Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 742

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?: An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans

Berke, Philip R., Conroy, Maria Manta·2000·Journal of the American Planning Association
DOI 10.1080/01944360008976081
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article sets forth a set of six principles that define and operationalize the concept of sustainable development. Using these six principles, a sample of 30 comprehensive plans was evaluated to determine how well their policies support sustainable development. Findings indicate no significant differences in how extensively sustain-ability principles are supported between the plans that state an intention to integrate sustainable development and those that do not. In addition, these plans do not provide balanced support of all six sustainability principles, as they support some principles significantly more than others.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01944360008976081

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 742

Metadata

Authors
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Planning Association
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-03-31
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
21-33
ISSN
  • 0194-4363 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0130
DOI
10.1080/01944360008976081
OpenAlex
W2137211505
Cited by
742
References
0
FWCI
63.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?: An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01944360008976081
The paper
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?: An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.