whereas development and revitalization are actions. NALCAB says
that revitalization, for example, involves investment in neighborhoods
that have gone through periods of disinvestment or stagnation, often
leading to negative socioeconomic and real estate market trends. Revi-
talization is needed, and may even be welcomed, in order to improve the
quality of life for the people who live, work, and worship in these low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods that face major challenges.
It is necessary to acknowledge that revitalization executed in the
absence of an equity in all policies approach, or an equity lens, can
result in the negative impacts of gentrication and is a contributing
factor to the rising inequality in the nation’s metropolitan areas. In con-
nection with rising inequality, researchers have noted lagging incomes,
the shift in poverty to suburbia, lack of jobs for low-skill workers, and
failures in public transportation. The rapid pace of redevelopment
within many cities across the United States that has occurred over the
past 25 years has coincided with this swift rise in inequality.
An objective critique of gentrication reveals that the process can
result in positive eects such as boosts to the economy and improved
environmental conditions. However, a constructive and important way
to frame this observation would be to state: “It is a basic principle of
fairness that the burden of activities that are necessary for society—
like protecting the environment— should not be borne by a small
minority who happen to be victimized by their side eects.” The study
of economics and planning includes externalities. Other disciplines may
refer to externalities as side eects or unintended impacts. However,
externalities represent a form of market failure and their impact is borne
by those who are aected. Involuntary displacement is an impact
commonly associated with the process of gentrication, but there are
additional issues and concerns. These include, but are not limited to,
preservation, public involvement, housing aordability, business lon-
gevity, placemaking, and criminalizing innocuous activity.
To advance equity, all planners have an unambiguous duty to be
bold, deliberate, and intentional in their eorts to work with community
members who could be disproportionately or negatively impacted by
interventions made to the built environment. In planning practice, it is
essential to address all aspects of proposed plans and developments,
including potential gentrication, to maintain integrity and public
condence. The planning profession must not rest on its laurels and it
is essential for planners to engage with community members to avoid
creating or exacerbating the inequities associated with gentrication.
In the end, addressing gentrication is not about stopping growth.
Instead, it is about correcting blind spots that perpetuate inequity.
Addressing gentrication and inequity requires analyzing the root
causes of gentrication with an equity lens to ensure that growth
benets the most vulnerable, marginalized, and low-income commu-
nities. This requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges that
existing systems and policies make communities vulnerable and will
produce unjust outcomes for these marginalized communities without
thoughtful planning intervention.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy measures:
Gentrication Policy 1: Take a
Comprehensive Approach to Mitigation
Consider all potential outcomes of gentrication including housing
aordability and displacement, which are not the exclusive impacts
of gentrication. These quality-of-life concerns need to be considered
within a broader context that includes, but is not limited to, capacity
building of impacted populations, preserving cultural assets, being
responsive to the needs of underserved and underresourced markets,
expanding minority business ownership, managing externalities
that could overwhelm vulnerable populations, and understanding
the realities/subtleties that shape how public policy is developed
and implemented.
Gentrication Policy 2: Conduct Social Impact Assessment
Exercise transparency by advising community members of potential
impacts of proposed developments to their communities so that they
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 8
will have an opportunity to participate in designing their future. Use
social impact assessments in evaluating development plans and pro-
posals to identify potential blind spots early in the process, create the
space for dialogue, and make better decisions.
Gentrication Policy 3: Encourage Equitable Development
Do not subscribe to one-size-ts-all planning solutions. The progressive
path forward in addressing gentrication requires embracing new
concepts for encouraging sustainable communities, like equitable
development. Planners should commit to exploring a range of solutions
that will facilitate managing dierential burdens that may beset popula-
tions and institutions that are less resilient to shifts in the market.
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is dened by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.” The movement toward environmental justice
was started primarily by people of color and grew from a recognition
that the poor and people of color are those who most often live in or
near America’s most polluted environments.
For many years, experts have strived to advance environmental
justice—with varying degrees of success—by leveraging the law, public
health, public involvement, and waste management. Environmental
justice, as acknowledged by President Bill Clinton in 1994 via Executive
Order 12898, is a key component in achieving equitable treatment of all
populations when considering construction of new infrastructure. This
means environmental justice is about planning as well.
The practice of planning is not based on a static model. The pro-
fession regularly adapts to new trends, opportunities, and challenges.
Current trends in academia, as well as among practitioners, suggest
planners will have to become procient in addressing social equity
issues that were once seen as beyond their purview, including environ-
mental justice.
A recent advancement toward the inclusion of environmental justice
in the practice of planning is the SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit: Planning
for Healthy Communities, which was published in 2017 by PlaceWorks
and the California Environmental Justice Alliance. The Toolkit qualies
how past actions made without consideration of environmental justice
can contribute to present, untenable conditions within communities.
It explains the link between existing conditions and prior planning
practice in this statement: “Low-income residents, communities of
color, tribal nations, and immigrant communities have disproportion-
ately experienced some of the greatest environmental burdens and
related health problems. This inequity is the result of many factors:
inappropriate zoning and negligent land use planning; failure to enforce
proper zoning or conduct regular inspections; deed restrictions and
other discriminatory housing and lending practices; the prioritization of
business interests over public health; development patterns that tend to
concentrate pollution and environmental hazards in certain communi-
ties; and the like.”
In response, some underserved communities and marginalized
populations are leveraging planning practices in order to correct poor
conditions in housing, land use, infrastructure, and sanitation. Ironically,
the use of community-driven planning models has resulted in favorable
outcomes considering many communities are attempting to correct the
legacy of environmental hardships that were prompted by a failure to
plan or a failure to enforce proper zoning.
Planners are stewards of public health, safety, and welfare. As a
result, residents rely on planners to mitigate environmental injustices
from the past as well as prevent injustices in the future. It is prudent for
planners to improve relationships with the communities they serve. This
requires active listening and learning from the experiences of residents,
as well as exercising a sense of empathy. It takes time, but it represents
an investment toward building trust and condence. Planners play an
important role in correcting stubborn problems, including bridging
the impacted community with government, building coalitions and
shared goals, and oering technical expertise. Conversely, residents,
grassroots nonprot organizations, and civil servants are well positioned
to share how to successfully align environmental justice and planning
as complementary quality-of-life goals, such as passing an amortization
ordinance in National City, California; upgrading transit infrastructure in
Central Harlem, New York City; advancing community-driven redevel-
opment in Spartanburg, South Carolina; or adding environmental justice
elements to general plans in California.
These examples reveal there is need to be responsive to the needs
of communities with environmental justice concerns and that there is
pent-up demand for planning solutions to address these concerns.
Planners and decision makers can look to case studies rst presented by
the American Planning Association in the 2007 Planning Advisory Ser-
vice Report 549/550, Fair and Healthy Land Use: Environmental Justice and
Planning. In the 12 years that have elapsed since its publication, many of
the featured case studies have mature outcomes with results that can
be referenced, but have not yet been documented in the literature.
Environmental justice is a forward-thinking and sustainable approach.
For many years, sensitivities to environmental justice were primarily
evident in community involvement and community cleanup. However,
recent events, including the discovery of lead in drinking water supplies
in Flint, Michigan, and Baltimore, Maryland, serve as a serious reminder
that environmental justice is about making investments in places that
need them for the benet of people who need those investments
the most. If planning is to truly overcome injustice, sensitivities to
environmental justice must carry through to community recovery
and redevelopment as well.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions,
Interest Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy
measures:
Environmental Justice Policy 1: Encourage
Triple-Bottom-Line Outcomes
Apply the mandate of environmental justice per Executive Order 12898
to ensure that no population is disproportionately impacted by develop-
ment, disaster recovery, and redevelopment. Attention to environmental
justice starts with community involvement, and it should carry through
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 9
to redevelopment to ensure that all community members have equita-
ble access to the benets of community improvements by pursuing the
triple-bottom-line outcomes of environment, equity, and economy.
Environmental Justice Policy 2: Give Deference
to Local Knowledge
Practice early and ongoing public participation, which is a hallmark for
sound community planning, as well as environmental justice. Giving
deference to local, indigenous knowledge that aected community
residents bring to the planning process is important for building
credibility and trust. Planning with, rather than for, aected communities
is necessary for a balanced result.
Environmental Justice Policy 3: Encourage
Collaborative Problem Solving
Implement innovative place-based solutions through collaborative
problem solving to address multistakeholder interests and concerns.
This has been used by communities with environmental justice
concerns to realize stronger, more lasting solutions that will make a
visible dierence while working with overburdened communities.
Environmental Justice Policy 4: Organize and Support Pro-Bono
Planning Eorts to Assist Underserved and Underresourced
Communities with Environmental Justice Concerns
There is a pent-up demand for community planning assistance, such as
work performed by APA Community Planning Assistance Teams (CPAT)
and others in communities with environmental justice concerns. Early
intervention, before market pressures are intense, allows residents to
oer their vision for better and healthy communities.
Community Engagement
and Empowerment
Another cross-cutting issue includes public participation and meaningful
outreach to all populations so that all people have a voice and access
to decision making. For decades, cities have relied upon neighborhood
groups that they have designated and empowered to organize, volunteer,
and provide active input into city planning decisions. More recently, cities
are realizing these neighborhood power structures have been dominated
by single-family home owners who are often predominantly white and
above median income. This limits the diversity of opinions voiced to city
councils and planning departments and can result in a distribution of
resources that favors higher-income single-family neighborhoods or even
denial of projects that would benet lower-income areas. Without having
eective input to inuence decision making, projects that increase aord-
able housing through density increases for multifamily developments or
funding decisions that would provide more resources for programs or
facilities in underserved areas may not move forward.
To address the need for voices that more inclusively represent the
community, some places, including Seattle, Minneapolis, Los Angeles,
and Denver are broadening their outreach strategies and creating
new community involvement structures and processes to ensure
that renters, lower-income households, people who are experiencing
homelessness, people of color, youth, and families (including single-par-
ent families) have more voice in both the procedural and substantive
decision-making processes. Recently, academics have even argued
that planners should broaden their conception of “practice” to include
elected political oce to better ensure that the underserved gain this
voice in governance to produce more equitable planning outcomes.
Instead of assuming apathy as the reason people are not participating,
cities are examining whether people can participate, given the current
structures and formats for giving input and the conicts with dierent
work schedules, transportation availability, and more.
Some of the new structures and strategies include paying com-
munity organizers to do outreach in underrepresented communities,
conducting popular education so people know how city planning and
budgeting processes work, and reprioritizing planning eorts to address
the immediate social welfare needs in some places before quality-of-life
needs for the more auent places.
This expanded type of outreach and involvement takes additional,
or shifts in, resources and a diverse pool of employees or contracted
liaisons who speak multiple languages and are aware of neighborhood
needs and how to reach neighborhood residents. New technologies
for virtual town halls, online surveys, and signing up residents for city
services and subsidies may require new investments and training, but
they can be more eective than one-time meetings in an evening at a
library. Pairing planning-input meetings with county services meetings
is another approach for connecting to residents about the range of
livability needs, regardless of the department that delivers them.
