Evaluation in Urban Planning Advances An PDF

Journal ofhttp://jpl.sagepub.
com/
Planning Literature
Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects

Vitor Oliveira and Paulo Pinho
Journal of Planning Literature 2010 24: 343 originally published online 12 March 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0885412210364589
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/24/4/343
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Literature can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/24/4/343.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Oct 13, 2010
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 12, 2010
What is This?
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Articles
Journal of Planning Literature
24(4) 343–361
Evaluation in Urban Planning: © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
Advances and Prospects sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0885412210364589
http://jpl.sagepub.com
Vitor Oliveira1 and Paulo Pinho1
Abstract
This article provides an overview on the current debate on evaluation in urban planning. An initial evaluation state of the art is
presented in three parts: the evolution of evaluation theory and methods, the contemporary planning debate around different
perspectives and paradigms, and the nature and extent of evaluation practice in planning. The second part of the article
focuses on the growing emphasis on urban form issues in different planning systems. This comprehensive literature review
provides the background to support the authors’ proposal for a set of general principles to evaluate the implementation of
urban plans.
Keywords
planning evaluation, urban form, plan implementation, ongoing assessment methodologies
In the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century, on evaluation in urban and regional planning, and a first
planning became progressively associated with the rational- reflection on evaluation in planning practice.
comprehensive model. One of the distinctive features of this Closely following Alexander (2006c) and Khakee (2003)’s
then new way of thinking was the integration of evaluation in approaches, we analyze the evolution of evaluation through-
the plan making process. In a specific planning situation, the out the past fifty years from three different perspectives: a
decision maker would consider all possible courses of action, policy program perspective, a planning theory perspective,
according to a number of established ends, identify and assess and a welfare economics perspective. The identification and
all the consequences following from the adoption of each the characterization of the first and of the second traditions
course of action, and then select the most preferable alterna- highlight the development of generations of evaluation (Guba
tive. Another feature, distinguishing the rational paradigm and Lincoln 1989) and the tensions between different planning
from the classical paradigm associated to Patrick Geddes’s paradigms. The third tradition makes evident the importance
survey-analysis-plan, was the new way of considering the of evaluation methods and of some classification schemes
physical dimension of the city. While in the classical para- such as the model presented by Söderbaum (1998), based on
digm the emphasis was on the city—the survey works, the the degree of aggregation of each method.
analysis of collected data, and the preparation of a plan A number of issues from the contemporary debate are
intended to control the future of the city—in the rational para- subsequently approached: (1) the need for evaluation and its
digm the focus was on the process and the method, leading to integration in the planning process, (2) the timing of the eval-
an unintended devaluation of the city as the planning object. uation exercise, (3) the different conceptions of success in
This article focuses on the evaluation of urban planning, plan implementation, (4) the necessary adjustments between
providing a review of the state of the art and a number of the evaluation methodology and the specific plan concept,
recommendations to improve its practice. When a growing (5) the evaluation questions, the criteria, and the indicators,
number of studies and advances in planning evaluation are and finally (6) the presentation of the evaluation results and
being disseminated, a comprehensive and up-to-date review their use by decision makers.
of this field seems particularly relevant. An underlying con- The analysis of planning evaluation practice starts with a
cern throughout the whole article is the consideration of reflection on the existing gap between evaluation theory and
urban form as a fundamental theme in planning and in plan- practice. Beside critical situations, as the quasi absence of
ning evaluation.
The first and the second parts of the article contain a lit- 1
University of Oporto, Porto, Portugal
erature review. The review on planning evaluation is
Corresponding Author:
structured in three parts: an analysis of the evolution of eval- Vitor Oliveira, University of Oporto, Faculty of Engineering, Porto, 4200-
uation theory and methods covering the second half of the 465, Portugal
twentieth century, an overview of the contemporary debate Email: [email protected]

344 Journal of Planning Literature 24(4)
Table 1. The Evolution of Evaluation Theory and Methods
Welfare economics perspective
Policy program perspective Planning theory perspective Ex ante methods Classification scheme
First generation: Measurement Classic planning (survey-analysis-

of individual attributes plan); plan
Second generation: Description Rational-comprehensive planning; Cost–benefit analysis Highly aggregated
of programs, objectives planning process (method)
Third generation: Judgment on Communicative planning; planning Planning balance sheet analysis; goals– Intermediate
the contextual values process (practice, discourse) achievement matrix; multicriteria analysis
Fourth generation: negotiation Emerging planning theories; city Environmental impact assessment Highly disaggregated
of claims, concerns, issues
evaluation practice in some countries, one of the most evi- 1998, 2003). According to Guba and Lincoln (1989) the first
dent aspects of this gap is the dominance of quantitative generation of evaluation exercises was intended to measure
methods in practice, in contrast to the research field that individual attributes, the second generation was geared
seems to prefer qualitative approaches. After this analysis, toward the description of programs and objectives, the third
five evaluation methodologies are presented. was dominated by judgments on the contextual values of the
The second part of the literature review focuses on the object, and the fourth was centered around the negotiation of
importance of urban form within planning throughout the claims, concerns, and issues presented by the different stake-
twentieth century. One of the most significant changes identi- holders (see Table 1). In this process, the role of the evaluator
fied has been the progressive devaluation of the plan as the has also evolved, from an initial position where he or she
main product of planning activity and as the basic support mainly was a technician to later becoming a describer, then
mechanism to control the form of the city. This devaluation, a judge, and finally a mediator. The fourth generation went
which has steadily occurred throughout the second half of the beyond the strict scientific dimension, including the human, the
twentieth century, has been particularly evident in plan- political, the social, the cultural, and the contextual dimensions.
ning theory writings and not so much in planning practice. These American authors identify two major foundations for
Indeed, the focus of planning research has progressively their contribution, a responsive focusing and a constructivist
moved toward the planning process, decision making, the methodology. In recent years, several authors have criticized
planning discourses, and communicative practices. Neverthe- this simplistic vision of the three positivist generations, adopt-
less, and somehow expressing the cyclical dimension of the ing more consensual positions (Patton 2002; Knaap 2004) or
debate in any intellectual activity, the physical form of the city moving away from the constructivist paradigm (Pawson and
became again a central topic of debate in the past decade. Tilley 1997).
In the final part of the article, a set of general principles The planning theory perspective is the second to be
for plan evaluation is proposed. The definition of these guid- approached. Khakee (1998) argues that, from both a theoreti-
ing principles reflects the main theoretical contributions on cal and a practical point of view, planning and evaluation are
the nature of the relationships between evaluation and plan- inseparable concepts. Assuming that a particular planning
ning, the much-needed bridges between planning theory and concept presupposes a particular evaluation type, the changes
planning practice, the most adequate timings for the evalua- in planning theory affect the functions and the major charac-
tion exercises, and, finally, the emphasis on the products, the teristics of evaluation. Khakee defends a shift of paradigms
processes, and the results. from rational planning to communicative planning. Supported
on the work of Innes (1995), the Swedish author analyzes
eight theoretical positions developed throughout the past
1. Evaluation in Planning fifty years: rational-comprehensive planning, incremental
1.1.The Evolution of Evaluation planning, advocacy planning, implementation-oriented
Theory and Methods planning, strategic planning, transactive planning, negotia-
tive planning, and communicative planning. Khakee argues
The policy program perspective is the first to be approached. that while some of these (from the second to the fifth) were
In the absence of a general and consensual vision on the evo- developed as a response to the rational planning model,
lution of evaluation theory, many authors converge on the others (the sixth and the seventh) were developed as new
acknowledgment of a shift from a positivist paradigm to a ideas leading to communicative planning theory. This change
constructivist paradigm. Some describe this evolution in four of paradigms is also defended by Forrester (1989), Healey
evaluation generations (Guba and Lincoln 1989; Khakee (1996), Innes (1995), and Sager (1994). Despite some

Oliveira and Pinho 345
differences, also Voogd (1998) argues that as society is main criterion—the willingness to pay—and follows a simple
moving from a representative democracy to a participatory principle—the association of a monetary value to each iden-
democracy, so traditional evaluation methods will increas- tified effect of a project or action. To determine if the
ingly have a limited use in physical planning. benefits, or the desired effects of a project, are larger than the
On the contrary, authors such as Alexander (1998b, 2000) costs, or the undesired effects, a number of monetary classi-
and Lichfield (1998, 2001a) defend the use of integrated fications are summed up in a grand index. McAllister (1982)
approaches, in which rational planning sustains an important synthesizes the main strengths of CBA as follows: it is based
role. Mandelbaum (1979) asks whether any paradigm can on an established theory of value, it attempts to reflect the
answer all the normative questions of planners, given the values of all people, it uses understandable impact categories
complexity of planning, and concludes that a complete gen- and measurement units, and it has a valuable and extensive
eral theory of planning is impossible. Alexander (1998b, body of literature on its applications.
2000) proposes a contingent framework integrating four dif- Planning balance sheet analysis (PBSA) was presented by
ferent views of planning: rational planning, communicative Lichfield in the 1950s and, soon after, applied by this author
practice, coordinative planning, and frame setting. In this in a number of plans in Britain. It is an adaptation of CBA to
framework, the four planning models are complementary, urban and regional planning, sharing the basic theory and
not conflicting. Each model involves different kinds of techniques of the former. PBSA goes beyond CBA in two
actors, with different activities, in different stages of the aspects at least: it integrates nonquantifiable impacts, intro-
planning process. Consequently, Alexander (1998b, 2000) ducing symbols in the appraisal tables alongside with
argues that there is no need to substitute the rational model monetary impacts, and it records detailed information on
because in some situations it is still the most adequate model. costs and benefits, distinguishing how the different social
Also Faludi (2000, 2006) distinguishes between situations groups and stakeholders will be affected by the proposed plan
where planning is a technical exercise—and the rational under analysis. More recently, Lichfield (1996) presented the
model is the most adequate—and other situations where community impact evaluation—a natural departure from
planning is a learning process and new approaches are PBSA—with similar foundations on CBA and on the impact
needed. Lichfield (2001a) highlights the integrating capacity evaluation tradition.
of the community impact evaluation, a method presented in Hill (1968) presented the goals–achievement matrix
Lichfield (1996). Although agreeing with the need for alter- (GAM) in his PhD thesis in 1966 and synthesized in Hill
native approaches, Lichfield (2001a) defends that these (1968), as an attempt to eliminate the weaknesses of the
should be integrated within a more complex and diverse existing evaluation methods, particularly CBA and PBSA.
rational model. He recognizes the changes that have been This method has been used in the evaluation of urban plans
taking place in the evaluation and planning models required in Great Britain. The main characteristics of GAM are the
by a changing society. Nevertheless, and contrary to Alexander organization of effects according to the goals and to the dif-
(1998b, 2000), this author seeks the integration of planning ferent parties involved and the incorporation of nonmonetary
and evaluation within his model. effects in the grand index. The main stages of this method are
Rationality is another issue in this debate. Alexander (2000, the definition of goals and objectives in operational terms to
2006b) and Lichfield (1998) argue that rationality will always enable the measurement of their achievement, the attribution
be associated with planning and with evaluation. The former of value weights to the goals, reflecting their importance, the
describes the evolution of evaluation theories and methods identification of goals achievement to different groups, the
according to the different underlying types of rationality: sum of achievement levels in a grand index, and finally the
instrumental, substantive, bounded, strategic, and communi- adjustment of this index considering equity issues.
cative. This author argues that discussion should shift from Multicriteria analysis (MA) emerged in the 1960s in
questioning the link between rationality and planning to France. The electre-techniques and concordance-techniques
asking what kinds of planning and rationality particular cases, soon became dominant among the new evaluation method-
situations, or contexts demand (Alexander 2000, 242). ologies. The large number of MA methods that emerged in
The welfare economics perspective is the third to be the subsequent decade is classified by Voogd (1983) and
approached. A preliminary introduction on five of the most Nijkamp, Rietveld, and Voogd (1990). The former uses three
popular evaluation methods developed in the past five main characteristics for this classification—the way space is
decades must be done. included in an evaluation, the nature of the data employed,
Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) was initially conceived to and the measurement scale of the information. Nijkamp,
evaluate American federal projects on water resources and Rietveld, and Voogd classify these methods according to the
U.K. investments in transports. Later this methodology was number of choice possibilities, and to the type of information
extended to the appraisal of several kinds of public actions utilized. In general, MA methods adopt the form of a matrix
and projects. It is probably the evaluation method most with at least two dimensions, one expressing the different
widely used. The technique, although complex, uses one project alternatives and the other expressing the objectives

