The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

The implementation of municipal master plans and the ongoing evaluation process
Vtor Oliveira & Paulo Pinho CITTA Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculty of Engineering, University of Oporto, [email protected] & [email protected] Phone/fax numbers: 351 22 508 19 03 - 351 22 508 14 86

Abstract
The structure, form and functions of our cities are the result of planned and spontaneous developments. In this paper the authors argue that a deeper understanding of the physical aspects of planning could be achieved through new forms of dialog with related scientific fields. A triangle built around three main subjects, Planning, Evaluation and Urban Morphology will be the focus of the debate. A number of specific contributions are selected from the overview of these three scientific fields. This overview supports the methodological proposal to evaluate urban planning practice. Based on previous work on the planning practice in the cities of Lisbon and Oporto, the authors establish the terms and conditions to apply this methodology. Keywords: Local planning; evaluation; urban morphology; planning methods

Introduction
In this paper the authors argue that a deeper understanding of the physical aspects of planning could be achieved through new forms of dialog with related scientific fields, namely urban morphology and evaluation. Planning the different and complex dimensions of the urban phenomena have been suffering, in recent decades, important changes. One of the most significant changes has surely to do with our new perception of the role of land-use plans, somehow devaluated as planning products intended to control the physical form of a city, in comparison to the increasing importance placed on the plan-making process, as part of a wider planning process, closely related to decision making, the emergence of new planning discourses and of the community planning paradigm. And yet, the planning debate that characterizes the first years of the XXI century have not neglected the role of the physical form of our cities with the rise of urban design as an increasingly important topic of planning practice and research. In the urban morphology field, in particular, the emergence of an interesting interdisciplinary platform is identified. On this platform seem to converge three European schools the British, the Italian and the French that have been studying, separately and since the early 1950s, different aspects of urban form approached from different disciplinary perspectives. Evaluation is the third scientific field brought to discussion in this paper. The inadequate or insufficient integration of evaluation methodologies in the planning process, the steady evolution of our perception of the role of evaluation in the planning process from a rational towards a constructivist paradigm, the progress so far achieved in the development of evaluation methodologies from the classical Cost-Benefit Analysis to the widely used Environmental Assessment, and the nature and extent of the relationships between theory and practice of evaluation in planning, are some of the topics touched upon in this paper. The methodological proposal is designed around the following topics selected from this overview: i) the particular features of the implementation process of local plans, ii) the characteristics of the so-called on-going evaluation carried out by the planning team throughout the implementation process of local plans, and iii) the nature of planning controls over the morphological aspects of development projects most likely to influence the quality of urban life. The proposal is expected to contribute to an overall improvement of the performance of local plans, striking a balance between rigid legal requirements and environmental quality conditions and the necessary flexibility of planning proposals. In particular, the role of on-going evaluation is stressed taking advantage of unforeseen development opportunities, or identifying the adequate timing to introduce more detail in urban design guidance, whenever uncertainty is perceived to be under control.

Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

Theoretical and methodological framework

The first part of the paper focus on the theoretical and methodological framework of the three subjects urban planning, evaluation and urban morphology recognizing an obvious disparity on the relative dimension of each of these fields. Due to the largest extension of the urban planning field, the analysis focuses mainly in its physical dimension.

Urban planning
In recent decades, urban planning has been suffering important transformations. The most significant one has been the change on emphasis from the plan product to the planning process. The international literature reveals three positions, those who favour the substitution of the rational-comprehensive model by the communicative model (Healey, 1997, 2003; Innes, 1995; Khakee, 1998, 2003), those who favour the coexistence of both models (Alexander, 1998; Voogd, 1998), and those who defend the integration of both in a more complex and diverse framework where rationality prevails (Lichfield, 2001b). This disagreement continues with the analysis of the connections between these theoretical developments and the professional practice. If Archibugi (2004) argues that the enormous theoretical production of recent years did not lead to a deeper understanding of the meaning of planning, or either to the clarification of its role, Mazza (2002) sustains that this production has lead to some kind of planning de-professionalization, and to a slow down and somehow uncertain development of technical knowledge often times considered almost equivalent to common sense.