From an equity standpoint, increasing outreach, in the absence of
making substantive changes in local decisions about overall development
that aects the cost of living, will not ultimately change the inequities in
a locality. These new engagement strategies must be connected to and
aect local investments, zoning changes, and development approvals.
Localities should create plans for how to address equitable engage-
ment, including identifying populations who need to be targeted
and including a goal- and data-driven approach based upon resident
feedback. A value statement, strategies, and action steps should also
be included in the plan. Resources, such as additional sta or increased
funding, should be available for local governments to assist in increas-
ing the capacity of sta to carry out equitable engagement eorts as
well as provide a structure that assists with building relationships with
community partners to help carry out the planning eorts. An evalua-
tion of the plan and celebration of progress should also be incorporated
into the planning process.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy measures:
Community Engagement and Empowerment Policy 1: Institute
Principles of Eective Community Engagement and Use
Targeted Community-Specic Strategies
Use targeted meeting strategies, based on community-specic needs
that may include in-person meetings in the community or alternative
meeting strategies such as telephone town halls or virtual meet-
ings, that will engage community members whose voices have not
been heard or whose input has been marginalized, as well as those
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 10
experiencing mobility challenges, limitations on availability due to
family or work responsibilities, literacy challenges, or language barriers.
For in-person meetings, select venues and settings that foster com-
munication. Tour neighborhoods with community members to gain
rst-hand knowledge of conditions and concerns. Use eective means
of communication such as translation of written materials and interpret-
ers for non-English-speaking or hearing-impaired attendees. Consider
the timing of meetings relative to school, work, or mealtimes; the need
for provision of child care; and the importance of oering meals or food.
Community Engagement and Empowerment Policy 2:
Implement Principles of Participatory Planning
Aim for higher rungs on Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation to
build a partnership with the community. Higher rungs indicate increas-
ing degrees of collaboration where members are not merely placated
but have a clear and meaningful voice in decisions and outcomes.
A similar practice is described in the “Spectrum of Public Participation”
developed by the International Association for Public Participation. This
method describes an increasing degree of collaboration and role in
decision making that results in increasing public impact. It is necessary
to conduct inclusive outreach so that the full community participates.
It is equally important for all voices to be heard and considered by
decision makers when determinations are made. Contributions and
input from the community must be documented and follow-through is
necessary to demonstrate empowerment.
Community Engagement and Empowerment Policy 3:
Build Trust Through Outreach
Make building community trust central to all outreach eorts. Trust
should be viewed as a process rather than a single initiative or
event. All engagement eorts should begin with an organizational
self-assessment to identify capacity, limitations, history, and power
dynamics. Recognize that to build the trust of community members can
require overcoming prior ineective outreach eorts, as well as insti-
tuting more eective engagement strategies. Tools include practicing
active listening so that the listener asks for clarication when needed in
order to fully understand the needs of community members and build
in strategies to address these needs, promising only those outcomes that
can be delivered, and following through on promised actions. Ongoing
availability to planning and community development sta beyond sched-
uled outreach events will also increase communication and trust.
Community Engagement and Empowerment Policy 4:
Create Space to Listen and Heal Old Wounds
Understand that to build trust it is sometimes necessary to access
past grievances and listen to understand old wounds and wrongs
that have not been addressed. It is tempting to focus on the future
without addressing the past, particularly when it brings up issues that
make planners uncomfortable. Learning to be comfortable with being
uncomfortable expands engagement skills and opens communication
to avoid past mistakes.
,
Community Engagement and Empowerment Policy 5:
Avoid Duplication of Engagement Eorts
Identify any potential stakeholders conducting engagement to align
eorts and avoid duplication of outreach. Encourage a collaborative
process that brings together dierent perspectives and prioritize the
data-collection goals of local residents and partner voices, particularly
those representing marginalized populations.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 11
Equity In All Policies In Practice
Climate Change and Resilience
In 2008, the American Planning Association released its rst Policy Guide
on Planning and Climate in response to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
,
The APA guide was
groundbreaking in its acknowledgment of the role of planners in help-
ing communities adapt to climate change and mitigation emissions that
contribute to climate change. It was also groundbreaking in its framing
of the profession’s ethical requirement to address the impacts of climate
change in an equitable manner, rooting its call for action in the APA’s
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. In the 10 years since that
policy guide was released, climate change science has continued to
advance and the need for action has become ever more urgent.
In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) issued a clarion call to the world to mitigate climate change and
learn to adapt to its impacts as a follow-up to the adoption of the Paris
Agreement in 2015. In the report, the IPCC noted that global warming is
likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if current trends continue,
resulting in higher climate-related risks for natural and human systems.
Adaptation of natural and human systems will be essential. Per the IPCC,
uneven spatial distributions of climate change impacts, such as dier-
ences in mean temperature increases, extreme temperature increase,
heavy precipitation in some regions, drought in other regions, and
sea-level rise, will necessitate adaptation eorts that are geographically
specic. Planners have a critical role in helping communities address
climate equity by rapidly and comprehensively adapting their energy,
land-use, urban infrastructure, and industrial systems to the risks of
climate change and contributing to mitigation scenarios that reduce
global emissions so that adaptation eorts may be eective.
,
The IPCC report states that:
“Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-
resilient development pathways that aim to limit global
warming to 1.5°C as they address challenges and inevitable
trade-os, widen opportunities, and ensure that options,
visions, and values are deliberated, between and within
countries and communities, without making the poor and
disadvantaged worse o.”
Planning for climate equity requires an understanding of the intersec-
tions of climate change with power dynamics, highlighted by the many
environmental injustices that already exist in low-income communi-
ties and communities of color in the U.S. Per the Urban Sustainability
Directors Network (USDN), “many factors—such as racism, income
and wealth, health status, and neighborhood conditions—inuence a
community’s sensitivity to climate impacts and their ability to adapt.”
The USDN dierentiates between root causes, social factors, and biological
factors that may inuence sensitivity to climate change. Root causes of
social inequity severely weaken our society’s ability to respond to climate
change. Part of the planning profession’s charge is to address these factors
at a structural level. As the USDN puts it:
“An inclusive, community-centered planning process can
maximize the benets of climate preparedness action
among lower-income populations and communities of
color, while creating greater resilience by empowering
those most aected to shape the decisions that will impact
their lives. Transformative actions, such as policies that
address the root causes of persistent social inequities,
can be paired with measures that prepare communities
for future climate change impacts and reduce potential
hazard vulnerability.”
This vision contrasts with that of 100 Resilient Cities, an initiative
created by the Rockefeller Foundation, which denes resilience as “the
capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and sys-
tems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow, no matter what kinds of
chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience.” While the denition
is a useful one, it is not focused on achieving an equitable future state
for all residents, but rather one that everyone can endure. As such, it
is imperative that planners aim beyond the concept of resilience to
achieve climate equity.
Planning for sustainable development and poverty reduction
amidst climate change will require planning for a vulnerable future
with increasing risks, especially for vulnerable, low-income, and
marginalized populations. Recent studies have concluded that the
impacts of natural disasters on disadvantaged communities and the
federal funds that go towards disaster recovery eorts are already
increasing wealth inequality in the United States, thereby exacerbating
preexisting patterns such as the racial wealth gap between black and
white households.
,
Climate change is leading to a greater number of
natural disasters of increasing frequency and severity. Given the lack
of funding beyond supplementary disaster recovery appropriations
for society-transforming climate resilience projects, as well as the
uninsurance or underinsurance of property nationwide, we may only
expect the inequality to worsen without immediate implementation
of intentionally equitable, well-planned, and well-funded climate
adaptation and mitigation projects.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 12
Climate change is a cross-cutting challenge that will expose weak-
nesses in all of our society’s systems, especially physical and social, as
well as reveal regional dierences in climate change impacts in the
United States. All areas of the community will be impacted: education,
energy, employment, health care, housing, mobility, transportation, and
public spaces. Climate change means that our physical systems will be
inundated by higher seas and increased precipitation, pushed beyond
their design limits, and sometimes even destroyed. Climate change
means that planners and the populations for whom we plan will be
confronted with hazardous conditions, repetitive losses, and shocks that
may not be endurable.
Already, vulnerable communities are being impacted rst and
worst by climate hazards, as exemplied by the experiences of the
Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw Tribe dealing with sea-level rise in the Isle de
Jean Charles and the New York City Housing Authority residents whose
buildings were inundated by Hurricane Sandy. In planning for equity,
the profession must enter into the work acknowledging the preexist-
ing vulnerabilities that communities have as the starting point, while
understanding that natural and man-made events will produce unequal
outcomes for communities without thoughtful planning interventions.
APA is not alone among professional organizations in its call for
climate change adaptation and mitigation planning in support of
communities, the built environment, and the planet’s natural systems.
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) published its
own report in 2018 by the ASLA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Climate Change
and Resilience. ASLA’s report provides a critical set of policy approaches
to resilience planning that is consistent with the ndings of the more
recent IPCC report and the USDN report. Although landscape architec-
ture is largely focused on natural systems, ASLA’s guide also includes
recommendations related to community development, vulnerable
communities, transportation, and agriculture that may contribute
to “healthy, climate-smart, and resilient communities.” Among the ASLA’s
policy solutions, several are focused squarely on vulnerable
communities including:
“Focus on environmental justice and equitable access to
transportation, housing, jobs, and recreation and open
space; Develop relocation, retreat, and/or evacuation plans;
Limit or prohibit building in oodplains to protect life, prop-
erty, and oodplain function; Update Federal Emergency
Management Agency ood maps and include projections
of climate change impacts; Limit or prohibit building in
re-prone rural areas; Promote mixed-income housing and
mixed-use development that provides easy access to essen-
tial services; and Establish/increase low-income housing
and new market tax credits.”
What makes the Planning for Equity Policy Guide dierent from prior
eorts is the focus on equity in all policies. In addition to the policy solu-
tions that are outlined in Planning and Climate Change Policy Guide, the
American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest Groups,
and Student Organizations support the following policy measures that
are centered on advancing social equity and social justice in support of
climate change adaptation and mitigation eorts:
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 1: Partner With
Communities to Exchange Information About Community Risks
Encourage community-scale approaches to building resilience by
partnering with communities, allied professionals, and technical experts
to identify and communicate about areas of high risk. Respect and draw
upon wisdom from communities in conjunction with best available
demographic and multihazard data to identify the populations that are
most vulnerable. Examples include Climate Ready D.C. and Flood Help
NY. Focus on outreach to underrepresented communities in planning
processes through intentionally inclusive actions such as maintaining
strong relationships with community-based organizations, holding
meetings in locations that were universally designed, and providing
translated documents.