and the evaluation criteria. The relative importance of the 1.2.The Contemporary Debate
different criteria is reflected by an appropriate set of priori- on Planning Evaluation
ties or weights. As Lichfield’s method is inseparable from
CBA, contemporary MA is also strongly related to GAM. Evaluation in the planning process. The evaluation of plan-
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was introduced ning practice is a complex but most necessary exercise
in the American federal system back in 1970 to assess the (Alexander 2006d; Alexander and Faludi 1989; Baer 1997;
environmental impacts of major federal projects. Nowadays, Brody and Highfield 2005; Brody, Highfield, and Thornton
it constitutes one of the main policy instruments of most 2006; Talen 1997; Laurian, Day, Backhurst, et al. 2004). If
national and regional environmental administrations. The planning intends to have any credibility as a discipline or as
main objective of EIA is to produce better decisions, informing a profession, it should be possible, through a systematic
politicians and planners on the environmental consequences assessment, to have a real judgment of planning effective-
of their proposals and defining a number of measures to ness (Alexander and Faludi 1989). “Good” planning or
eliminate or minimize the forecasted impacts. The EIA “good” plans should be distinguishable from “bad” planning
process includes the preparation of an environmental impact and “bad” plans (Alexander 2002; Alexander and Faludi
study, a reviewing procedure, public participation, and often- 1989, 127; Baer 1997). The difficulties, the uncertainties,
times an ex post evaluation (Partidário and Pinho 2000). and the complexity of planning evaluation offer a context of
Strategic environmental assessment is another instrument of limited rationality, in which evaluation conclusions have to
impact evaluation, geared toward the evaluation of policies, be carefully bounded.
plans, and programs. It works with strategies instead of spe- Although planning and evaluation should be two insepa-
cific development proposals, operating on larger temporal rable concepts, there is currently, as indeed three decades ago
and geographical scales, with growing uncertainty levels and when Lichfield, Kettle, and Whitbread (1975) raised this
thus requiring greater flexibility (Partidário 2003). question, a deficient integration of evaluation in the planning
After this introduction on evaluation methods, a classifica- process. In a recent review of his seminal study from the sev-
tion scheme is presented. Söderbaum (1998) uses the degree enties, Lichfield (2001b) raises some key issues: the evaluator
of aggregation to identify three different groups: highly should be, right from the beginning, a member of the plan-
aggregated methods, intermediate methods, and highly disag- ning team; the evaluation processes and criteria should be
gregated methods. The highly aggregated methods intend to decided together with that team; the evaluation criteria should
sum all impacts in terms of a single value. This implies the also be the design criteria; and the required information for
existence of a consensus in society about specific valuation the evaluation exercise should be decided in the beginning of
rules. CBA is a clear example of this group of methods—the the process.
focus is on the quantitative ratio of benefits and costs. It is The position of Lichfield (2001b) about the relationships
essentially a monetary method even when nonmonetary between the evaluator and the planning team is not consen-
impacts are considered. Intermediate methods also use a sual in literature. Undoubtedly, there are advantages, but also
single quantitative indicator to express the overall utility of an disadvantages, in the integration of the evaluator in the plan-
alternative, but in this case the indicator has a composite ning team. The main advantages of an evaluation are fourfold:
nature reflecting different dimensions. According to Khakee a greater knowledge on the specific institutional context, a
(2003) these methods have been used in recent years but they greater probability of adopting the final recommendations, a
have been increasingly criticized because they do not pay suf- reduced possibility to look at the assessment exercise as a
ficient attention to the conflicting values of individuals. threat to the institution, and eventually a reduced use of finan-
PBSA and some types of multicriteria evaluation can be clas- cial resources. The major disadvantage is the tendency to
sified as intermediate methods. Highly disaggregated avoid negative conclusions and to accept the conventional
methods are intrinsically multidimensional and do not intend line of thought. The main advantages of an external evalua-
to show the overall value of the plan. On the contrary, assess- tion may be a greater objectivity in the evaluation and the
ment and display of different impacts intend to stimulate facility of external hiring during short periods of time. The
interactive discourses and consensus building. The design of most important disadvantages mirror the main advantages of
these methods adapts to changing contexts. Not only results an internal exercise. This reflection should also consider two
but also the way of arriving at them are important. These different possibilities, a mixed evaluation and an internal
methods combine inductive and deductive analysis and make assessment prepared by an evaluator independent from the
use of quantitative and qualitative information (Khakee planning team.
2003). This third set of methods includes EIA and the so- The timing of the evaluation. Despite the specific characteris-
called positional analysis presented by Söderbaum (1998). tics of each country’s legal framework, the planning process
Khakee (2003) identifies a link among this third set of meth- is frequently oriented to the preparation, implementation,
ods, the communicative planning paradigm, and the fourth and revision of its main product, the plans (Lichfield and
generation of evaluation (Guba and Lincoln 1989). Prat 1998). Each of these stages corresponds, or should

Table 2. Ongoing and Ex Post Evaluation Approaches
Conformance-based approaches Performance-based approaches
Alterman and Hill (1978), implementation of urban land use plans Damme et al. (1997), improving the performance of local land
use plans
Calkins (1979), the planning monitor Driessen (1997), implementing situations in rural land
development
Talen (1996a), methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans Lange, Mastop, and Spit (1997), performance of national
policies
Baer (1997), general plan evaluation criteria Mastop (1997), performance in Dutch spatial planning
Burby (2003), citizen involvement and government action Mastop and Faludi (1997), evaluation of strategic plans: the
performance principle
Laurian, Day, Berke, et al. (2004), evaluating plan implementation Mastop and Needham (1997), performance studies in spatial
planning: the state of the art
Brody and Highfield (2005), testing the implementation of local Needham, Zwanikken, and Faludi (1997), strategies for
environmental planning improving the performance of planning
Brody et al. (2006a), measuring the adoption of local sprawl-reduction Faludi (2000), the performance of spatial planning
policies
Chapin, Doyle, and Baker (2008), A parcel-based method for evaluating Faludi (2006), evaluating plans: the application of the European
conformance spatial development perspective
correspond, to a particular stage in the evaluation process. Ex presented in the next paragraphs covering the so-called
ante evaluation occurs in the beginning of the planning pro- conformance-based and performance-based evaluation.
cess and promotes the comparison of possible alternatives to Conformance-based evaluation means judging the success
choose the best solution for further development. Ongoing or failure of planning using one or two criteria—the confor-
evaluation takes place during plan implementation, and its mance degree between the outcomes on the ground and the
conclusions can lead to shifts in the planning process. Focus- plan proposals and the promotion of planning goals and
ing on the plan results and on the use of resources, this kind objectives through the available implementation instruments
of assessment requires a set of information that should be pro- (Alexander 2006a). This approach has been developed,
vided by an adequate data system. Ex post evaluation occurs among others, by Alterman and Hill (1978), Baer (1997),
at the end of the plan implementation process and focuses on Brody and Highfield (2005), Brody et al. (2006b), Burby
the impacts of the plan. This type of evaluation reviews the (2003), Calkins (1979), Laurian, Day, Backhurst, et al.
whole process of preparation and implementation of the plan (2004), Laurian, Day, Berke, et al. (2004), and Talen (1996a,
and formulates a judgment about its success. 1996b, 1997; see Table 2).
The literature on planning evaluation consensually sus- One of the first contributions to this approach was Alterman
tains the view that the study of the ongoing and ex post and Hill (1978)’s research work in Israel, measuring the con-
dimensions has a rather reduced expression, when compared formance degree between the land use plan proposals and the
to the analysis of the ex ante dimension (Berke et al. 2006; urban development patterns. Also at the end of the 1970s,
Brody and Higfield 2005; Brody et al. 2006b; Laurian, Day, Calkins (1979) presented the planning monitor, a mecha-
Backhurst, et al. 2004; Lichfield 1996, 2001b, 2003). Lich- nism to measure the achievement of plan objectives and to
field (2001b) analyzes the recent development of evaluation explain eventual differences between planning and urban
in planning in relation to the evaluation of programs. In the development. Influenced by these studies, Talen (1996a)
former ongoing and ex post evaluation have a marginal role, analyzes the distribution of public facilities in a particular
whereas in the latter ex ante evaluation is usually devaluated American city. In this article, as well as in a later article
because of the alleged difficulties of social sciences in pro- (Talen 1997), the author presents some proposals to improve
viding reliable forecast. Accordingly, this British author this evaluation approach: planning literature should focus
challenges academics and professionals in both fields to not only on planning failures but also on planning successes,
compare their works and methodologies. a substantive and object-oriented view of planning should be
Conceptions of success in plan implementation. In the begin- promoted, and planners should incorporate an evaluation
ning of this article, five evaluation methods normally used mechanism in each plan they prepare, establishing how to
during plan preparation were briefly presented. Planning eval- measure the goals achievement. The Plan Implementation
uation methods used in ex ante evaluation exercises are based Evaluation (PIE) is presented by Laurian, Day, Berke, et al.
on utilitarian or modified utilitarian principles (Alexander (2004) as an answer to Talen (1997)’s challenge to develop a
2006a). As a whole, these are distinct from the approaches methodology to assess plan implementation. These authors

propose the PIE, as a form of conformance-based approach, ideas in such a document as the ESDP is to provide the pro-
more suited to planners practice, allegedly because it reflects fessionals involved in spatial planning processes in Europe
the planners’ principles and intentions; because performance- with better knowledge of their working contexts and of the
based methodologies focus on structural and long-term directions to follow.
decisions, associated with high levels of uncertainty and, as In some few cases studies on plan implementation explored
such, are not very useful in day-to-day decisions; and finally the potentialities of an integrated use of both approaches
because in practice decisions tend to deviate from plans with- (Alexander and Faludi 1989) and their simultaneous applica-
out compromising their implementation proposals. Brody tion for comparative purposes (Altes 2006; Berke et al. 2006).
and Highfield (2005) argue that the absence of a systematic Alexander and Faludi (1989, 127) distinguish three views
evaluation on plan implementation is because of four main on the planning process and the associated criteria to evalu-
reasons: disagreements on when should plan results be deter- ate plan quality: planning as a control of the future, implying
mined or with what should they be compared, the absence of that plans not implemented indicate failure (Wildavsky 1973);
a consensus on how to measure planning effectiveness, the planning as a process of decision making under conditions of
difficulties of the analysis of planning impacts throughout uncertainty, when implementation ceases to be a criterion of
long periods of time, and finally the debate on the concept of success and it becomes difficult to provide rigorous criteria
success in planning. Chapin, Doyle, and Baker (2008) focus, of the quality of a given plan (Faludi 1987); and an interme-
as the former authors, on environmental issues, presenting a diate view that still considers implementation important but
parcel-based geographic information system (GIS) method assumes that, as long as outcomes are beneficial, departures
for evaluating conformance of local land use planning. This from plans may be considered acceptable (Alexander 1981).
method allows the identification of land use changes at the The policy-plan/programme-implementation-process (PPIP)
plot level, determining the amount and location of new resi- methodology, presented by Alexander and Faludi (1989),
dential development inside and outside hurricane hazard integrates these views and a number of elements that are not
zones prior to, and subsequent to, state approval of local normally considered in an inclusive way, such as plan making,
comprehensive plans. operational decisions, implementation, and the impacts of
Performance-based evaluation follows from defining a the plan.
plan as a decision framework (Alexander 2006a). The plan Altes (2006) compares the conformance-based and the
performance expresses its usefulness in filling this role. It is performance-based approaches in a case study of the Dutch
important to understand if, in what conditions, and how the national urban concentration policies. An application of the
plan was consulted for subsequent decisions. What happens former concept reveals that the urban containment policies
to the plan is the key for its assessment (Faludi 2000). Based conform well to the plan. Nevertheless, in the context of the
on the work of Fudge and Barrett (1981), who highlighted current stagnation in housing production, these policies have
the differences between conformance and performance, the not been able to improve the decision-making process. In this
Dutch school of planning evaluation (Driessen 1997; Lange, sense, the author argues that plans with high conformance can
Mastop, and Spit 1997; Faludi 2000, 2006; Mastop 1997; have bad performances.
Mastop and Faludi 1997; Mastop and Needham 1997; In the same way, Berke et al. (2006, 581) explore and com-
Needham, Zwanikken, and Faludi 1997; Damme et al. 1997) pare these conceptions of success in planning. These authors
has been developing this approach. sustain that plan implementation in New Zealand is weak. If
After distinguishing between project plans and strategic implementation is defined in terms of conformance, plans
plans and concluding that the conformance criterion is useful and planners have an important influence on the implementa-
only in the evaluation of the former, Faludi (2000) and Mastop tion success, but if it is defined in terms of performance, plans
and Faludi (1997) develop the performance criterion to assess and planners are less influential.
strategic plans. Providing a frame of reference for operational Plan concept and evaluation methodology. In the literature on
decisions, this type of plan does not have to produce direct planning and evaluation, there are a number of solid contribu-
impacts on the physical development process. On the con- tions to the relationships between planning models and their
trary, the evaluation of this type of plan should correspond to specific evaluation methods (Alexander 1998b; Alexander and
a detailed analysis of the decisions and actions of a number of Faludi 1989; Baer 1997; Khakee 1998; Voogd 1997). Despite
actors that are supposed to receive the plan messages. Faludi its reduced expression in the literature, the analysis of evalu-
(2006) extends the performance-based approach to the evalua- ation practice in real contexts provides some indications that
tion of the European spatial development perspective (ESDP). confirm the importance of these relationships (Alexander
Drawing on the distinction between planning as a technical 1998a; Khakee 2003; Seasons 2003b). As a practical illustra-
exercise and as a learning process, the author contrasts the tion, Voogd (1997) verifies the rejection of rational assessment
concept of application of plan messages to the traditional methods in some exceptional planning arenas in Holland,
concept of plan implementation and presents a method to where participatory and interactive approaches seem to be
evaluate the success of the former. The purpose of applying preferred.

One of the main challenges of evaluation lies in the lack The presentation of the evaluation results and their use by
of a single approach, valid for every situation (Rossi, Freeman, decision makers. In the end of the evaluation exercise, results
and Lipsey 1999). The literature supports the idea that each have to be presented to decision makers and to stakeholders.
evaluation situation possesses a number of specific charac- At this stage, the tension between communication require-
teristics that should shape the evaluation methodology. The ments and technical knowledge can become a critical issue.
evaluator should structure his or her methodology according Most evaluation methodologies rely on a technical sophisti-
to the specific nature of the situation and should not follow, cation and an advanced scientific knowledge that may not be
in a rigid way, a number of standardized procedures. In this readily understandable by the decision makers and the stake-
sense he or she should have a strong knowledge of the holders. The evaluator must decide between maintaining
strengths and weaknesses of each available method. the complexity and the technical detail and introducing sim-
The evaluation questions, the criteria, and the indicators. plifications to facilitate the communication process. This
Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey (1999, 78) define “evaluation communication should work in both directions. The evalua-
questions” as a set of questions—developed by the evaluator needs to understand what kind of information is the most
tor, the decision maker, and the main stakeholders—that significant to each of the participants in the evaluation pro-
identify the issues the evaluation will investigate and that cess. These are challenges that many evaluations fail to meet,
are stated in terms such that they can be answered in a way even when their methods and procedures represent the best
useful to stakeholders using methods available to the evalu- practices to date (Alexander 2006d, 273).
ator. The formulation of the evaluation questions is probably After the presentation of the results, the value of the evalu-
the most important aspect in the design of an evaluation ation exercise can be judged by the utility of the conclusions
methodology (European Commission 1999; Rossi, Freeman, and recommendations. This topic has been the subject of
and Lipsey 1999). research work, particularly since the 1990s (Rossi, Freeman,
Evaluation criteria are strongly linked with evaluation and Lipsey 1999), although not so much in the field of plan-
questions. Despite the existence of several articles on evalu- ning evaluation but rather in the field of program evaluation.
ation criteria (Alexander 2002; Alexander and Faludi 1989; Despite some slight differences of opinion among authors,
Baer 1997; Berke et al. 2006), there is a generalized view the literature on program evaluation seems to agree on the
that planning, as a profession, has not developed the neces- idea that only in some few cases are evaluation results directly
sary criteria to assess the quality of its products and used to influence the contents of the programs under assess-
processes. A consensual position in the debate is that the ment or the contents of subsequent programs. In most cases
plan concept—or the design criteria—should provide the the influence of the evaluation results is, at most, of an indi-
criteria for the plan assessment. In the case of an internal rect nature and rather slow to emerge. Weiss (1999) adopts a
evaluation, one of the necessary professional skills should decision-maker perspective to justify this fact and argues that
be the ability to formulate evaluation criteria as well as to pre- the search for the best or the wisest program or policy might
pare goals and objectives for a plan (Baer 1997). Alexander be only one of the reasons that leads decision makers to pro-
(2002, 192) believes that professional planners are not the mote an evaluation. But even when this is not their primary
only ones needing substantive plan evaluation criteria, but objective, decision makers are often subtly influenced by
also national planning systems to evaluate plans in the course evaluation, in what she calls a process of enlightenment
of their review, dispute, or approval. This would comple- (Weiss 1999).
ment formal evaluation, usually based on conformity with Several authors have been debating how to enhance the
procedural norms. use of evaluation results. Ho (1999, 2003) proposes the
An indicator produces quantified information to help refinement of a program theory close to the model developed
actors of public interventions to communicate, negotiate, or by Pawson and Tilley (1997). Patton (2002) argues that eval-
make decisions (European Commission 1999). The literature uators and stakeholders should, together and at an early
on indicators is vast. Much of the research emerged in the stage, define the purpose of the evaluation and the different
1960s and 1970s and was expanded in the 1980s and 1990s ways to use the information that will be made available by
with the emergence of the concept of sustainable development the exercise. Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey (1999, 436) pro-
(Seasons 2003a, 2003b). Traditional indicator categories pose five guidelines for maximizing the use of evaluation
include economic indicators, social indicators, and environ- results: (1) evaluators must understand the cognitive styles
mental indicators. These traditional categories were usually of decision makers, (2) evaluation results must be timely and
developed and applied in isolation, but in the 1980s this pan- readily available when needed, (3) evaluations must respect
orama changed with the emergence of integrative approaches stakeholders’ program commitments, (4) the subsequent use
on themes such as sustainability, healthy cities, and quality and dissemination plans should be part of the evaluation
of life. A third set—performance indicators—has its origins design, and finally (5) evaluation should include an assess-
in performance measurement and management systems ment of future utilization. Knaap (2004) argues that the
(Hoernig and Seasons 2004). actual use of the evaluation results can be enhanced by