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 2: Empower Communities
Through Community-Based Participatory Planning
Work with communities to make informed decisions together
about how to manage and reduce risks while enhancing resilience,
empowering community resilience by establishing representative
community-based equity planning committees and processes that link
technical experts to communities, and investing in community-driven
hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessments. Draw upon lessons learned
from the community-based participatory planning process while
developing hazard mitigation plans that may reduce the loss of life and
property by lessening the impact of disasters.
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 3: Fund Adaptation
and Mitigation Projects Identied by Communities in
Community-Based Recovery and Resiliency Plans
Honor the knowledge and expertise of local communities by working
together to identify, plan for, support, and prioritize the funding of
community interventions that reduce risks and address underlying,
preexisting community vulnerabilities. Use an equity lens to iden-
tify the unintended consequences and cost burden implications of
strategies meant to increase resiliency, such as requiring costly seismic
retrots to historic buildings, buildings owned by people of color, and
buildings owned by those without access to funding to make improve-
ments. Communicate the value of long-term resilient action, including
managed retreat where necessary. Target disaster recovery funds at
mitigation eorts that incorporate equity thinking into Community
Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery funding appropriations
and poverty eradication eorts for disaster-aected households that
may be experiencing repetitive losses. Better account for hazard
mitigation actions taken as they relate to the National Flood Insurance
Program’s Community Rating System.
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 4: Prioritize Equitable
Procurement of Planning Services that Build the Capacities of
Disadvantaged, Minority-Owned, and Women-Owned Firms
and Planners of All Protected Classes in Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation Projects
Establish policies that prioritize equitable procurement of planning
services that build the capacities of disadvantaged, minority-owned,
and women-owned rms and planners of all protected classes to
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 13
lead climate change adaptation and mitigation projects. This capacity
building is essential for all communities to achieve long-term climate
resilience. Equity in climate policy is not just about what is planned, but
who does the planning work and how that contributes to the creation
of a more diverse and inclusive profession that reects the communities
it serves.
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 5: Consider Social Equity
in All Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Decisions
Consider the co-benets of climate change adaptation and mitigation
decisions and actions. Employ an equity lens to critically analyze the
distributional impacts of adaptation and mitigation measures in terms
of incomes, jobs, and resources given the wealth inequality pervasive in
the United States. Evaluate through the lenses of diversity and inclusion
to understand who pays for the adaptation and mitigation measures
and who benets most from them.
Climate Change and Resilience Policy 6: Include Equity
as a Consideration in Benet-Cost Analyses
Support the expansion of traditional cost-benet analysis to include
qualitative social equity considerations, as well as quantitative metrics
driven by demographic analyses and data. Foster global partnerships
with planners and policy makers in Europe and elsewhere to identify
opportunities to embed social equity into benet-cost analyses.
, ,
Education
One of the most signicant opportunities for professional community
planners to create equity in urban, suburban, and rural communities
rests with our public schools. Although Clarence Perry developed “The
Neighborhood Unit” with schools as the building block for neigh-
borhood planning in 1929, most local government planners have not
incorporated public schools into community planning eorts.
Master plans (also referred to as comprehensive plans or general plans)
usually address functional areas such as housing, transportation, and
land use, but will often fail to address public school needs, both in
terms of the school buildings and the needs of the students who
attend the schools.
The overwhelming majority of children attend public schools and
the majority of children attend their neighborhood schools. There are
50 million students enrolled in public schools (compared to 5.4 mil-
lion in private schools) and this number is expected to increase to 51.4
million by 2025. For the 2015–2016 school year, 30.2 percent of students
attended city schools and 39.7 percent of students attended suburban
schools. Students who attended rural schools made up 18.7 percent
while 11.3 percent of the students attended schools in towns. Total
student enrollment in public schools increased from 47.1 million in 2000–
2001 to 50.1 million in 2015–2016. During this time period, the number
of students attending charter schools increased from 1.0 percent to 5.7
percent. The number of students attending magnet schools increased
from 2.6 percent to 5.2 percent. Charter school enrollment varies from 16
percent in Arizona to 43 percent in Washington, D.C. On a national level,
charter school enrollment accounts for 11 percent of students.
More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, many school
districts are hypersegregated. Since 1988, intensely segregated schools
(where less than 10 percent of students are white) have increased from
5.7 percent to 18.6 percent of all public schools. Since 1970, the percent-
age of white students decreased from 79.1 percent to 50 percent while
the percentage of Latino students increased from 5.1 to 25.4 percent,
and the number of black students changed slightly from 15 percent
to 15.3 percent. The increase in intensely segregated schools has been
caused by many factors, including white ight to suburbs and missed
opportunities to consolidate city and school districts (e.g., Raleigh and
Wake County, North Carolina).
Surveys show that public schools are viewed as important local
planning priorities and are signicant drivers for household location
decisions.
,
Many households choose neighborhoods based on the
perceived quality of public schools. The use of school rating websites
has contributed to this neighborhood shopping. This is compounded by
the fact that real estate websites display school ratings. Even for childless
households, school reputation is an important factor in house-buying
decisions, directly and indirectly.
To address public school inequities, local planners must become more
engaged in public school planning, including master facility
planning involving siting new schools, campus remodeling, and
repurposing schools that are closed or changing. Planners must be actively
engaged with their local school districts (and their fellow school district
planners) to address school neighborhood conditions, student and teacher
housing needs, and other issues that impact the learning environment.
The Housing Policy Guide (2006) and Smart Growth Policy Guide
(2012) recognize the importance of public schools for community
building, equity in opportunity, and reinvestment. It is important for APA
to address the role of public schools in our communities. Our public
schools are critical civic institutions that deserve much greater attention
from the planning profession.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy measures:
Education Policy 1: Increase Understanding of the
Planner’s Role in Student Education Outcomes
Consider the interrelatedness of student education outcomes to plan-
ning for land use, housing, transportation, and community and regional
development. Planners have a responsibility to be aware of how
external factors in the built and social environment impact education
outcomes for children and youth.
Education Policy 2: Create Master Plan Education Elements
Encourage inclusion of education elements in master plans that address
education needs and recognize the integral role of public education on
community and economic goals. Communities need to address public
education in a holistic fashion, not just in terms of facilities planning.
Education Policy 3: Address Impacts of
School Facility Planning Processes
Support school facility planning for new schools that considers the
social, economic, and environmental impacts to the surrounding
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 14
community and region, including transportation access to the new
school and neighborhood stability. Support joint use of school grounds
and facilities for recreation and community events.
Education Policy 4: Address Impacts of School Closures
Work with school districts and surrounding neighborhoods before
schools are closed to determine short-term and long-term options
for the facility, including pre-K classes, nonprot incubators, and
mixed uses to avoid deterioration of the building and potential
vandalism or vagrancy.
Education Policy 5: Encompass Schools and Neighborhoods
in All Community Planning Eorts
Recognize the connection between public education and the
economic vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods with an under-
standing that addressing racial and economic segregation is critical to
improving schools and neighborhoods.
Education Policy 6: Reform State and Local School Funding
to Eliminate Inequities
Encourage reform of local and state funding of public education
systems to address education needs for all students, to create more
equity across school districts, and to eliminate inequities in school
programming and capital needs.
Education Policy 7: Address School Facility Needs
Support eorts to address school building deciencies and unsafe
school facilities, including mold, lead, and inadequate HVAC systems,
by coordinating capital improvement programs and securing
needed funding.
Education Policy 8: Increase Collaboration Between
Local Governments and School Districts Governance
Promote collaboration, including building models of governance
between school districts, local governments, and community
organizations to better address the complicated and interrelated
issues children and youth face.
Energy and Resource Consumption
Energy generation, use, and pricing as structured in modern society
today is fundamentally inequitable. This is because the energy needed
for heating, cooling, lighting, driving, and cooking is the same across
income and locale. As such, lower-income families spend more of their
disposable income to cover basic necessities aorded by energy use.
Over the past 100 years, a number of strategic investments have
replaced the less expensive on-site distributed systems that once
prevailed, such as wood or propane stoves, among others. With the
centralization of power generation, more energy is needed to generate
the same amount of power. Moreover, with the privatization of energy
systems in this centralized model, all decisions related to energy access
are not made by a democratically elected body (though there are some
municipally owned utilities). These private entities decide the location of
power generators, type of fuel and emissions, who is impacted the most,
as well as the rates to cover costs for constructing and operating the sys-
tem. As private, publicly traded holders, they are beholden to stakeholder
interests, which can lean toward prot over sustainability or equity.
For our energy system to be equitable, policies must consider that
often the poor live in buildings with the worst insulation, ventilation,
and heat. Most states therefore prioritize investments in building
insulation with federal programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, which provides a source for funding.
While there is a growing number of programs for low-income
households oered by utilities and installation companies, the number
of utilities that will absorb on-site power generation remains relatively
small. To take one example, solar on-site generation tends to skew
toward middle-income (in the range of $45,000 to $150,000 per year).
The average solar household income lands roughly around $100,000. In
this market, there is an opportunity for energy planning and policies to
explore opportunities for wealth generation in low-income neighbor-
hoods through distributed energy programs. These can be in the form
of generous state incentives or rate design. For instance, California’s shift
toward time-of-use rates shifts the burden more onto larger residences
and private companies.
Based on the ndings of a study, GTM researchers estimate that within
the four solar markets in their study that account for 65 percent of the total
rooftop solar market share, about 100,000 installations are on low-income
properties. To counter this inequity, Utility Dive conducted a 2017 survey of
more than 600 Canadian and U.S. utility professionals that showed that 95
percent think utilities should be allowed to rate base distributed resources
in all or some circumstances as an opportunity to ensure equitable access
to the benets of distributed solar. Community shared solar, which allows
consumers without suitable roofs to buy subscriptions to central-station
arrays, has become a common utility oering in recent years. Arizona Public
Service Co., a key player in the state’s notorious solar policy battles, pledged
$10 million to expand rooftop solar access to low-income customers as
part of a settlement with solar installers in the state over rate design. The
San Antonio, Texas, municipal utility CPS Energy has a 10-megawatt project
with installer PowerFin in the works that allows customers to host panels at
no upfront cost and receive credits on their bills. Some states, such as New
York,are cognizant of this inequity and oer programs that are focused on
low-income households.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy measures:
Energy and Resource Consumption Policy 1: Support
Income-Sensitive Energy Use
Advance programs for energy generation and use that are fundamentally
equitable, such as the Energy Choice programs available in New York
and California. Due to deregulation, these programs allow exibility and
provide a platform for competitive rates.
Energy and Resource Consumption Policy 2: Improve Eciency
of Low-Income Housing
Maintain and potentially expand federal programs such as the Low-
income Home Energy Assistance Program that support weatherization
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 15
as the best form of carbon osetting in addition to its equity and
moral imperatives.
Energy and Resource Consumption Policy 3: Promote a
More Equitable Grid/System
Develop power programs that use renewable distributed energy systems,
which have environmental benets, but use a distributed system and/or
creative pricing to achieve equity benets as well. Investing in renewable
distributed systems and building insulation programs can reduce the
dierential impact of energy use on lower-income households.
Energy and Resource Consumption Policy 4: Advance
Environmental Justice and Health
Advance the placement of site energy facilities, including stations and
lines, to avoid disproportionate impact on the health and well-being
of low-income groups over other economic groups and move away
from centralized coal-based or nuclear power generation. Fossil fuel
use, including transportation, contributes heavily to air, land, and water
pollution. Identifying ways to capture waste heat is another equitable
and environmentally prudent strategy.
Health Equity
Health equity is dened as the ability of individuals to attain their
highest level of health regardless of race, gender, income, or place
of residence. Inequities in health occur when there are barriers that
hinder the ability to attain this level of health, such as poverty, poor
access to health care, lack of healthy food options, historical trauma,
and various other environmental issues, such as access to parks and
open space, exposure to environmental contaminants, unsafe drinking
water, or substandard living conditions. Social and economic factors
contribute approximately 40 percent to our overall health and adding
physical factors and behaviors to the equation increases this number
to almost 80 percent.
Health equity has been on the radar of leading health organizations
and governmental agencies for more than a decade. This includes the
World Health Organization (WHO), whose overall goal is “to build a
better, healthier future for people all over the world.” Among its areas
of focus are “Social Determinants of Health,” or SDOH, which are closely
aligned with health equity. WHO denes SDOH as conditions in which
people are born, grow, work, live, and age, including the forces that
shape the conditions of daily life. In particular, these include economic
policies and systems, development agendas, social norms, social
policies, and political systems. SDOH have become the standard for
health baseline measurements of existing conditions and are used by
numerous organizations. The measures, or determinants, selected vary by
number and degree of specicity, but they all serve the purpose of den-
ing the elements that contribute to health inequities or health disparity.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, an arm of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), launched
Healthy People 2020 to establish new 10-year goals for the 30-year-
old Healthy People program. Healthy People 2020, which also
considers SDOH in the baseline measurements, has delineated five
key areas or determinants: (1) economic stability, (2) education, (3)
social and community context, (4) health and health care, and (5)
neighborhood and built environment.
Through an equity in all policies approach, it is not dicult to see
how these determinants play a role in health equity. Each plays a role in
the disparities that exist based on economic status, level of education,
social and cultural norms, access to health care, and active living oppor-
tunities based on physical environment. In an article published in 2011
in the American Journal of Public Health, Braveman et al. lists underlying
values and principles that are relevant to health disparities and health
equity. In this article, health disparities are dened as “health dier-
ences that adversely aect socially disadvantaged groups” and that are
“systematic, plausibly avoidable health dierences according to … an
individual’s or group’s position in a social hierarchy.” Further, the article
notes that these disparities are a metric for assessing health equity. The
article also states that health is worse among socially disadvantaged
groups and that public policy regarding health disparities and equity
should be a consideration.
Addressing health equity in a community environment is pivotal to
establishing an improved quality of life for communities and residents.
Eorts toward understanding and furthering health equity are occur-
ring at the state level, as well as the international and federal levels
noted above. Examples of this include the work of the California Planning
Roundtable, which initiated the Healthy Communities Work Group, a
collaboration between planners and public health professionals. This
group dened healthy communities as those “guided by health equity
principles in the decision-making process” and as ones that are “vibrant,
livable, and inclusive communities.” In 2016, it published The Social Deter-
minants of Health for Planners: Live, Work, Play, Learn!
Another example is found in Colorado, where the Oce of Health
Equity was established within the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. In 2018, it published the Equity Action Guide,
which makes the case for using an equity lens, provides baseline data,
and delineates next steps. These eorts underscore both the impor-
tance of this work and the need for collaboration and engagement.
Additional information and resources are available from the National
Organization of County and City Health Ocials (NACCHO) website.
Resources posted here include assistance to local governments in address-
ing health inequities. All of these eorts underscore both the importance of
this work and the need for collaboration and engagement.
The key recommendations for creating health equity in communities
via planning processes includes supporting actionable policies
including access to education, healthcare, and healthy food systems.
In October 2017, the APA Board of Directors ratied the Healthy Commu-
nities Policy Guide. It includes strategies and policy outcomes to create
healthy communities. The policy outcomes listed below specically
address health equity and are consistent with the policies presented in
the Healthy Communities Policy Guide.
To address health disparities and inequities that limit the ability of all
people to reach their full potential, the American Planning Association,
its Chapters, Divisions, Interest Groups, and Student Organizations
support the following policy measures:
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 16
Health Equity Policy 1: Institute a Cross-Disciplinary Approach
Encourage collaborative eorts that bring together planners, public
health departments, community-based organizations, and community
members to share information, perspectives, and needs to fully under-
stand and address the issues that are created by health inequities.
Health Equity Policy 2: Provide Education for Planners
Increase awareness and support eorts to educate public ocials,
planners, and health practitioners in the Social Determinants of Health
so that these measures and the data obtained from them can be used
as tools to focus the equity lens and apply principles of health equity in
planning for communities.
Health Equity Policy 3: Use an Equity Approach to
Plan theBuilt Environment
Support long-range community plans and proposed developments
that incorporate walkability, access to fresh foods, and access to services,
all of which are needed to achieve an equitable built environment.
Health Equity Policy 4: Improve Access to Health Care
Improve access to health care by increasing transit accessibility or other
means of accessing health care facilities so that automobile ownership
or access is not needed. This may include treatment and educational
centers in underserved areas and nontraditional settings for health care
such as community centers, schools, and others.
Health Equity Policy 5: Use Health Impact Assessments
Promote the use of Health Impact Assessments (HIA), with a focus on
equity, to discern issues and then bring together public health, plan-
ning, and other sectors to ensure that health, equity, and sustainability
are considered during decision-making processes.
Health Equity Policy 6: Implement the Existing
APA Health in All Planning Policies
Implement the health equity policies and outcomes that are included in
the 2017 Healthy Communities Policy Guide that was prepared by APA
with the intent of improving community health and quality of living
through planning.
Heritage Preservation
One of the troubling trends in planning is redevelopment eorts that
are insensitive to preserving cultural assets. Although attention has
been directed to “saving history from sprawl,” it is equally important to
“save history from urbanism.”
After focusing on historic buildings, monuments, and sites for many
decades, the practice of preservation in the United States is maturing.
Recognizing the importance of equity and inclusion, practitioners
understand cultural inuences shape the built environment. These
“intangibles”—while subtle—equally contribute to a community’s
placemaking dividend.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, cultural and heritage
travel is important to our domestic economy. Seventy-eight percent of
all domestic leisure travelers participate in cultural and heritage activities.
In short, there is value in authenticity, and tourists and visitors want to see
more than markers that succinctly state what used to exist.
The act of stewardship extends beyond protecting natural resources.
It also encompasses saving the humanities that represent the social,
cultural, and artistic evidence of the human experience. In many ways,
the uninterrupted destruction of cultural treasures and heritage assets
compromises the ability for future generations to meet their needs
because institutional capital is lost that cannot be replaced.
Heritage preservation is a teaching tool, and it is a statement about
localized values. In a society of limited bandwidth, there is a risky
assumption that future generations will passively become altruistic
and empathetic without the stimulus of exposure, curiosity, or stirring
reminders. In reality, constant public awareness is the best defense
for cultural resource stewardship, and education remains an accepted
pathway to correct institutional intolerance.
The utility of planning as a lever for preserving heritage assets is not
aspirational. There are plenty of tangible examples that demonstrate
the application of this approach. Accessible and inspiring solutions are
not dicult to nd.
In the Southwest, Ohkay Owingeh is the rst Pueblo tribe to develop
a comprehensive preservation plan that guides housing improving
according to cultural values. In the Pacic Northwest, the Urban League
of Metropolitan Seattle purchased the vacant historic Colman School
property and converted it to provide 36 units of aordable rental
housing while repurposing the ground oor to function as the North-
west African American Museum. In the Midwest, Kansas City ocials
were deliberate in preparing a master plan for the 18th and Vine Jazz
District in order to maintain it as a community asset. In the Southeast,
a resident-led commission worked with the Department of the Interior
to prepare a cultural management plan for the Gullah Geechee Cultural
Heritage Corridor.
When planners facilitate deliberate conversations about how
to balance the goals of economic development and cultural
development, it does not distract from making communities better.
Instead, it results in better community outcomes, especially for
underserved populations.
Great communities are more than a collection of buildings, streets,
and parks. By balancing the goals of economic and cultural devel-
opment, planning departments can help municipal governments to
restore public trust, improve morale, strengthen the integrity of places
that capture the aection of residents, and save heritage assets and
cultural treasures for the enjoyment of future generations.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest
Groups, and Student Organizations support the following policy measures:
Heritage Preservation Policy 1: Encourage Dialogue
with Public Forums
Use public seminars and forums as a means to help residents appreciate
the shared story of a jurisdiction and inform residents about community
treasures (or intangibles) that require maintenance and upkeep.
Dialogue and education are important for fostering appreciation of
cultural and historical assets that have been devalued overtime.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 17
Heritage Preservation Policy 2: Save Structures
Designed by Architects and Designers of Color
Support the preservation of buildings and spaces designed by architects
and designers of color. There are many motives for preserving older
buildings, including the notability of the designer. Preserving the legacy
of architects and designers of color is a celebration of diverse talent while
acknowledging that no one group has a monopoly on creativity.
Heritage Preservation Policy 3: Leverage Preservation
to Improve Public Involvement
Support planning eorts that balance the goals of economic
development and cultural development. Just as planners are using
visual art in order to leverage local knowledge, planners can explore
the creative use of preservation as a means to reach untapped audi-
ences and convene discussions about shared values, economic
development, resiliency, placemaking, context-sensitive street design,
and the like.
Heritage Preservation Policy 4: Acknowledge
Inconvenient Truths
Planners must lead conversations that reevaluate the role, context, and
meaning of symbols in public spaces. Ensure that the cultural assets of
underserved populations are not compromised through community
revitalization eorts. Sustainable management of cultural assets can
improve social cohesion, support the economy, and celebrate the
unique treasures that distinguish communities. Planners can improve
public trust by encouraging preservation solutions that are responsive
to the needs of impacted populations.
Heritage Preservation Policy 5: Support State and
Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Programs
In many underserved neighborhoods, the adaptive reuse of his-
toric buildings can be a major catalyst for economic development,
strengthen quality of place, and bring a sense of great pride to the
community. At the same time, making developments work nancially in
these locations can be challenging. State and federal historic tax credits
are a very eective tool to make rehabilitation and adaptive reuse viable
in communities where there is not otherwise a local market to support
it. This is important because in spite of strong evidence of signicant
return on investment, these programs regularly come under threat at
the national level and only some states have such programs.
Heritage Preservation Policy 6: Encourage Preservation of
Historic Resources Connected to the History of People of Color,
Women, Immigrants, and Other Traditionally Underrecognized
Members of the Community
The historic preservation movement in the United States is shifting.