assuming, as a starting point for the whole exercise, the analysis and GIS studies. Alexander (1998a) describes a
stated assumptions and objectives of the plan or policy under number of multicriteria evaluation exercises in Israel, with a
analysis. particular emphasis on the construction of the Trans-Israel
Highway. The author highlights the idea of a gap between the
prescriptions of the normative theory and the then current
1.3. Planning Evaluation Practice practice characterized by the lack of transparency and by the
Generally speaking, there seems to be a gap between evalu- inconsistency between scientific objectivity and decision
ation theory and practice (Khakee 2003). So far there is not processes.
an exact notion of the nature and extent of this gap because Seasons (2003b) analyzes the evaluation practice in four-
there are no systematic surveys on evaluation practice in teen planning departments in Ontario (Canada), exploring
local planning departments or planning agencies (Alexander the factors that contribute to or, inversely, that inhibit the
2006c). Nevertheless, a reduced number of studies provide a development of this activity. Organizational culture is one of
broad picture of the existing situation in some countries in these factors. It is related to the attitudes of staff toward and
Europe (Carmona and Sieh 2005; Khakee 2003; Lichfield the level of support to planning evaluation demonstrated by
and Prat 1998; Voogd 1997), in the Middle East (Alexander senior managers and politicians. Different attitudes and
1998a), and in North America (Seasons 2003b). These stud- behaviors explain why some planning departments are more
ies are a valuable help to understand the main differences receptive than others. The author emphasizes that learning
between evaluation research and practice, the implications organizations embrace evaluation as a means of enhancing
resulting from this gap, the factors that contribute to the the planning process. Opposite these are organizations that
application of evaluation in planning practice, and the pos- are averse to change and avoid criticism and tend to regard
sibilities of linking theory and practice more effectively. Five evaluation with suspicion and hostility.
evaluation methodologies, largely with an ongoing or an ex The availability of resources is another important factor. In
post dimension, are subsequently presented: the PPIP (Alex- the majority of municipalities, planning staff resources are
ander and Faludi 1989), the Means for Evaluating Actions of concentrated in the review and facilitation of development
a Structural Nature (MEANS; European Commission 1999), proposals (Seasons 2003b, 433). Because of all of the con-
the PIE (Laurian, Day, Backhurst, et al. 2004; Laurian, Day, straints that evaluation methods have to overcome, they
Berke, et al. 2004; Berke et al. 2006), the methods proposed should be simple, easy to understand, and easy to become
by Norton (2005a, 2005b, 2005c), and Brody and Highfield operational. Finally, Seasons (2003b) verifies that most of the
(2005), Brody, Highfield, and Thornton (2006), and Brody, departments prefer quantitative methods and indicators com-
Carrasco, and Highfield (2006). These methodologies can be plemented, in a minority of cases, with qualitative elements.
seen as alternatives or as complements to the ex ante evalua- After analyzing the major differences between evaluation
tion methods referred to before. practice and research as well as the main factors that influ-
The relationships between evaluation theory and practice. ence the use of evaluation in the planning process, it is
Carmona and Sieh (2005) analyze recent innovations in per- important to understand how research and practice can be
formance assessment in more than eighty local planning brought together and which difficulties need to be overcome.
authorities in England, reviewing the objectives and mecha- Assuming that professional practice will not adopt—at least
nisms of performance assessment as well as the assessment in a short period of time—the theoretical positions he stands
drivers and inhibitors. These authors report a fragmented pic- for, Khakee (2003, 349) argues that evaluation agencies in the
ture nationwide, but they highlight a number of promising public sector need an open framework for evaluation. This
initiatives that can lead to a more holistic assessment frame- means that those commissioning evaluation should not exer-
work. Khakee (2003) presents a set of studies prepared by cise complete control over what questions evaluations should
other authors on the evaluation practice in Sweden. Khakee pursue, how information should be collected and interpreted,
highlights the dominance of aggregated, quantitative, and and to whom the findings should be disseminated. This Swed-
rational methods in evaluation practice, contrasting these ish author rejects the idea of a value-free evaluation as well as
with recent trends in evaluation theory and research. Under a the excessive use of quantitative assessments and an uncriti-
more general and optimistic perspective, Lichfield and Prat cal commitment to the scientific paradigm.
(1998) characterize the evaluation practice in England, point- Bridging the gap in the other direction, Alexander (2005a,
ing out a stronger linkage between the three evaluation stages 2005b, 2006c, 2006d) focuses on institutional design. This
referred to before and a better integration of evaluation in the corresponds to the devising and application of rules, proce-
planning system. Voogd (1997) analyzes a number of multi- dures, and organizational structures that will shape behaviors
criteria evaluation exercises developed in Holland during the and actions so as to agree with held values, achieve desired
past decades. This author sustains that, in planning situations objectives, or execute given tasks (Alexander 2005b, 213).
with a clear hierarchic power structure, methods are more This author argues that before discussing the methodological
often used on a regular basis, while in more flexible situations questions, the objectives, and the criteria, evaluation should
evaluation methods are somehow disguisedly used in market be seen as a problem of institutional design. As such, less

attention should be paid to criticizing, modifying, and trans- the selection of plans or relevant parts of plans, the selection
forming the wealth of existing sophisticated methods and of land use permits, the evaluation of the linkages between
more to developing a useful model of contingent application. plan policies and permits, and the calculation of implementa-
Talen (1996a, 79) argues that the frequent shifts in the tool tion indicators (Laurian, Day, Berke, et al. 2004, 472). To
kits of theories and ideologies handed to practicing planners assess the interaction between plan and permits, it is neces-
have little hope of solidifying unless they are able to address sary to identify the techniques (e.g., protection of natural
the challenges of and steadily blend with current planning features, development controls) that were used to address the
practices. plan proposals. These authors verified that plan implementa-
The application of evaluation methodologies. The PPIP tion was generally low and that the final results tended to
model was presented by Alexander and Faludi (1989) at the have better scores in implementation breadth than in imple-
end of the 1980s as a framework to assess the implementa- mentation depth. Also, some variations in the overall scores
tion of plans and policies. Notwithstanding the influence of were recorded according to the selection of cities and themes
this model in the planning literature, from the early 1990s to in particular storm water and urban amenity management.
date, it has never been used in practice, or reported on, to the Norton (2005b) describes the application of an evaluation
best of our knowledge. The PPIP model combines three methodology in a set of forty local plans along the coastal
planning views and the corresponding evaluation approaches, zone of North Carolina during the mid-1990s. This method-
which are regarded as truly complementary. The model lists ology is based on six criteria. Three are process related—local
criteria—conformity, rational process, optimality ex ante, elected officials’ commitment to planning, overall plan qual-
optimality ex post, utilization—in a programmed sequence ity, plan use—and three are substance related—local elected
of questions to be applied to the policy, plan, program, or officials’ policy trade-off preference, plan policy emphasis,
planning process under consideration as well as to their out- plan use emphasis. In this study, a high-quality plan is
comes (Alexander and Faludi 1989, 134). Depending on the expected to demonstrate a strong factual basis, to provide
responses to this sequence of criteria, evaluation can be clas- clearly articulated goals, to employ a land suitability analysis
sified as positive, neutral, or negative. that clearly identifies natural and built environment opportu-
MEANS can be distinguished from the methodologies nities and constraints for development, to establish policies
presented here on two levels, conception and use. At the end that are consistent with the analysis, to satisfy different kinds
of the 1990s, in the context of the allocation of structural of consistency, to facilitate meaningful ongoing public par-
funds, the European Commission presented MEANS as a ticipation, to designate implementation responsibilities, and
comprehensive methodological guidance to the evaluation to incorporate monitoring and evaluation procedures (Norton
of socioeconomic programs. MEANS is based on four main 2005b, 59). Taken altogether, the plans under evaluation
criteria—relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, utility—and proved to be weak from an analytical and substantive point
three complementary criteria—clarity of the objectives, of view, making use of the undertaken analysis in a very lim-
internal coherence of the objectives (within the program ited way and establishing policies for land use classification
under analysis), and external coherence between the objec- and development with few references to the necessary con-
tives of the program and other relevant public policies. straints to protect natural resources.
MEANS establishes a typology of indicators in relation to Brody, Highfield, and Thornton (2006) examined the spa-
the processing of information, the comparability of informa- tial pattern of wetland development permits in Florida,
tion, the scope of information, the stages of completion of the verifying its conformance with the proposals of the local
program, the evaluation criteria, and the mode of quantifica- plans. Research intended to answer three main questions:
tion and use of the information. (1) how and where wetlands have been developed over a ten-
PIE was presented by a group of American and New year period, (2) if wetland permits are clustered in areas
Zealand researchers at the beginning of this decade. PIE designated for high-density development (conformity) or if
relies on the analysis of plans and permits to provide a rigor- they significantly deviate from the plan’s original spatial
ous, quantitative, and systematic way of assessing the degree designation (nonconformity), and (3) if the quality and con-
to which land use plans are implemented (Laurian, Day, tent of the original plan relate to its degree of implementation
Berke, et al. 2004, 471). Laurian, Day, Berke, et al. (2004, (Brody and Highfield 2005, 160). The authors tested the
472) define plan implementation as the degree to which plan level of implementation by using GIS to map all permits
policies are implemented through the application of speci- around wetland areas as indicators of the development sub-
fied development techniques in planning practice. These sequent to plan adoption. In this sense, they measured the
authors measure two aspects of plan implementation, breadth degree to which development matches the land use configu-
and depth. PIE has been applied to six New Zealand plans ration prescribed in the original plan around these sensitive
and to almost four hundred land development permits and areas (Brody and Highfield 2005, 161). The majority of the
has focused on storm water and urban amenity management. identified clusters of permits were in conformance with the
Undertaking an evaluation with the PIE approach requires proposals of the plan. However, a high degree of permit non-
the identification of one or several issues of specific interest, conformity was identified in the clusters with significant