Increasingly, a broader range of historic resources than have traditionally
been recognized through local landmark or National Register designa-
tions are being deemed important. The preservation of buildings and
places that tell stories of groups that have sometimes been over-
looked—people of color, women, immigrants, and others—should be
encouraged by planners. This is important because these buildings
and places contribute to the uniqueness of neighborhoods and bring
a sense of identity and belonging to community members.
Housing
The National Housing Act of 1949 called for “the realization as soon as
feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment
for every American family.” Almost 20 years later, the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 acknowledged that this national goal “has
not been fully realized for many of the nation’s lower income families.”
In 1968, the average American household paid 15 percent of its income
for housing and about 7.8 million households were unable to aord
housing that cost more than 20 percent of their income.
Sadly, we have made little progress over the years since Congress
committed the nation to achieving the goal of decent housing and
future prospects seem even bleaker. In 2016, there were 10.4 million
extremely low-income families in the United States, three-quarters
of whom were paying more than half of their income for housing.
Especially since the 2008 economic collapse, housing aordability has
become an increasingly critical issue for American households, which
particularly hurts communities of color. In 2010, 28.1 percent of African
Americans and 25.8 percent of Hispanics, and an even higher percent-
age of American Indians and Alaska Natives, 29.5 percent, were poor
compared with 11.0 percent of non-Hispanic white households. As
Angela Glover Blackwell, founder of PolicyLink, has observed, the con-
nection between housing and access to opportunity is inextricable:
“Address is a proxy for opportunity. Where we live deter-
mines whether or not we have access to the requisite
resources for success, including good schools, decently paid
jobs, and transportation that connects to employment
centers. It determines whether or not we have access to
healthy living conditions—whether the air is reasonably
clean or fouled by pollutants spewing from a freeway or
rail line or bus depot in the neighborhood; whether we are
likely to develop a long list of chronic illnesses and, if we do,
whether we will survive them; whether we are likely to be
killed during a crime, in a car crash, or simply when crossing
the street. Any serious discussion of poverty inevitably turns
to prevention and well-being—and that brings the conver-
sation straight into the places where struggling people live.”
Restrictive zoning regulations, especially those that mandate
large lot sizes and prohibit multifamily development, have created
development patterns that not only limit access to opportunity for
lower-income households but also consign them to neighborhoods
and districts that are more prone to a range of adverse environmental
conditions, such as industrial and trac emissions, illegal dumping, and
higher crime rates. Further, downtown revitalization in cities includ-
ing San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles,
Detroit, and West Oakland have resulted in rapidly increasing rents
and displacement. The result is increased overcrowding and families
forced to move farther and farther from urban area jobs. Coupled with
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 18
the growing holes in the safety net, another eect is an increase in the
nation’s homeless population.
Eorts must be made to ensure that planning decisions do not
disparately disadvantage lower income and households of color; to
protect and maintain rental housing and land resources, especially in
neighborhoods and districts that are close to existing and proposed
transit and employment; and to promote and support nonprot
housing development corporations. Specically, some ways to address
these issues include enacting inclusionary requirements to ensure
that new residential and mixed use development includes units that
will be aordable; establishing programs to mitigate the impact of
new development on land resources; adopting zoning requirements
that will provide incentives for developing aordable housing units
in mixed-income neighborhoods, as well as incentives that support
small-lot, single-family development; and identifying and eliminating
regulatory obstacles to building accessory dwelling units.
The American Planning Association, its Chapters, Divisions,
Interest Groups, and Student Organizations support the following
policy measures:
Housing Policy 1: Promote Diverse Housing Stock
Promote the development and preservation of a diverse housing stock,
including single-room occupancy, accessory dwelling units, microunits,
multigenerational housing, and emergency and transitional housing as
by-right development. Diversity includes housing tenure—both owner
and renter-occupied housing—and housing size, e.g., family housing.
Housing Policy 2: Reform Development Regulations to
Promote Fair Housing
Encourage planning and regulatory reforms to ensure that protected
classes, who should also be protected from source-of-income dis-
crimination, are provided housing opportunities that are dispersed
throughout a community. Ensure protections are in place to preserve
market-rate aordable housing stock, including requiring a one-to-one
replacement standard.
Housing Policy 3: Remove Regulatory Barriers in Zoning
and Subdivision Regulations
Implement zoning and subdivision regulatory reforms to create more
housing opportunities for low-income households, such as inclusionary
housing and accessory dwelling units, and remove discriminatory regu-
lations regarding housing tenure and single-family denitions.
Housing Policy 4: Prepare Master Plan Housing Elements
Encourage preparation of master plan housing elements that identify
housing needs for the entire community as well as specic populations,
including low-income, elderly, disabled, and homeless families
and individuals.
Housing Policy 5: Increase the Supply of Housing
Create and implement housing plans and policies designed to increase
the supply of housing both through new production and preserva-
tion and with specic goals around aordability, diversity of stock,
tenure type and design, and combating displacement. Plan for and
ensure preservation of aordable rental and ownership housing where
possible, for example with tools to allow purchase or renance of rental
buildings with expiring subsidies, and active monitoring and enforce-
ment of resale restrictions for ownership housing.
Mobility and Transportation
Mobility and access to opportunity are essential to move the needle
toward equity. Groups disproportionately challenged by mobility
needs, and those in traditionally underserved communities, include
low-income people, people of color, people with disabilities, people
with lower levels of education, and the old and the very young. Without
access to jobs, schools, health care, healthy foods, recreation, goods, and
services, it is dicult to envision a pathway to opportunity. As expressed
by the Transportation Equity Caucus, a division of PolicyLink, transporta-
tion opportunities for all people are critical to provide many Americans
with connections that will allow them to meet basic needs, be engaged
in their communities, and to contribute to the economy.
Alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel are favored for
environmental, congestion, and health reasons; however, a full range of
multimodal solutions is necessary to meet a variety of needs that vary
by income, ability, age, and other factors. Complete streets that include
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian opportunities are integral to an equitable
transportation network.
Underserved groups often include individuals who are transit
dependent. For example, racial minorities are four times more likely
than nonminorities to rely on public transportation to travel to jobs. The
provision of transit facilities varies widely, with more densely populated
metropolitan areas having greater service areas and greater frequency
of service. Poverty is increasing in the suburbs due to various factors,
including the quest to nd aordable housing, gentrication of down-
towns, and changes in location of available jobs. Suburbs have less
transit than urban areas, which impacts accessibility of jobs, goods, and
services. Complicating this further from a transit perspective is the need
to serve the most people. With an already subsidized and underfunded
condition, the greater cost per rider, which occurs in low-density areas
as opposed to more compact developments where more people can
be served, often results in diminishing levels of service with an increase
in distance from the urban core. As a result, those who need service
most often do not have it.
Aging populations also rely on transit, but sucient service is
not always available. In 2017, CityLab reported that nearly a quarter
of Americans over age 65 do not drive and that number increases
with age. This further supports the need for transit to serve an aging
population. Along these same lines, residents in small towns and rural
communities have limited transportation options, with 41 percent
having no access to transit and another 25 percent having below-av-
erage services.
In addition to transit, nonmotorized transportation options—walking
and bicycling facilities—are needed in particular for those who cannot
aord a car or prefer not to own a private vehicle, those who are too
young or too old to drive, those with disabilities that prevent them from
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 19
driving, or those who cannot obtain a driver’s license. Further reasons
for needing nonmotorized options are commuters who travel outside
of traditional 9 to 5 work hours and have limited or no access to cars
or transit. Walking requires more than sidewalks and gridded street
patterns. An increasing number of studies show that walking rates vary
by socioeconomics because of concerns about personal safety from
crime, availability of sidewalks and safe trails, information on the health
benets of walking, pollution, and poorly enforced trac regulations in
lower-income areas.
,
Alternative transportation solutions, particularly transportation
network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft, have become a
popular transportation option. Certainly, additional ride-hailing
companies increase the number of options for those who are able
to access their services. However, under the current business model,
these companies often increase disadvantages for those who are
underserved. First of all, they are in direct competition with tradi-
tional for-hire services such as taxi cabs, yet they are not subject to
the same level of licensing requirements or restrictions, which gives
TNCs an advantage over the competition and could result in dimin-
ishing their availability to all community members. Second, they
have been shown to result in unintended consequences detrimental
to underserved populations, including persons with disabilities,
low-income populations, people of color, and others who are
historically subject to discriminatory practices. In addition to discrim-
ination, the ability to utilize TNCs is further hindered by the business
model that requires subscription and payment by credit card. These
factors have led some to say that TNCs are nothing more than a
“privileged access model.” Similarly, bike share and e-scooters also
rely on subscription backed by credit card and, thus, their use may
also be unavailable to many underserved groups, in particular those
who do not have or use credit.
Eective strategies to address equity issues often encountered by
underserved groups must address the problems of mobility and
access that are often present due to lack of proximity, connectivity,
or resources necessary for travel to work, school, shopping, health care,
and recreation. An emphasis on multimodal solutions that adhere to
ADA requirements and adequate design elements is needed, as are
retrots to bring current transportation facilities in line with current
ADA standards and federal requirements. Coordination and collabo-
ration with public health and nonprot community groups are also
needed to address neighborhood resources, social cohesion, and
information gaps. These include transit, pedestrian facilities, safety
improvements, and bicycle options.
Provision of adequate infrastructure is essential; however, siting of
transportation facilities is equally important. Prior to the implementa-
tion of environmental justice requirements, roads, highways, and
other transportation facilities were located according to criteria that
did not consider impacts to existing populations. This resulted, in
some cases, in the bifurcation of neighborhoods or in locations that
exposed residents to noise or noxious fumes. Facilities exist today
that are sited in areas where minority and low-income populations
are subject to disproportionate environmental and health eects.
However, failure to invest in low-income or minority communities
can result in inadequate or crumbling infrastructure that can also
isolate all residents from social and economic opportunity.
To address the role transportation plays in providing access to
opportunity and the importance of considering both the benets
and impacts of infrastructure, the American Planning Association,
its Chapters, Divisions, Interest Groups, and Student Organizations
support the following policy measures:
Mobility and Transportation Policy 1: Provide
Access and Aordability
Utilize existing planning tools such as comprehensive plans, transporta-
tion plans, zoning ordinances, resolutions, statutes, site plans, and budget
appropriations to create equitable communities in consideration of the
need to design land-use and transportation facilities to provide access
and connections to jobs, schools, health care, goods, and services. Essen-
tial to accessibility is the implementation of inclusionary zoning, provision
of aordable housing, and preservation of existing aordable housing in
areas proximal to all modes of transportation.
Mobility and Transportation Policy 2: Provide
Aordable Housing in Transit-Rich Locations
Promote establishing a percentage of aordable, deed-restricted units,
or implement measures to provide aordable housing opportunities in
developing or urban renewal areas adjacent to transit facilities, including
transit-oriented developments, to oer access and opportunities for
those who are transit dependent. Implement tools and utilize resources
necessary to preserve existing aordable housing stock so that escalat-
ing property values do not force the displacement of current residents
or prevent those who are transit dependent from beneting from devel-
opments constructed proximal to transit.