deviations to the local plan (more than 15 percent of the per- 1955) and the systems approach (Chadwick 1966; McLoughlin
mits). In another article, Brody, Carrasco, and Highfield 1969) are fundamentally different from the survey-analysis-
(2006) used the same methodology and the same case study plan model that had so much influence on planning practice
with success to analyze the effective influence of five sprawl- during the first half of the twentieth century. Faludi (1987)
reduction planning policies in local plans. distinguishes the Geddes approach from these contributions
because of the fact that the former emphasized research
before plan making but did not rendered explicit the crucial
2.The Physical Dimension of Planning step of translating knowledge into action.
After the literature review on planning evaluation presented Paradoxically, when the rational planning model assumed
in the first part of the article, the state of the art on the mor- a hegemonic position in the planning literature, it produced
phological dimension of planning is described in the second the very conditions for its own crisis. To a large extent, this
part, revealing the authors’ concern on placing urban form was because of the increasing separation between two reali-
issues alongside the main themes on planning and planning ties, the academic world, more and more obsessed with
evaluation debates. These two sections inform the proposal planning theory, and the real world of planning departments
of a set of principles for planning evaluation. In particular, and agencies, focused on daily planning tasks and develop-
this second section (in complement to the former debate on ment control routines (P. Hall 1988). The criticisms of the
the timing of evaluation and the conceptions of success in then emerging models, from transactive planning to commu-
plan implementation) will be most relevant to support the nicative planning, focused on the value-free character of the
fourth and the sixth principles. rational model, the erroneous and dangerous notion of a
homogeneous society, and the absence of public involve-
ment and participation opportunities.
2.1.The Plan
Although many cities, since ancient times, have been designed
and built according to plans, until the end of the nineteenth 2.3.The Plan, the Planning Process, and the Results
century these documents resulted from an empirical activity In the mid-1980s, when the rational-comprehensive model
and not from an integrated and multidisciplinary view of the was under criticism, the topic of urban form started to steadily
territory. The modern activity of urban and regional planning emerge, once again, in the planning debate. With some differ-
emerged only at the turn of the twentieth century, mainly ences in their proposals, Beauregard (1990), Fainstein (2000,
because of concerns over public health and the protection of 2005), and Neuman (2005) seem to converge on the idea of
property values. The main element in this initial stage of plan- formulating a planning theory based on the city. Sternberg
ning was the plan, establishing a blueprint vision of the (2000) and Talen and Ellis (2002)—as Lynch (1981) did two
territory and the associated land use regulations to guide decades before—argue for a theory of the good urban form.
development according to that same vision. Talen and Ellis (2002) and, in a way, Fainstein (2000) sustain
The planning model corresponding to this vision was the that this theory, corresponding to a normative kind of plan-
well-known survey-analysis-plan of Geddes. In addition to ning, should be positioned side by side with other planning
Geddes’s main contributions—a structured method of work theories. Talen and Ellis (2002) share with Mandelbaum,
and a new city concept emphasizing the close ties between Mazza, and Burchell (1996) the view that the dominant theo-
the city and the surrounding region—a number of visions of retical frameworks enable the understanding of the planning
the city steadily emerged in the transition to and in the begin- process, providing a context for decision making and some
ning of the twentieth century. These contributions had a major important but nonspatial normative contents, but they do not
influence on today’s planning practice. We are talking about offer any reference framework to planners when the time
the well-known contributions of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, comes to plan and design specific urban spaces.
such as Howard’s garden-city theory, Perry’s concept of Throughout the past decades, three aspects have contrib-
neighborhood unity, and Wright’s broadacre city. In the Euro- uted to this renewed interest on urban form, the debate on
pean Continent tradition, we point out Soria y Mata’s linear sustainable development and the compact city, the emergence
city, Garnier’s industrial city, and Le Corbusier’s radiant city of new planning trends—particularly the new urbanism—and
as some of the most influential ideas of that same early period. the influence of other disciplines such as urban design and
urban morphology. Because of the nature and scope of this
article and the quality of the results already achieved, the
2.2.The Planning Process third of these aspects deserves a closer look.
At the turn of the second half of the twentieth century, plan- An important contribution to the resurgence of urban form
ning theory suffered a number of changes that led to a shift in planning debate was given, in the 1990s, by the concept of
of emphasis from plan to process. The rational planning model sustainable development because of its strong link to the form
proposed by the Chicago School (Meyerson and Banfield of the city (Breheny 1992; T. Hall and Doe 2000; Jenks,

Burton, and Williams 1996). Breheny (1992) focuses on the in England, the role of design guides as supplementary plan-
spatial dimension of sustainability. He believes that as cities ning guidance has been rather widespread. The development
are, simultaneously, the main consumers of natural resources of these guides has followed the pioneer publication of the
and the major producers of residues, a good design and man- Design Guide for Residential Areas prepared by the Essex
agement of these cities can contribute to the resolution of County Council back in 1973. This guide highlighted the
global environmental problems. More recently, sustainable needs to enhance the design of new residential areas and to
development has framed the discussion on city models such make the design responsive to the locality, less wasteful of
as the compact city model, stimulated by multiple initiatives space, and more attractive to living environments (Essex
of the European Commission. In the meantime, and follow- County Council 1973). T. Hall (2005, 2007) presents his
ing some criticisms of the compact model, other concepts experience as chairman of the Planning Committee of
and ideas have been proposed as alternatives to the compact Chelmsford Borough Council. After years of production of
city model, namely, the decentralized concentration concept poorly designed built forms and the loss of some historic
(Banister 1992; Owens 1992) and the growth regions concept buildings, a new political administration started in the mid-
(Valk and Faludi 1992) or the acceptance of sprawl as inevi- 1990s, the process of achieving higher standards of quality
table and indeed with alleged positive aspects (Gordon and and sustainability in the built environment. The main com-
Richardson 1997). Other authors, such as Breheny (1992, ponents of this approach were an investment in staff, the
1996), sustain a compromise between both tendencies. Two publication of a local design policy (which included the
decades after the beginning of the debate on sustainable adoption of the revised Essex Design Guide), the definition
development, it is rather consensual that it should be consid- of a long-term vision, and finally greater cooperation among
ered as a political goal and not as a scientific notion (Haberl the different professions within the Borough Council and
and Schandl 1999). Therefore, the discussion in the begin- the agencies involved in the process of urban development.
ning of the twenty-first century focuses on a more real and In 1996, the first planning brief was prepared for a major
measurable question, an urban environment with low levels housing site within the 1991–2001 local plan. Though the
of carbon. In this context, Haberl and Schandl (1999) iden- first design briefs were rather general, they already included
tify two research lines, the exploration of the concept of some important urban design principles. T. Hall (2005)
urban metabolism (mainly developed by the industrial ecol- states that, over time, there was a steady increase in the
ogy school, based on the initial conceptualization of Wolman amount and degree of prescription in design control poli-
1969) and the comprehensive study of land use and land cies. As several tools of design control became more
occupation changes. detailed, clearer, and more purposeful, so the quality of the
As it was mentioned before, the resurgence of urban form physical results improved.
as one of the main themes of the current planning debate is One of the main research themes in urban morphology
also from the emergence of new planning trends, particularly has been the articulation of urban form studies and planning,
the new urbanism. Its importance has been highlighted by particularly through the application of morphological con-
several authors and on several grounds. Fainstein (2000) cepts in planning practice. Kropf (2001) and Whitehand and
presents the new urbanism as a theoretical proposal along- Morton (2003, 2004) explore the application of the concept
side communicative planning and the just city theories. Ellis of fringe belt, corresponding to a zone of mostly extensive
(2002) portrays new urbanism as an ambitious alternative to land use that comes to be on the edge of an urban area during
the conventional practice of land use development in America, a hiatus in outward residential growth. The Stratford-upon-
characterized by low densities and car dependence (Ellis Avon District Design Guide coordinated by Kropf (2001)
2002). Talen and Ellis see the new urbanism as a proposal for and adopted as supplementary planning guidance in 2000
a theory of the good urban form (Talen and Ellis 2002), proposes the fringe belt as a fundamental element of the
embracing a vast array of ideas and contributions that have urban structure and of the historical and geographical devel-
been developed since the nineteenth century (Talen 2005), opment of the city.
not only at the urban scale but also at the regional scale Kropf (1997, 2001) has developed other key concepts for
(Talen 2008). bridging morphology and planning type, urban tissue, and
A third contribution to reposition urban form in the center levels of resolution. Kropf (1997) sustains that the concept
of the debate is provided by urban design and by urban of type can help solve some of the main problems associated
morphology. Urban design has been acquiring widespread with functional zoning. He highlights three principles of the
popularity, most evident in professional journals, government Italian school of urban morphology that can be used to build
Web sites, academic debates, and popular media (Madanipour a form-based zoning: existing forms are a result of learning
2006, 173). Beside moving from the margins to the center of and a record of past experiences in accommodating human
the debate, the dimensions and the scope of urban design activities and needs, built forms and human activities are
have also been widening (Carmona et al. 2003; Madanipour interrelated but the relation is not fixed, and the structure and
2006). Throughout the past three decades, and particularly character of a town result from both continuity and change at

various levels. These principles lead to three working assump- principles that can contribute to defining and structuring
tions: zoning regulations should take local and regional planning evaluation methodologies (also see Table 3). The
forms as the starting point for prescription, allow for mixed boundaries among these seven principles should be seen as a
uses, and permit both continuity and change. In the Stratford- tool to enable more effective analysis and not as a denial of
upon-Avon District Design Guide and in the Plans d’Occupation existing interactions.
des Sols (POS) of Asnières-sur-Oise and of Mennecy, Kropf First, the evaluation of planning is a complex and difficult
uses a synthetic conception of the urban tissue as an organic but also a rather necessary exercise. This need is supported
whole, whose form can be described at distinct levels of res- on the grounded belief that evaluation can contribute to a
olution: streets and blocks, plots, buildings, rooms or spaces, better planning practice. The main arguments are fourfold:
structures, and materials. These different urban elements are (1) evaluation legitimizes planning before citizens, provid-
interrelated in a hierarchy. Smaller scale elements combine ing sustained appraisals on planning products, procedures,
to form larger scale elements that in turn are parts of still and results throughout the whole planning process; (2) it
larger elements. Using the hierarchy as a framework, it is helps politicians and planners in complex processes of deci-
possible to systematically define tissues at different levels of sion making; (3) it tracks the course of planning proposals,
specificity by describing the constituent elements stepwise promoting an effective planning dynamic, in which sug-
through the levels of resolution (Kropf 1997, 131). Three gestions for changes or reviews in planning products and
specific characteristics are used to describe each element: processes are supported by the results of evaluation exer-
position, outline (shape, size, and proportions), and arrange- cises; and finally (4) it enables the construction of a planning
ment (type of component parts, number of parts, and relative practice based on a continuous learning process. The main
positions). challenge to start implementing evaluation mechanisms in
Based on the levels of resolution, McGlynn and Samuels planning practice is to make evident before politicians and
(2000) present the concept of funnel. The representation of planners the advantages of evaluation. This can be done
the variety of urban forms at different levels of resolution is through the promotion of an evaluation culture within the
given by the image of two funnels. In the first, corresponding institutional structures that undertake planning activities
to traditional towns, there is a wide diversity at the top of the (e.g., planning departments or similar agencies). While some
funnel (districts, streets, plots) and a progressively reducing structures might have the required characteristics to under-
diversity toward the bottom. In the second, corresponding to take this process in the short term, others may not. The
modern cities, the funnel is reversed. After verifying that, in identification and dissemination of real cases where the eval-
recent years, house builders and promoters have been uation practice is contributing to a better planning process
improving the design quality in the lower levels of the funnel, should lead to the progressive adoption of evaluation in other
the British authors focus on the issue of spatial continuity at cases. The following principles address a number of funda-
the higher levels. Within his professional activity (after the mental issues on the evaluation of planning practice.
experiences of Asnières-sur-Oise and Mennecy), Samuels Second, the design of an assessment methodology must
has been developing methods that are easier to use and that be clearly linked with evaluation theory. On one hand, the
consume fewer resources than the methods presented above. methodology will be improved by inputs from this body of
The POS for St.Gervais-les-Bains illustrates this develop- knowledge. On the other hand, this linkage will contribute to
ment (for a detailed presentation of this plan, see Pattacini bridging the gap between evaluation theory and practice, a
2001 and Samuels 1999). rather relevant objective within this activity. Despite the lack
Four years after the preparation of its design guide, the of an effective characterization of this gap, mainly because of
Stratford-upon-Avon authority promoted a study on eight the reduced number of research works on the evaluation prac-
residential areas (Larkham et al. 2005) and subsequently tice in local planning departments, this seems to be a problem
adopted it as supplementary planning guidance. Based on the to include in the agenda, as is the need to start building bridges
concept of morphological region, the study defined and sus- in both directions. The development of two specific proce-
tained a classification scheme and the proposal of two of dures can contribute to the establishment of the linkage. Each
these as conservation areas. Furthermore, it provides guid- methodological proposal should contain a view of evaluation,
ance on streets, public spaces, plot patterns, building patterns, reflecting its position on a number of fundamental issues in
architectural and historical qualities of buildings, predomi- the current debate. Furthermore, it is necessary to build a con-
nant local building materials, singular building, land uses, tinuous process with effective mechanisms enabling the
and vegetation. permanent exchange of data between theory and practice. In
other words, in spite of designing evaluation methods more
and more sophisticated, academics should work on the articu-
3. Principles for Planning Evaluation lation between theoretical and methodological developments,
After the literature review in the first and second parts of the on the practical application of their methodologies—if pos-
article, this last section intends to synthesize a number of sible, integrated into real planning processes—on the analysis

Table 3. Principles for Planning Evaluation
1. Planning practice should be evaluated

Why? Evaluation can contribute to a better planning practice
How? The advantages of planning evaluation must be clear for politicians and planners
Planning evaluation’s theory and practice must be continuously developed (see the next principles)
2. The design of an assessment methodology must be clearly linked with planning evaluation theory
Why? The methodology will be improved by theory’s inputs
The methodology will help bridging the gap between evaluation theory and practice
How? Each methodological proposal should reflect a view of evaluation
Mechanisms to enable exchange of information between theory and practice should be built
3. The evaluation methodology should suit the object under appraisal
Why? An object can only be fairly assessed if the methodology is adequate for that purpose
Each planning practice (the object) is framed by a number of specificities (territory, legal system, planning culture, etc.) that contrast
with the generic character of the model
How? It should be possible to introduce changes in the methodology based on the object
4. The planning practice (plan, process, results, etc.) must be evaluated as a whole
Why? Because of the evolution line of planning theory, the need to integrate evaluation in all stages of the process, the debate on the
two conceptions of success, the definition of evaluation functions
How? These different dimensions must be comprised within the general criteria of evaluation, the specific criteria, the indicators, the
data sources, and the assessment techniques
5. Evaluation and planning processes should be developed together, right from the beginning
Why? Evaluation and planning are not discrete activities
The integration of evaluation in later stages makes difficult effective contributions to planning practice
How? Defining the planning team, the evaluation team, and the framework for their relationships
Establishing together: a view of planning and of evaluation, the planning aims and the evaluation purposes, the design criteria and the
assessment criteria, and the data sources
6. The evaluation process must have a balanced development in time (ex ante, ongoing, ex post)
Why? Contrarily to current predominance of ex ante dimension, evaluation must comprise the whole process
How? Develop a theoretical and methodological comparison with program evaluation
Use the emergent set of methodologies focused on plan implementation
(As in fourth principle) the main parts of the methodology must comprise these different dimensions
7. The presentation of evaluation results and the analysis of their use by planning should be valuated
Why? It is necessary that politicians, planners, and citizens be able to understand the evaluation results
It should be possible to find the actual utility of evaluation results to the planning practice
How? Presentation mechanisms must find the balance between communication and technical knowledge
Establish the terms (and the required mechanisms) by which a successful utilization may be judged
of the use of evaluation results by planners and politicians and the city, and the corresponding evaluation practices. We
(to be developed in our seventh principle), and on the contri- believe this scheme can be the basis for the construction of a
butions of these experiences to the wider planning debate. contingent planning approach, where the importance of the
Third, the evaluation methodology should suit the object different elements is context dependant. Let us assume a
under appraisal. An object can be assessed only if the type of hypothetical evaluation of a land use plan. One of the meth-
evaluation is adequate for that specific purpose, under the odology’s generic criteria is plan rationality, and within this
risk of obtaining a set of false or unfair results. Therefore, an criterion, one of the specific criteria is the external coherence
evaluation methodology must understand the kind of plan- between the local plan and other plans prepared for that same
ning practice that it intends to assess. Each planning practice territory. We believe that when applying this methodology to
is mainly framed by the socioeconomic and environmental cities with a low planning dynamic and before the absence of
conditions of the territory, by a national legal system, and by other plans, adjustments may be introduced (although
a planning culture. To suit the generic evaluation methodol- weighted in the final result) and the articulation of the plan
ogy to the particular planning context, it should be possible with other instruments (e.g., housing or transport policies)
to change it based on that specificity. While the generic crite- can be considered.
ria of the methodology should remain the same, the specific Fourth, the planning practice (plan, process, results) must
criteria and the evaluation questions they correspond to can be evaluated as a whole. Four main reasons justify this state-
be adapted according to the specific context. Table 4 presents ment: (1) the evolution line of planning theory throughout
a number of current planning approaches focused on the plan, the twentieth century, particularly the way it has been deal-
the process (rational, decision centered, and communicative) ing with the urban form issues; (2) the need to integrate

Table 4. Planning and Evaluation Approaches
Planning Evaluation
Focus Main characteristics Specific criteria General criteria

Plan (policy, program, project) Planning as the control of future developments Interpretation of existing Plan rationality
frameworks
Definition of specific plan proposals to guide the spatial Relevance of plan
development process proposals
Plan coherence
Participation in plan making
Planning Rational Planning as a well-ordered process; a deliberative activity Commitment of resources Planning
process process of problem solving, involving rational choice (human, financial, etc.) performance
Emphasis on decisions, ends, courses of action, and use
of resources
Decision- Planning as a frame of reference for operational Utilization of planning
centered decisions and plan as a helpful device for decision proposals in decision
process making making
Incorporation of uncertainty in the planning process,
making it more flexible
Communicative Planning as a process of mutual learning Promotion of
process An interactive process focusing on decisions and actions communicative action
in different planning arenas and interactive practice
Planning products include the design of these arenas Participation in the
planning process
City Planning as a quest for a good city form Effectiveness (objectives, Conformance
Definition of morphological guidance to help results) of results
practitioners in the process of planning and Plan’s leading function in
development of particular urban places the process of urban
development
evaluation in all stages of the planning process; (3) the debate sources, and techniques should also reflect this comprehen-
on the two conceptions of success in plan implementation, sive nature associated to the definition of criteria.
conformity and performance, in particular in the devel- Fifth, the evaluation process and the planning process
opment of integrated approaches such as the PPIP; and should be developed together right from the beginning.
finally (4) the definition of three fundamental functions of Evaluation and planning should not be seen as two separate
evaluation—judgment, learning, and interaction with plan- activities. Evaluation and planning practices are cyclic pro-
ning. An evaluation methodology must be able to assess the cesses, and a number of interaction moments between both
different dimensions of planning practice: plan making, plan should exist. Right from the beginning, the evaluation pro-
implementation (including development control), and plan cess should be simultaneously structured alongside, and in
review. As such, the general criteria of evaluation should articulation with, the planning process to be able to provide a
focus on these different dimensions. The general criterion of set of contributions that can be used by planning in due time.
plan quality (see Table 4) should include specific criteria Thus, the first tasks should correspond to the definition of the
based on themes such as the articulation between the plan and planning and of the evaluation teams and to the establishment
its theoretical and legal framework, the relevance of its pro- of the mechanisms that should frame their relationships. A
posals, its internal and external coherence, and the public’s number of aspects related to this issue have already been dis-
participation in plan making. The general criterion related to cussed in the first part of the article. Both teams should work
process should comprise specific criteria regarding the rela- together on the definition of a common view of planning and
tionships between politics and planning, the availability of of evaluation as well as on the fundamental aims of both
human and financial resources, the promotion of communica- activities, on the design and evaluation criteria, and on the
tive action and interactive practice, and the public participation data sources to be used throughout these practices.
in plan implementation. Finally, the methodology should Sixth, the evaluation process must have a balanced devel-
include specific criteria related to the achievement of physi- opment over time, involving the ex ante, ongoing, and ex post
cal results on the ground and the influence of planning in the dimensions. Nowadays, ongoing and ex post evaluations in
urban development process. The selection of indicators, data planning have a rather reduced expression when compared to