Mobility and Transportation Policy 3: Support Funding
for Multimodal Transportation Facilities
Support increased funding at the state and federal level for multimodal
facilities, including complete streets with bike lanes, sidewalks, ADA
features (new construction and retrots), safe crossings, and other
pedestrian amenities, as well as increased transit service, that will pro-
vide additional means of mobility for all persons, and in particular, those
who do not have access to an automobile or who have disabilities that
prevent them from operating an automobile.
Mobility and Transportation Policy 4: Revise Criteria for
Award of Federal Transit Funding
Encourage revision of federal funding grant structure for transit projects
to rely less on cost-per-rider metrics and more on transit-dependent
populations in award of capital investment grants for new transit
projects and transit expansion.
Mobility and Transportation Policy 5: Site Facilities to
Avoid Disproportionate Environmental and Health Eects
Support and adhere to the rules of environmental justice per Exec-
utive Order 12898 that requires consideration of environmental and
human health eects when siting new transportation facilities. If
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 20
disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income populations
cannot be avoided, determine mitigation measures through eective
outreach and meaningful community engagement.
Mobility and Transportation Policy 6: Utilize Regional
Transportation Planning and Coordination
Implement regional plans and practice coordination among agencies,
jurisdictions, and metropolitan planning organizations to maximize
resources, facilities, and services. Combined resources and cost-
eective measures will improve the ability to provide greater mobility
options and will result in increased connectivity and access for all
community members.
Public Spaces and Places
Public spaces and places make up the public commons of our commu-
nities and function as the connective tissue that binds people together
and anchors neighborhoods. Public spaces are typically made up of
parks, plazas, sidewalks, trails, streets, bike paths, public buildings, and
parking areas. Public space also occurs in public or semipublic places
within the connes of private property, such as interior lobbies, court-
yards, and private plazas. Both make up the public commons and vary
in size, scale, and function ranging from large urban parks, public plazas,
and citywide bicycle networks to small libraries and recreation centers
to building courtyards, intimate pocket parks, and hidden alleys. The
sidewalks along our streets create the connective network of the public
realm and they too can include public space for retail vending, pocket
parks, and small gathering spaces. For simplicity, this guide will refer to
the public commons that exist in a network of public spaces and places
collectively as public space. How public space is designed, managed,
and operated has the power to inuence positive social outcomes.
Inclusive, safe, and accessible public space can help tackle inequities
that exist within our cites. Public spaces are a shared resource and are
sometimes the only option for shared social gatherings. When they
are intentionally designed to be welcoming to everyone, public spaces
can oer opportunities for social, cultural, and economic development.
Public space is shared spaces for people to gather with friends and
family, places for personal and political expression, opportunities for
rest and relaxation, and centers of community. Functioning public space
can create opportunities to forge social connections and strengthen
community bonds. When equitable access is provided to all members
of a community irrespective of physical abilities, age, gender, race,
ethnicity, income level, or social status, public space promotes inclusion
and improves equity. Equitable public space sets the stage for dierent
socioeconomic groups to mix and interact and can enhance tolerance
and diversity cognition.
Through increased interaction among varying socioeconomic
classes, public space can increase upward mobility. Open and shared
public spaces, and the face-to-face interactions they engender, are the
tools for increasing cross-cultural communication. Time spent face-to-
face with people from dierent racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds
engenders more trust, generosity, and cooperation than any other sort
of interaction. Research has shown the connection of proximity among
socioeconomic classes and upward mobility. Functioning public space
creates the shared space for interaction among dierent groups that
can lead to innovation and connections improving opportunities of
marginalized groups.
Public space can also increase civic identity and engagement
through greater connections and social bonds created from the
interaction stimulated by the space. Well-designed public spaces have
been shown to increase safety and lower rates of crime and violence,
creating space for formal and informal social, cultural, and economic
activities that contribute to improving mutual trust and safety.
Through connection to space, a greater connection to community
is gained along with more robust social networks, associations, and
community relationships. These relationships increase social capital
and social cohesion. Robert Putnam, a political scientist, described
social capital as “social networks, norms of reciprocity, mutual assis-
tance, and trustworthiness.” Higher social capital is associated with
positive outcomes in many areas, such as health, education, employ-
ment, child welfare, and compliance with the law.
The concept of public space needs to be broadened to match the
current multiple spheres of public life to encompass the nonphysical
qualities—legal, economic, political, aesthetic—and their eects on
shared space in public life. Functioning public spaces must be con-
vivial in nature and be places where one can be social and festive.
Such spaces form the foundation of public life and are the essence of
urbanity. Without public spaces, we are likely to drift even further into
privatization and polarization.
Not all public space functions as true shared space due to inequi-
ties in the planning and development process. Public spaces often
exclude certain demographic groups either explicitly or implicitly
through their design, lack of public input, and historical or current
discrimination in operational practices. The following is a list of design
and programming features and/or attributes that can discourage use
of public spaces and act as real or perceived barriers to inclusive and
thriving public spaces:
■ Lack of places to sit or gather
■ Lack of exibility and customization
■ Overly rigid with limited opportunities of interaction
■ Discourage opportunities for local art, events, greenspace
■ Poor safety and comfort
■ Poorly designed edges
■ Lack of access for people of all ages and physical abilities
■ Hostile features such as fences or signs that detract from a convivial
atmosphere
■ Overly policed with overwhelming presence of police, security,
curfews, cameras, or other restrictions
■ Failure to reect local cultures and values
The above failures in public space design tend to create sterile and
hostile environments that send the message, “Don’t stay here! You’re
not welcome.” Public spaces that are not intentionally welcoming do
not function as shared spaces and they limit social interaction, exacer-
bate cultural divides, and contribute to lack of community engagement.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 21
Poor design and programming impacts the vitality and well-being
of our communities and ultimately harms the economic and social
well-being of the entire community.
In addition, there is inequity of distribution of public spaces due to
numerous reasons ranging from zoning and density to available access
and funding levels. In some areas, local districts or home owners’ asso-
ciations are formed or take on additional public space responsibilities
to ll funding and management voids. In other areas, this is not feasible
or possible, and in some instances, such as within Native American
communities, there are no property taxes and there are limitations on
federal funds to plan, design, and construct parks and public spaces.
The recent resurgence in the demand for public space has largely
been in walkable, dense parts of cities with close proximity to key
attractions. These areas can and should become attractions for a
broad and diverse range of uses. However, vibrant public spaces are
fueling investments near waterfronts or other high-amenity areas.
In turn, these investments, along with shifting demographics, market
forces, and consumer preferences, are leading to higher demand for
areas that are near quality public spaces as they facilitate collaboration
among people and rms. In a time of growing inequality—by income
and wealth, by race and ethnicity, by geography—there is an urgent
need and also a growing opportunity for local and regional leaders
to learn from what makes public spaces successful, and to take advan-
tage of these forces in ways that produce better outcomes for more
people in more places.
Eective strategies are needed in the planning, development, and
maintenance of public spaces to ensure that they can function as
shared space and contribute to the social and economic well-being of
our communities. High-quality and functioning public spaces have the
ability to improve equity in our communities and provide spaces that are
indiscriminate of the socioeconomic standing of their users.
The key to creating quality inclusive public spaces and places is
through a people-rst design and the co-creation and stewardship of
the public space. The following strategy and policy recommendations
assist in creating inclusive public spaces. The American Planning Associ-
ation, its Chapters, Divisions, Interest Groups, and Student Organizations
support the following policy outcomes:
Public Space Policy 1: Broaden the Conversation
Extend opportunities for diverse voices to be included in the planning,
design, operations, and programing of spaces in order to create a sense
of shared ownership and connectivity to the public space. When people
are co-creators of their spaces, those spaces become welcoming to all.
Public Space Policy 2: Measure Impacts
Create a baseline and track, through surveys or observations, how a
broad range of constituents use and value public spaces to make the
case for nancial investments to support programming and mainte-
nance that will increase inclusion. In addition, track social impacts of
public space, capturing how the public space is helping to bridge racial,
ethnic, age, religious, language, economic, digital, and other barriers
and open access to opportunity to disadvantaged groups
in order to recommend adjustments to infrastructure, management,
and programming that improve the function of public spaces to
address inequities.
Public Space Policy 3: Utilize Pop-Up Designs and Activations
Nurture a sense of ownership of public space by reacquainting people
with their own neighborhoods using volunteer-based activations such
as pop-up public spaces. These pop-ups temporarily transform public
space and provide a way to celebrate local culture. Events such as
ciclovias, which temporarily transform how streets are used, can demon-
strate what is possible in shared public spaces that focus on people and
community building. Pop-up activations can help communities
conceive their neighborhoods in new ways and imagine how their
public spaces can become more inclusive and vibrant through
intentional designs and activations.
Public Space Policy 4: Prioritize a Welcoming,
High-Quality Environment
Create life-arming, welcoming public spaces that are human-scale
with clear entrances, open sightlines, and clear navigation. View public
spaces as a part of a network of quality open spaces that function and
connected unit. Emphasize positive messages regarding use; intention-
ally design spaces that are welcoming to all, with a focus on women and
children; and incorporate nature into the space. Maintain public spaces
so that they are safe, clean, and in good repair. Ongoing maintenance
and repair of infrastructure as well as a balanced security approach help
create a safe and welcoming environment. At the same time, avoid over-
policing and instead focus on creating a sense of inclusion.
Public Space Policy 5: Promote Inclusive Activation
and Programming
Establish intentionally welcoming public spaces using inclusive pro-
graming and activations that are designed to reach diverse audiences.
Inclusive programing and activations assist in keeping the space safe
and vibrant by increasing community stewardship and connection.
Review policies around permits and group sizes in public spaces to
ensure that multigenerational families and large cultural gatherings are
supported, as many immigrant communities tend to have a broader
denition of family and often have larger gatherings than the tradi-
tional nuclear family that policies tend to have been designed around.
Ensure that the activities and programs are designed to meet the needs
of a broad and inclusive environment by working with surrounding
businesses and residents to explore their interests, unique needs, and
potential contributions to the activities. Allow changing uses of the
space over time and allow users to shape the feature of the space
through movable furniture and other amenities.
Public Space Policy 6: Encourage Creation of New Public Space
Create a public space strategy that plans for revitalization and main-
tenance of public spaces and places to intentionally open them up in
inclusive ways, and site additional public spaces in an equitable manner.
Grow access for more people in more places through a variety of mecha-
nisms and tools. Public spaces should be considered in multiple spheres
of public life beyond the roles of relaxation and recreation and be seen
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 22
as crucial components of democratic life. The creation of public space
goes beyond the physical and the concrete. Consider the intersection
between physical space, laws and regulations that govern them, and the
people and communities who use the space as a shared commons.
Public Space Policy 7: Ensure Authentic Spaces
Connected to Community
Intentionally design public space to capture local identity and bolster
community pride by including the existing community in the planning
process and designing a space that meets the specic needs of that
community. Public spaces can and should function as the heart of a
community, creating safe space for public life that is social and festive.
Public space should reect and celebrate the community. Successful
public space creates a symbiosis between public and private uses that
support each other. Density of both public and private uses surrounding
public space help to create the energy, activity, and sense of ownership
of the space.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 23
For Further Reading
■ American Institute of Certied Planners. 1994. Planning and
Community Equity. Chicago and Washington, D.C.: American
Planning Association.
■ American Planning Association. 1992. Ethical Principles
in Planning. Available at www.planning.org/ethics/
ethicalprinciples.
■ American Planning Association. 2018. Diversity and
Inclusion Strategy. Available at www.planning.org/media/
document/9149453.
■ American Planning Association. 2018. Planning History Timeline.
Available at https://planning.org/timeline.
■ Bell, Jonathan Pacheco. 2018. “We Cannot Plan from Our Desks.”
Viewpoint. Planning, May.
■ Davido, Paul. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.”
Journal of the American Institute of Planning 31(4): 331–38.
■ Glass, Ruth. 1964. London: Aspects of Change. London: University
College, Centre for Urban Studies
■ Krumholz, Norman, and John Forester. 1990. Making Equity
Planning
Work : Leadership in the Public Sector. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
■ Next City. 2018. “Gentrication: A Timeline.” Available at https://
nextcity.org/gentricationtimeline#intro.
■ PolicyLink. 2018. “The Equity Manifesto.” Available at
www.policylink.org/resources-tools/equity-manifesto.
■ Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law. New York: Liveright.
■ Shapiro, Thomas M. 2017. Toxic Inequality: How America’s Wealth Gap
Destroys Mobility, Deepens the Wealth Divide, and Threatens Our Future.
New York: Basic Books.
■ Vazquez, Miguel A., and Linda C. Dalton. 2018. “Expanding California’s
Leadership in Diversifying the Planning Profession.” Northern News,
APA California Northern Section, September, 5, 18–20.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 24
Resources
Year Milestone Description
1963 “Comprehensive
Planning and Social
Responsibility”
Article by Melvin Webber in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners calls for profession to widen its scope beyond
the traditional base in land-use planning, embrace more directly the social goals of freedom and opportunity in a pluralistic
society, and make greater use of the perspectives of the social sciences (from APA Pathways in American Planning History,
2008).
1965 ”Advocacy and
Pluralism in Planning”
Paul Davido article on advocacy planning published in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
1975 Cleveland Policy Plan
Report
Report shifts emphasis from traditional land-use planning to advocacy planning.
1975 Planners Network
established
Chester Hartman sends out rst Planners Network mailing to 320 members. Planners Network is an association of professionals,
activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas,
who promote fundamental change in political and economic systems.
1975 Planners for Equal
Opportunity (PEO)
established
PEO is the rst national organization of advocacy planners.
1990 Making Equity
Planning Work
Norman Krumholz and John Forester’s book reveals some of the practical issues in managing a planning agency and explains
how planners can creatively use their position and technical expertise to challenge prevailing wisdom and to propose and
advocate for alternatives.
1992 United Nations adopts
the Environment and
Development Agenda
for the 21st Century
The Agenda 21 document, which was approved by President George H.W. Bush, addresses urban and rural development
issues, including poverty, inadequate shelter, environmental issues, and displaced populations.
1993 Social Justice and Land
Development Practice
Robert Mier, a Chicago advocacy planner and colleague of Norman Krumholz, was named economic development
commissioner under Mayor Harold Washington. This book of essays by Mier and others traces the evolution of his planning
philosophy and career and discusses the practical lessons and dilemmas of economic development planning in Chicago
during the 1980s.
1994 Planning and
Community Equity
APA publishes book as part of Agenda for America’s Communities eort.
1994 Journal of the
American Planning
Association (JAPA)
JAPA publishes Volume 60, Spring 1994, which revisits the topic of advocacy planning and social equity themes.
1996 Urban Planning and
the African American
Community: In the
Shadows
June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf’s book claries the historical connections between the African American
population in the United States and the urban planning profession. Thomas and Ritzdorf suggest if urban planning is to
support the equitable distribution of public goods and services, it must recognize and address the dismal conditions of
millions of Americans who are poor or people of color.
RESOURCE 1: A PLANNING FOR EQUITY TIMELINE
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 25
RESOURCE 2. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE FIELD
Year Milestone Description
1996 Environmental Justice,
Urban Revitalization,
and Brownelds: The
Search for Authentic
Signs of Hope
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council publish the ndings from
public dialogues held in ve U.S. cities.
2000 “Local Land Use and
the Chain of Exclusion”
Seminal article by Rolf Pendall in JAPA documents exclusionary land-use regulations based on survey of more than 1,000
jurisdictions.
2000 Concept of “fair
growth” introduced
Fannie Mae Foundation publishes Volume 2, Number 4, Winter 2000 of Housing Facts & Findings, which introduces the con-
cept of “fair growth.”
2000 APA launches the rst
Diversity Task Force
APA’s designates a member-led task force to explore issues of diversity in the eld. In 2018, the task force became a standing
committee of the American Planning Association.
2004 First APA Diversity
Summit takes place in
Washington, D.C.
APA members organize and hold the rst Diversity Summit during the National Planning Conference. The forum continues
and in 2019 was renamed the Plan4Equity Forum.
2016 Social Equity Policy
Guide recommended
At the recommendation of the Diversity Task Force, APA’s Legislative and Policy Committee begins work on a social equity
policy guide.
2017 Inclusiveness and
Social Justice Track
launches at NPC17
APA launches a new track during NPC17 focused on equity and clearly identies equity-focused sessions in the conference
program.
2019 APA adopts rst equity
policy guide
The Planning for Equity Policy Guide is approved by the Delegate Assembly during NPC19 and, following APA Board approval,
becomes the rst policy guide to solely focus on this issue of equity in planning.
RESOURCE 1: A PLANNING FOR EQUITY TIMELINE CONTINUED
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 26
RESOURCE 2: DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PLANNING PROFESSION
Women Planners
Non-White Planners
Figure 1. Women and Non-White APA Planners U.S. Non-White Population
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1977 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 2010 2012
Non-White
U.S. Population
Figure 1. Ethnic and Racial Composition of the U.S. Population Compared with APA Members
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
U.S. Population 2010
APA Members 2012
Latino/a (any race)
White
African American
Native American/Pacic
Asian American
Other
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 27
RESOURCE 2: DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PLANNING PROFESSION CONTINUED
Source (all graphs): Dalton, Linda C. 2014. “Changing Demographics, the Planning Profession and APA Membership,”
in People and Places Task Force Report. Chicago and Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.
Figure 3. Latino/a, Non-White, and Women Planners as a Percentage of
All APA Planners by Years of Experience (Data from 2008)
30 or more years
20 to 29 years
10 to 19 years
5 to 9 years
0 to 4 years
Women
Non-White
Latino/a
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 28
Endnotes
1 PolicyLink. “The Equity Manifesto.” 2018. www.policylink.org
/resources-tools/equity-manifesto.
2 Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law. New York: Liveright.
3 American Institute of Certied Planners. 1994. Planning and
Community Equity. Chicago and Washington, D.C.: American
Planning Association.
4 Prosperity Playbook was an initiative of HUD Secretary Julian Castro
codesigned by policy guide co-chair Lynn Ross who served as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 2014–2016.
5 PolicyLink National Equity Atlas, http://nationalequityatlas.org.
6 Johnson, Sterling. 2018. “6 Ways Cities Can Create Economic
Opportunity for All.” Governing. www.governing.com
/cityaccelerator/blog/minority-business-development-
policies-that-work-lc.html.
7 Ibid.
8 The concept of toxic inequality proposes that wealth disparities
must be understood in tandem with racial inequities. See Shapiro,
Thomas. 2017. Toxic Inequality: How America’s Wealth Gap Destroys
Mobility, Deepens the Racial Divide, and Threatens Our Future.
9 Segal, Brad. 2017. P.U.M.A. Global Trends Report.
10 Dalton, Linda C. 2014. “Changing Demographics, the Planning Pro-
fession and APA Membership,” in People and Places Task Force Report.
Chicago and Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.
11 Native American APA members are also working to reinstate the
Indigenous Division and overcome economic inequities to keeping
the Division representative and operational.
12 Vazquez, Miguel A. 2018. “Strong Roots, Big Plans: What Does
Diversity Mean Now for APA?” APA Blog, May.
13 Urban Lab. 2015. “How Ruth Glass Shaped the Way We Approach
Our Cities.” UCL Urban Laboratory, January 13. www.ucl.ac.uk
/urbanlab/news/ruth-glass-seminar.
14 Brookings Institution. 2016. “City and Metropolitan Inequality on the
Rise, Driven by Declining Incomes.” www.brookings.edu
/research/city-and-metropolitan-inequality-on-the-rise-driven-
by-declining-incomes.
15 Smith, Brendan. 2011. “Obama Needs a Just Transition Taskforce,”
Hungton Post Blog, March 1, updated May. 25. www.
hungtonpost.com/brendan-smith/obama-needs-a-just-
transition-taskforce_b_829162.html.
16 Schiller, Bradley R. 1994. The Micro Economy Today, 6th ed. New York:
McGraw Hill, Inc.
17 Eley, Carlton. 2017. “Planning for Equitable Development:
Social Equity by Design.” American Planning Association. PAS Memo,
March/April.
18 International Association of Impact Assessment, www.iaia.org/
wiki-details.php?ID=23.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 5, 2019. Environmen-
tal Justice webpage. www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
20 Palmer, Brian. 2016. “The History of Environmental Justice in Five
Minutes.” Natural Resources Defense Council, May 18. www.nrdc.
org/stories/history-environmental-justice-ve-minutes.
21 Eley, Carlton. 2016. “Environmental Justice Through Planning.” APA
Blog, June 6. www.planning.org/blog/blogpost/9101589.
22 Ibid.
23 California Environmental Justice Alliance. 2017. SB 1000 Toolkit:
Planning for Healthy Communities. https://caleja.org/2017/09/
sb-1000-toolkit-release.
24 Eley, Carlton. 2016. “Environmental Justice Through Planning.” APA
Blog, June 6. www.planning.org/blog/blogpost/9101589.
25 Grooms and Frimpong Boamah 2018; also see Karki 2017.
26 www2.fgcu.edu/Provost/les/IAP_Public_Participation_Spec-
trum.pdf.
27 Murray Ellis, Sheri. 2018. “Cross-cultural Communication: Lessons
Learned from Environmental Planning.” Lecture. September 27.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
28 Ellin, Nan. 2013. Good Urbanism: Six Steps to Creating Prosperous
Places. See pp. 89–92. Washington, D.C.: Island Press
29 American Planning Association, 2008. Policy Guide on Planning
and Climate. Adopted April 2008. Updated April 2011. https://plan-
ning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/
policy/guides/pdf/climatechange.pdf.