ex ante evaluations of alternative plans. This is similar to evaluation methodology should suit the object under appraisal,
planning practice, where plan making tends to be overesti- (4) the planning practice must be evaluated as a whole,
mated in comparison to plan implementation and development (5) evaluation and planning processes should be developed
control. On the contrary, in the social science tradition of pro- together, right from the beginning, (6) the evaluation method-
gram evaluation, the ex ante appraisal is underestimated ology must have a balanced development over time, and
relative to the other dimensions. A theoretical and a method- finally (7) the presentation of evaluation results and the anal-
ological comparison between planning evaluation and program ysis of their use should be valued.
evaluation can be a first step for the construction of a bal- Throughout this article a number of gaps needing further
anced process. Furthermore, a number of methodologies, research have been identified, particularly between the theo-
specifically developed to assess the success of plan imple- retical proposals for a good city form and their practical
mentation, have been identified in this article and should be application, between planning evaluation theory and practice,
put into practice. Finally, the main parts of the evaluation and between planning evaluation and program evaluation.
methodology—the definition of general and specific criteria, The second part of this article focused on the physical dimen-
indicators, data sources, and assessment techniques—must sion of planning. Despite the presentation of a set of plans
comprise these different time dimensions, in complement incorporating morphological concepts and of good practices
to the different content dimensions presented in the fourth in urban design, we must highlight the need for further empir-
principle. ical work on the practical implementation of theoretical
Seventh, the presentation of the evaluation results and the concepts such as the compact city. Much of the debate on this
analysis of their subsequent utilization in planning practice model is still more in the realm of beliefs than in theoretical
are two important stages of the evaluation process that should arguments confirmed by practice.
not be devaluated. In the end of the evaluation exercise, The second gap leads us to suggest the realization of an
results must be presented to different audiences—politicians, international study on comparative evaluation practices in
planners, citizens—in an understandable way, reinforcing different planning departments. Despite all the different
the main arguments and the fundamental recommendations arenas of contemporary debate, it is surprising how little we
for a responsive planning practice. The key challenge is to know about planning practice within these structures. Empir-
find the right balance between communication (and a prac- ical work is needed to understand if evaluation practices do
tice focused on the quality of interactions and on consensus exist, if practitioners are incorporating the new theoretical
building) and technical knowledge (and a practice that and methodological developments, if evaluation exercises
emphasizes decision taking and aspires to optimal action). are isolated acts or continuous processes, what the evalua-
An effective communication and the subsequent use of eval- tion focus is, what the most common criteria and evaluation
uation results may be enhanced if potential users are informed questions are, and particularly if evaluation results are in fact
of the strengths and weaknesses of these processes and to influencing the planning practice.
what extent definitive results may be expected. The value of Finally, as far as the links with program evaluation are
an assessment exercise can be judged by the utility, direct or concerned, we believe that future research work should focus
indirect, of its results to planning. Thus, and similar to program on three main issues: the definition of evaluation questions
evaluation exercises, planning evaluation methodologies and criteria, the presentation of evaluation results and its
should include an analysis of how planning practice is actu- subsequent use in planning practice, and the exploration of
ally using the assessment results. Evaluators, planners, and the ongoing and ex post dimensions. The exploration of
politicians should not only share the understanding of evalua- these dimensions requires evaluation methodologies focused
tion purposes but also agree on the criteria by which evaluation on implementation. Based on the seven general principles
may be judged and build the necessary mechanisms to under- presented above, the authors are currently designing an
take this analysis. ongoing evaluation methodology, supported by three criteria—
rationality, conformance, and performance—that will be
applied to the land use plans currently in force in Lisbon and
4. Conclusions and Future Research Oporto. This evaluation exercise will be carried out by a
The literature review covered a wide range of topics, namely, team independent from the planning teams involved in the
the evolution of evaluation theory and methods, the contem- preparation of these plans. We believe that the experience
porary debate on planning evaluation, the practice of planning gained with these two different cases will provide a test of
evaluation, and the importance of urban form within planning our methodology and useful suggestions for improving cur-
throughout the past century. Subsequently, seven principles rent planning practices in each of these cities.
were elected to structure and guide the evaluation process in
urban planning: (1) planning practice should be evaluated, Acknowledgments
(2) the design of a methodology to assess this practice must The authors would like to thank the three anonymous referees for
be clearly linked with planning evaluation theory, (3) the their helpful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests Altes, William K. 2006. Stagnation in housing production: Another
success in the Dutch planner’s paradise? Environment and Plan-
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect ning B: Planning & Design 33 (1): 97-114.
to the authorship and/or publication of this article. Baer, William C. 1997. General plan evaluation criteria. Journal of
the American Planning Association 63 (3): 329-44.
Financial Disclosure/Funding Banister, David. 1992. Energy use, transport and settlement pat-
This research was supported by the grant SFRH/BD/17523/2004 terns. In Sustainable development and urban form, ed. Michael
from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. J. Breheny, 160-81. London: Pion.
Beauregard, Robert A. 1990. Bringing the city back in. Journal of
References the American Planning Association 56 (2): 210-15.
Alexander, Ernest R. 1981. If planning isn’t everything, maybe it’s Berke, Philip, Michael Backhurst, Maxine Day, Neil Ericksen,
something. Town Planning Review 52:131-42. Lucie Laurian, Jan Crawford, and Jennifer Dixon. 2006. What
Alexander, Ernest R. 1998a. Evaluation in Israeli spatial planning. makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local
In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environ-
ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul ment and Planning B: Planning & Design 33 (4): 581-600.
Khakee, and Anna Prat, 299-310. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Breheny, Michael J. 1992. Sustainable development and urban
Alexander, Ernest R. 1998b. Where do we go from here: Evalua- form: An introduction. In Sustainable development and urban
tion in spatial planning in the post-modern future. In Evaluation form, ed. Michael J. Breheny, 1-23. London: Pion.
in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Breheny, Michael J. 1996. Centrists, decentrists and compromisers:
Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Views on the future of urban form. In The compact city: A sustain-
Anna Prat, 355-74. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. able urban form? ed. Mike Jenks, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie
Alexander, Ernest R. 2000. Rationality revisited: Planning para- Williams, 13-35. London: E & FN Spon.
digms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Brody, Samuel D., Virginia Carrasco, and Wesley E. Highfield.
Education and Research 19 (3): 242-56. 2006. Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction plan-
Alexander, Ernest R. 2002. Planning rights: Toward normative cri- ning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and
teria for evaluating plans. International Planning Studies 7 (3): Research 25 (3): 294-310.
191-212. Brody, Samuel D., and Wesley E. Highfield. 2005. Does planning
Alexander, Ernest R. 2005a. Implementing norms in practice—The work? Testing the implementation of local environmental plan-
institutional design of evaluation. In Beyond benefit cost analysis, ning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association
ed. Donald Miller and Domenico Patassini, 295-310. Aldershot, 71 (2): 159-75.
UK: Ashgate. Brody, Samuel D., Wesley E. Highfield, and Sara Thornton. 2006.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2005b. Institutional transformation and plan- Planning at the urban fringe: An examination of the factors influ-
ning: From institutionalization theory to institutional design. encing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida.
Planning Theory 4 (3): 209-23. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design 33 (1): 75-96.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2006a. Dilemmas in evaluating planning, or Burby, Raymond J. 2003, Making plans that matter: Citizen
back to basics: What is planning for? Paper presented at the sec- involvement and government action. Journal of the American
ond World Planning Schools Congress, Mexico City. Planning Association 69 (1): 33-49.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2006b. Evaluations and rationalities: Reason- Calkins, Hugh W. 1979. The planning monitor: An accountability
ing with values in planning. In Evaluation in planning: Evolu- theory of plan evaluation. Environment and Planning A 11 (7):
tion and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 39-52. Aldershot, 745-58.
UK: Ashgate. Carmona, Matthew, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, and Steven Tiesdell. 2003.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2006c. Evolution and status: Where is plan- Public places, urban spaces. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
ning evaluation today and how did it get here? In Evaluation Carmona, Matthew, and Louie Sieh. 2005. Performance measure-
in planning: Evolution and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, ment innovation in English planning authorities. Planning The-
3-16. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. ory & Practice 6 (3): 303-33.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2006d. Problems and prospects: Dilemmas in Chadwick, George F. 1966. A systems view of planning. Journal of
evaluation and directions for the future. In Evaluation in plan- the Town Planning Institute 52 (5): 184-86.
ning: Evolution and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 267-76. Chapin, Timothy S., Robert E. Doyle, and Earl J. Baker. 2008. A
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. parcel-based GIS method for evaluating conformance of local
Alexander, Ernest R., and Andreas Faludi. 1989. Planning and plan land-use planning with a state mandate to reduce exposure to
implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and hurricane flooding. Environment and Planning B: Planning &
Planning B: Planning & Design 16 (1): 127-40. Design 35 (2): 261-79.
Alterman, Rachel, and Morris Hill. 1978. Implementation of urban Damme, L., M. Galle, M. Pen-Stoetermeer, and K. Verdaas. 1997.
land use plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 33 Improving the performance of local land-use plans. Environment
(1): 274-85. and Planning B: Planning & Design 24 (6): 833-44.