30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” Contribution of Working Groups I,
II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and
Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf.
31 APA. AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. www.planning.
org/ethics/ethicscode.
32 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Global
Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening
the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable
development, and eorts to eradicate poverty.” October 2018.
www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15.
33 IPCC Report 2018.
34 APA 2008.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 29
35 IPCC Report 2018.
36 Urban Sustainability Directors Network. 2017. “Guide to Equitable
Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning.” May. www.
usdn.org/uploads/cms/documents/usdn_guide_to_equitable_
community-driven_climate_preparedness-_high_res.pdf.
37 USDN 2017.
38 100 Resilient Cities, www.100resilientcities.org.
39 World Resources Institute. Building Climate Equity: Creating a
New Approach from the Ground Up. July 2014. www.wri.org/publica-
tion/building-climate-equity.
40 Howell, Junia, and James R. Elliott. “As Disaster Costs Rise, So
Does Inequality.” 2018. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynam-
ic World. Volume 4: 1–3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/2378023118816795.
41 Hersher, Rebecca, and Robert Benincasa. “How Federal Di-
saster Money Favors the Rich.” NPR. March 5, 2019. www.npr.
org/2019/03/05/688786177/how-federal-disaster-money-fa-
vors-the-rich.
42 APA 2008.
43 “Resettling the First American Climate Refugees.” May 3, 2016.
New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/reset-
tling-the-rst-american-climate-refugees.html.
44 Graham, Leigh. “Public Housing Participation in Superstorm Sandy
Recovery: Living in a Dierentiated State in Rockaway, Queens.”
May 2018. Urban Aairs Review. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
abs/10.1177/1078087418776438.
45 American Society of Landscape Architects. 2018. “Smart Policies
for a Changing Climate.” June. www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/
About__Us/Climate_Blue_Ribbon/climate%20interactive3.pdf.
46 ASLA 2018.
47 APA 2008.
48 District Department of Energy and Environment. “Climate Ready
DC: The District of Columbia’s Plan to Adapt to a Changing Climate.”
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/les/dc/sites/ddoe/service_
content/attachments/CRDC-Report-FINAL-Web.pdf.
49 FloodHelpNY. Center for NYC Neighborhoods. www.oodhelpny.
org.
50 McDonnell, Simon, Pooya Ghorbani, Courtney Wolf, Maria Jessa
Cruz, David M. Burgy, Swati Desai, Daniel Berkovits, and Renata
Silberblatt. 2018. “A Managed-Participatory Approach to Community
Resilience: The Case of the New York Rising Community Reconstruc-
tion Program.” American Review of Public Administration. Pp. 1–16.
51 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Planning, www.fema.gov/hazard-mitiga-
tion-planning.
52 New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program. New York
Governor’s Oce of Storm Recovery, https://stormrecovery.ny.gov/
community-reconstruction-program.
53 Casillas, Christian E., and Daniel M. Kammen. 2012. “Quantifying the
social equity of carbon mitigation strategies.” Climate Policy, DOI:10
.1080/14693062.2012.669097. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/
uploads/research/pdf/Casillas-Kammen-ClimatePolicy2012.pdf.
54 Hogan, Jack, and Emily Marsh. “Building Equity into Resiliency
Planning.” 2018. Presentation at the American Planning Association
National Planning Conference.
55 Vojinović, Zoran; Golub, Daria; Weesakul, Sutat; Keerakamolchai,
Weeraya; Hirunsalee, Sianee; Meesuk, Vorawit; Sanchez-Torres, Arlex;
and Kumara, Sisira, “Merging Quantitative And Qualitative Analyses
For Flood Risk Assessment At Heritage Sites, The Case Of Ayutthaya,
Thailand” (2014). CUNY Academic Works. http://academicworks.
cuny.edu/cc_conf_hic/395.
56 Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. “Making Communities More Flood
Resilient: The Role of Cost Benet Analysis and Other Decision-Sup-
port Tools in Disaster Risk Reduction.” September 9, 2014. http://
opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/ZAlliance-decision-
tools-WP.pdf.
57 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2016.
“Breaking Down Barriers: Housing, Neighborhoods, and Schools of
Opportunity.” HUD Insights. April. Pp. 1–35.
58 U.S. Department of Education. 2016. “The Condition of Education
2016,” Institute of Education Sciences. May. Pp. xxii–xxiii.
59 Glander, M. (2017). Selected Statistics From the Public Elementary
and Secondary Education Universe: School Year 2015–16 (NCES
2018-052). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National
Center for Education Statistics ,Table 4.
60 Oreld, Gary, et al. 2016. “Brown at 62: School Segregation by Race,
Poverty, and State,” The Civil Rights Project, May.
61 APA. 2012. “Planning in America Survey.”
62 National Association of Realtors. 2013. “2013 Community Preference
Survey,” Realtor Action Center.
63 Lerner, Michele. 2015. “School Quality has a Mighty Inuence on
Neighborhood Choice, Home Values.” Washington Post. Sept. 3.
64 Yoshinaga, Kendra, and Anya Kamenetz. 2016. “Race, School Ratings,
and Real Estate: A ‘Legal Gray Area.” NPR ED. Oct. 10.
65 While this was decided most recently in Burwell, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., (2014), No.
13-354, (Argued on March 25, 2014, and decided on June 30, 2014),
lawyers argue that prot over sustainability is advanced by econo-
mists with limited knowledge of corporate law.
66 Kann, Shayle, and Attila Toth. 2017. “How Wealthy Are Residential
Solar Customers?” GTM Research.
67 Kann, Shayle, and Attila Toth. 2017. “How Wealthy Are Residential
Solar Customers?” GTM Research.
68 In this study, GTM researchers identied more than 521,000 solar
installations in four states (New York, Massachusetts, California,
and New Jersey), representing 62 percent of those markets and 41
percent of all solar projects nationwide.
69 GTM Research, now Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables
provides critical and timely market analysis in the form of concise
and long-form market research reports, monthly newsletters and
strategic consulting services. See “How Wealthy are Residential Solar
Customers?” April 2017, p.5.
70 www.utilitydive.com/news/has-aps-invented-a-rooftop-solar-
business-model-for-utilities/296019.
71 www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Arizona-Public-
Service-Solar-Industry-Reach-Critical-Settlement-in-Content
#gs.GtoB6AE.
72 www.utilitydive.com/news/cps-energy-gets-1200-applications-
for-its-rooftop-solar-program-in-rst-4/405372.
PLANNING FOR EQUITY POLICY GUIDE
American Planning Association| planning.org/policy 30
73 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Oce
of Health Equity website. Equity Action Guide. www.colorado.gov/
pacic/cdphe/equity-action-guide.
74 World Health Organization website. www.who.int/social_determi-
nants/sdh_denition/en.
75 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. www.cdc.gov/
minorityhealth/strategies2016/equity_infographic.pdf.
76 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Healthy People
2020 website. www.healthypeople.gov/sites/default/les/Pha-
seI_0.pdf.
77 Braveman, Paula, et al. 2011. “Health Disparities and Health Equity:
The Issue is Justice.” American Journal of Public Health, S150.
78 Braveman,et al. S152.
79 California Planning Roundtable website. https://cproundtable.org/
about.
80 California Planning Roundtable website. https://cproundtable.
org/static/media/uploads/publications/sdoh/cpr_sdoh_-
nal_1-26-16.pdf.
81 NACCHO resource hub, www.naccho.org/resources.
82 APA. 2017. Healthy Communities Policy Guide.
83 U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. “A Position Paper on Cultural
and Heritage Tourism in the United States.”
84 Eley, Carlton. 2017. “Heritage and Sustainability: The Role of
Equitable Development in Preservation.” National Trust for Historic
Preservation Blog, June 19. https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/
special-contributor/2017/06/19/heritage-and-sustainabili-
ty-the-role-of-equitable-development-in-preservation.
85 President’s Committee on Urban Housing. “A Decent Home.” Decem-
ber 11, 1968: 7.
86 National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2016. “Out of Reach, 2016:
No Refuge for Low-Income Renters.”
87 2011 American Community Survey 1-year data, one race, table
S1701
88 Blackwell, Angela Glover. 2012–13. “America’s Tomorrow: Race, Place,
and the Equity Agenda.” Community Investments. Winter, 17–18.
89 Transportation Equity Caucus. “Why Equity?” PolicyLink.
90 Leadership Conference Education Fund. 2011. “Where We Need to
Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity.” March.
91 Semuels, Alana. 2015. “Suburbs and the New American Poverty.”
The Atlantic, January 7: 5–7.
92 CityLab. 2017. “Why Aging Americans Need Better Transit.”
www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/08/older-people-will-
need-much-better-transit/535806.
93 USDOT, FHWA, Pursuing Equity in Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning,
p. 3.
94 Sugiyama, T., Francis, J., Middleton, N. J., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B.
(2010). Associations between recreational walking and attractive-
ness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. American
Journal of Public Health, 100, 1752–1757.
95 Adkins, A., Makarewicz, C., Scanze, M., Ingram, M., & Luhr, G. 2017.
“Contextualizing Walkability: Do Relationships Between Built Envi-
ronments and Walking Vary by Socioeconomic Context?” Journal of
the American Planning Association, 83(3), 296-314.
96 Daus, Matthew W. “The Expanding Transportation Network
Company ‘Equity Gap.’” University Transportation Research Center,
2016, p. 19.
97 M. Oka. 2011. “Toward Designing an Environment to Promote
Physical Activity.” Landscape Journal, 30(2): 280-298.
98 IDA 2018 Top Issues Council Report: Inclusive Places.
99 UN-Habitat III. 2015. Public Space. New York.
100 Mandanipour, Ali, ed. 2010. Whose Public Space? International Case
Studies in Urban Design and Development. London/New York: Rout-
ledge.
101 Glaeser, Edward L. 2011. Triumph of the City: how our greatest inven-
tion makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York:
Penguin Press.
102 Chetty et al. 2016. “Eects of moving to opportunity experiment.”
American Economic Review 106(4): 855–902.
103 UN-Habitat III (2015) Public Space. New York.
104 Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
105 Prewitt, K., Mackie, C. D., & Habermann, H., eds. 2014. Civic Engage-
ment and Social cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of Social Capital to
Inform Policy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
106 Miller, Kristine. 2007. Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of
New York’s Public Spaces. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
107 Shaftoe, Henry. 2008. Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Eective Public
Spaces. London: Earthscan.
108 Armborst, Tobias, Daniel D’Oca, and Georgeen Theodore. 2017.
The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion. New York: Actar Publishers.
109 List adapted from IDA 2018 Top Issues Council Report: Inclusive
Places.
110 Vey, Jennifer. Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, Anne T. and
Robert Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking.
111 Reimagining the Civic Commons. 2017. Measuring the Commons.
Accessible: http://civiccommons.us/success.
112 Metzger, John T. 1996. “The Theory and Practice of Equity Planning:
An Annotated Bibliography,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 11,
No. 1.