Driessen, Peter J. 1997. Performance and implementing institutions in

rural land development. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Ho, Suet Y. 1999. Evaluating urban regeneration programmes in
Design 24 (6): 807-13. Britain. Exploring the potential of the realist approach. Evalua-
Ellis, Cliff. 2002. The new urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Jour- tion 5 (4): 422-38.
nal of Urban Design 7 (3): 261-91. Ho, Suet Y. 2003. Evaluating British urban policy: Ideology, con-
Essex County Council. 1973. The Essex design guide for residential flict and compromise. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
areas. Chelmsford, UK: Essex County Council. Hoernig, Heidi, and Mark L. Seasons. 2004. Monitoring of indi-
European Commission. 1999. MEANS collection—Evaluating cators in local and regional planning practice: Concepts and
socio-economic programmes. Luxembourg: Official Publica- issues. Planning Practice & Research 19 (1): 81-99.
tions Office of the European Communities. Innes, Judith E. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: com-
Fainstein, Susan S. 2000. New directions in planning theory. Urban municative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning
Affairs Review 35 (4): 451-78. Education and Research 14 (3): 183-90.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2005. Planning theory and the city. Journal of Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams. 1996. The com-
Planning Education and Research 25 (2): 121-30. pact city: A sustainable urban form? London: E & FN Spon.
Faludi, Andreas. 1987. A decision-centred view of environmental Khakee, Abdul. 1998. Evaluation and planning: Inseparable concepts.
planning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Town Planning Review 69 (4): 359-74.
Faludi, Andreas. 2000. The performance of spatial planning. Plan- Khakee, Abdul. 2003. The emerging gap between evaluation
ning Practice & Research 15 (4): 299-318. research and practice. Evaluation 9 (3): 340-52.
Faludi, Andreas. 2006. Evaluating plans: The application of the Knaap, Peter. 2004. Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possi-
European spatial development perspective. In Evaluation in bilities and changes. Evaluation 10 (1): 16-34.
planning: Evolution and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, Kropf, Karl. 1997. Typological zoning. In Typological process and
119-43. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. design theory, ed. Atilio Petruccioli, 127-40. Cambridge, MA:
Forrester, John. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture.
University of California Press. Kropf, Karl, ed. 2001. Stratford-upon-Avon district design guide.
Fudge, Colin, and Susan Barrett. 1981. Reconstruction of the field Stratford-upon-Avon, UK: Stratford-upon-Avon District Council.
of analysis. In Policy and action: Essays on the implementa- Lange, M., Hans Mastop, and Tejo Spit. 1997. Performance of
tion of public policy, ed. Susan Barrett and Colin Fudge, 249-78. national policies. Environment and Planning B: Planning &
London: Methuen. Design 24 (6): 845-58.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities Larkham, Peter, David Chapman, Nick Morton, and Alex
a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Birkhamshaw, eds. 2005. Stratford-upon-Avon District resi-
Association 63 (1): 95-106. dential character study. Stratford-upon-Avon, UK: Stratford-
Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation upon-Avon District Council.
evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Laurian, Lucie, Maxine Day, Michael Backhurst, Philip Berke, Neil
Haberl, Helmut, and Heinz Schandl. 1999. Indicators of sustainable Ericksen, Jan Crawford, Jennifer Dixon, and Sarah Chapman.
land use: Concepts for the analysis of society-nature interrela- 2004. What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agen-
tions and implications for sustainable development. Environ- cies and developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and
ment Management and Health 10 (3): 177-90. Management 47 (4): 555-77.
Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of Laurian, Lucie, Maxine Day, Philip Berke, Neil Ericksen, Michael
urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Oxford, Backhurst, Jan Crawford, and Jennifer Dixon. 2004. Evaluating
UK: Blackwell. plan implementation. A conformance-based methodology. Jour-
Hall, Tony. 2005. Achieving design quality in the average modern nal of the American Planning Association 70 (4): 471-80.
European town—The example of Chelmsford. Paper presented Lichfield, Nathaniel. 1996. Community impact evaluation. London:
at the annual conference of the Association of European Schools UCL Press.
of Planning, Vienna. Lichfield, Nathaniel. 1998. Trends in planning evaluation: A British
Hall, Tony. 2007. Turning a town around a proactive approach to perspective. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of
urban design. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino
Hall, Tony, and James Doe. 2000. Design control policies for small Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Anna Prat, 1-15. Dordrecht, Nether-
areas: The Dacorum Residential Area Character Study. Plan- lands: Kluwer.
ning Theory & Practice 1 (2): 235-56. Lichfield, Nathaniel. 2001a. The philosophy and role of community
Healey, Patsy. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory impact evaluation in the planning system. In Recent develop-
and its implications for spatial strategy foundation. Environment ments in evaluation, ed. Henk Voogd, 153-73. Groningen, Neth-
and Planning B: Planning & Design 23 (2): 217-34. erlands: Geopress.
Hill, Morris. 1968. A goals-achievement matrix for evaluating Lichfield, Nathaniel. 2001b. Where do we go from here? In Recent
alternative plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners developments in evaluation, ed. Henk Voogd, 7-15. Groningen,
34(1) 19-29. Netherlands: Geopress.

Lichfield, Nathaniel. 2003. Planned development and its children. Owens, Susan E. 1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and
Planning Theory & Practice 4 (1): 48-65. land-use planning. In Sustainable development and urban form,
Lichfield, Nathaniel, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitbread. 1975. ed. M. Breheny, 79-105. London: Pion.
Evaluation in the planning process. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Partidário, Maria R. 2003. Guia para avaliação estratégica de
Lichfield, Nathaniel, and Anna Prat. 1998. Linking ex-ante impactes em ordenamento do território. Lisbon: MCOTA/
and ex-post evaluation in British town planning. In Evalu- DGOTDU.
ation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Partidário, Maria R., and Paulo C. Pinho. 2000. Guia de apoio ao
Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul novo regime de avaliação de impacte ambiental. Lisbon: Insti-
Khakee, and Anna Prat, 283-98. Dordrecht, Netherlands: tuto de Promoção Ambiental.
Kluwer. Pattacini, Laurence. 2001. Landscape and design guidance: Saint
Lynch, Kevin. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gervais-les-Bains, a case-study. Journal of Urban Design 6 (3):
Madanipour, Ali. 2006. Roles and challenges of urban design. 317-25.
Journal of Urban Design 11 (2): 173-93. Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation
Mandelbaum, Seymour J. 1979. A complete general theory of plan- methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ning is impossible. Policy Sciences 11 (1): 59-71. Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realist evaluation. Thousand
Mandelbaum, Seymour J., Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell. Oaks, CA: Sage.
1996. Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rossi, Peter H., Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Lipsey 1999. Eval-
Center for Urban Policy Research. uation, a systematic approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mastop, Hans. 1997. Performance in Dutch spatial planning. Sager, Tore. 1994. Communicative planning theory. Aldershot, UK:
Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design 24 (6): Avebury.
807-13. Samuels, Ivor. 1999. A typomorfological approach to design: The
Mastop, Hans, and Andreas Faludi. 1997. Evaluation of strategic plan for St. Gervais. Urban Design International 4 (3-4): 129-41.
plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Seasons, Mark L. 2003a. Indicators and core area planning:
Planning & Design 24 (6): 815-32. Applications in Canada’s mid-size cities. Planning Practice &
Mastop, Hans, and Barrie Needham. 1997. Performance studies in Research 18 (1): 63-80.
spatial planning: The state of the art. Environment and Planning Seasons, Mark L. 2003b. Monitoring and evaluation in municipal
B: Planning & Design 24 (6): 881-88. planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (4):
McAllister, Donald. 1982. Evaluation in environmental planning. 430-40.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Söderbaum, Peter. 1998. Economics and ecological sustainability:
McGlynn, Sue, and Ivor Samuels. 2000. The funnel, the sieve and An actor network approach to evaluation. In Evaluation in plan-
the template: Towards an operational urban morphology. Urban ning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lich-
Morphology 4 (2): 79-89. field, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Anna
McLoughlin, J. B. 1969. Urban and regional planning: A systems Prat, 51-72. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
approach. London: Faber. Sternberg, Ernest. 2000. An integrative theory of urban design.
Meyerson, Martin, and Edward Banfield. 1955. Politics, planning Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265-78.
and the public interest: The case of public housing in Chicago. Talen, Emily. 1996a. After the plans: Methods to evaluate the
New York: Free Press. implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Educa-
Needham, Barrie, Tim Zwanikken, and Andreas Faludi. 1997. tion and Research 16 (1): 79-91.
Strategies for improving the performance of planning: Some Talen, Emily. 1996b. Do plans get implemented? A review of evalu-
empirical research. Environment and Planning B: Planning & ation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature 10 (3): 248-59.
Design 24 (6): 871-80. Talen, Emily. 1997. Success, failure and conformance: An alterna-
Neuman, Michael. 2005. Notes on the uses and scope of city plan- tive approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Plan-
ning theory. Planning Theory 4 (2): 123-45. ning B: Planning & Design 24 (4): 573-87.
Nijkamp, Peter, Piet Rietveld, and Henk Voogd. 1990. Multicriteria Talen, Emily. 2005. New urbanism & American planning: The con-
evaluation in physical planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier. flict of cultures. New York: Routledge.
Norton, Richard K. 2005a. Local commitment to state-mandated Talen, Emily. 2008. Beyond the front porch: Regionalist ideals in the
planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Educa- new urbanism movement. Journal of Planning History 7 (1): 20-47.
tion and Research 25 (2): 149-71. Talen, Emily, and Cliff Ellis. 2002. Beyond relativism: Reclaiming
Norton, Richard K. 2005b. More and better local planning: A state- the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education
mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of and Research 22 (1): 36-49.
the American Planning Association 71 (1): 55-71. Valk, Arnold J., and Andreas Faludi. 1992. Growth regions and
Norton, Richard K. 2005c. Striking the balance between environ- the future of Dutch planning doctrine. In Sustainable devel-
ment and economy in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Envi- opment and urban form, ed. Michael J. Breheny, 122-37.
ronmental Planning and Management 4 (2): 177-207. London: Pion.

Voogd, Henk. 1983. Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional Whitehand, Jeremy W., and Nick Morton. 2004. Urban mor-
planning. London: Pion. phology and planning: The case of fringe belts. Cities 21
Voogd, Henk. 1997. The changing role of evaluation methods in (4): 275-89.
a changing planning environment: Some Dutch experiences. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. If planning is everything maybe is noth-
European Planning Studies 5 (2): 257-66. ing. Policy Sciences 4 (2): 127-53.
Voogd, Henk. 1998. The communicative ideology and ex-ante Wolman, Abel. 1969. The metabolism of cities. Scientific American
planning evaluation. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the 213:179-90.
challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barba-
nente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Anna Prat, 113-26. Dor- Bios
drecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Vitor Oliveira is a Post-Doc Researcher at CITTA, whose research
Weiss, Carol H. 1999. The interface between evaluation and public has been focusing on a triangle built around three main subjects,
policy. Evaluation 5 (4): 468-86. Planning, Evaluation and Urban Morphology.
Whitehand, Jeremy W., and Nick Morton. 2003. Fringe belts
and the recycling of urban land: An academic concept and Paulo Pinho is a professor of planning at the Faculty of Engineer-
planning practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning & ing, University of Oporto, founder and Director of CITTA and of
Design 30 (6): 819-39. the MSc in Planning and Design of the Urban Environment.

Evaluation in Urban Planning Advances An PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation in Urban Planning Advances An PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation in Urban Planning Advances An PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the focus of the literature review?

What is the focus of the literature review?

What are the three parts that the review on planning evaluation is structured into?

What are the three parts that the review on planning evaluation is structured into?

Journal ofhttp://jpl.sagepub.

Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Oct 13, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 12, 2010

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Vitor Oliveira1 and Paulo Pinho1

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Table 1. The Evolution of Evaluation Theory and Methods

Welfare economics perspective

First generation: Measurement Classic planning (survey-analysis-

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Table 2. Ongoing and Ex Post Evaluation Approaches

Conformance-based approaches Performance-based approaches

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Table 3. Principles for Planning Evaluation

1. Planning practice should be evaluated

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Table 4. Planning and Evaluation Approaches

Focus Main characteristics Specific criteria General criteria

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Driessen, Peter J. 1997. Performance and implementing institutions in

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at YORK UNIV LIBRARIES on February 14, 2012

You might also like