The physical dimension of urban planning

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing emphasis on the physical form of cities inside urban planning activity (Fainstein, 2000; Hall & Doe, 2000; Punter, 2002; Talen & Ellis, 2002). The authors intend to debate the causes of the emphasis on the urban form; the way this subject is being explored, namely in the interaction with the planning system of each country; and the consequences of the re-emergence of urban form as a major topic of the general urban planning field. Several causes can be identified associated with the renewed interest on the physical aspects of urban planning: a new attention on the results of the planning proposals, a generalized disappointment with the adoption functional zonings, the public debate of new physical planning trends, or the concerns about built heritage conservation. Hall & Doe (2000) identify two possible causes: the importance of the urban form theme to the exercise of public participation - assuming that the physical results of planning are the most obvious evidences to judge the success of planning proposals - and the concern about sustainability, in a sense that the form of the city should be designed to enable energy conservation and biodiversity. Hall & Doe (2000) and Carmona (2003) argue that usually the planning systems of developed countries do not have methods to provide for a good answer to the rebirth of physical form in urban planning. Still, the former identifies a set of experiences on the exploration of the possibilities of planning systems, particularly on local plans of some British and French cities. Fainstein (2000) and Talen & Ellis (2002) argue that a theory of good urban form should have a more prominent place in planning theory along with communicative planning or new theories on the equitable and just city. These American authors share with Mandelbaum, Mazza and Burchell (1996) the idea that the dominant theoretical frameworks on urban planning, provide a context for decision making, insights into the workings of the planning process, and some important nonspatial normative content, but they provide no pattern language to which planners may refer to when the moment comes to make decisions about the planning and development of particular urban places. As such, Talen & Ellis (2002) argue that the planning profession needs a renewed focus on substance rather than process, and a well-articulated theory of good city form.

Evaluation
This section focus on four fundamental questions on the evaluation debate, namely, the tensions between the positivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, the relationship between evaluation theory and planning theory, the professional practice of urban planning evaluation and, finally the most relevant evaluation methods.

From the positivist paradigm towards the constructivist paradigm

In the absence of a general and consensus vision on the evaluation theory, developed thorough the 20th century, many authors converge on the acknowledgment of an evolution from a positivist paradigm to a constructivist paradigm. Some describe this evolution in four evaluation generations (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Khakee 1998, 2003). According to Guba & Lincoln (1989) the first generation of evaluation exercises were intended to
Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

measure individual attributes, the second generation was geared towards the description of social programmes; the third was dominated by judgments on the intrinsic and contextual values of the object, and the fourth was centred around by the negotiation of claims, concerns and issues presented by the different stakeholders. Also the evaluator role has evolved, from an initial position where he is mainly a technician, latter becoming a descriptor, then a judge and, finally a mediator. The fourth generation goes beyond the scientific dimension, including the human, political, social, cultural and contextual dimensions. These American authors identify two major foundations for their contribution, a responsive focusing and a constructivist methodology. In recent years, several authors criticize this simplistic vision on the three positivist generations, adopting more consensual positions (Patton, 2000; Van der Knaap, 2004) or moving away from the constructivist paradigm (Pawson & Tilley, 1997).

Evaluation theory and planning theory

Evaluation theory and planning theory are in a permanent change. As a result the evaluation position itself on the planning context is continually changing. Several authors explore this theme, raising some interesting questions about this dynamic relationship: the influence of the planning theory on the kind of evaluation, the common evolution of both fields, the need for more flexible evaluation approaches; and the possibility that some theoretical trends would allow a better relationship with professional practice. The way that planning, and particularly the plan concept, determines the evaluation criteria is discussed by Baer (1997). Characterizing an ex-post evaluation, the American author debates the legitimacy of the measurement of the difference between the plan and the reality, exploring five possible answers: the reality is compared with the excepted results in the absence of a plan; the reality is confronted with the expected results of the plan in a blueprint plan; the reality is compared with the plan to understand what difference does an unforeseen consequence of the plan on a Lichfieldian focus; the reality may be connected to the plan in a indefinite way in a Faludian focus; or the results may be ignored, since the most important is the dialogue with the community in a typical post-modern plan. Khakee (1998) examine the way that the transformations of planning theory affect the evaluation functions and characteristics, emphasizing the growing importance of the political context. The Swedish author identifies a change of paradigms during the last fifty years, on the light of eight theoretical positions. He draws from the rational model where optimization is the main function of evaluation as one intends to obtain the best relationship between the achievement of results and the utilization of resources, towards the communicative planning where the main function is the continuing evaluation of the political agenda and debate, and the fundamental characteristic is the analysis of communicative rationality and of the robustness of alternative policies.

The practice of evaluation in urban planning

This section approaches the practice of evaluation in urban planning, the frequency these exercises, the gap between evaluation theory and practice, the emerging European dimension, the integration of evaluation in the planning process, the various evaluation stages, and the use of the evaluation conclusions. Evaluation should be a component of the planning process, and yet, this reality is very different from country to country, being legally required in some. There is a gap between evaluation theory and practice, and one of the most evident aspects of this gap is the generalized use of qualitative methods in research, and the prominence of quantitative methods in professional practice. In the end of the 1990s, the European Commission published the Means for Evaluating Actions of a Structural Nature (MEANS, 1999), intended to define an evaluation model for structural funds programmes, with an emphasis on socio-economic development. This report attempts to draw on the different practices and cultural traditions of the Member States. Despite being a synthetic document, the report alerts to the risks of decision making based on pre-established criteria and methods, without a previous concern on the actual results from a particular evaluation exercise. Stame (2004) argues that the relationship between these general guidance developed at an European level and the necessary specificity of a local application, can be assisted by a theorybased evaluation. Lichfield, Kettle & Whitbread (1975) alert for a deficient integration of the evaluation in the plan making process, advancing also a set of principles presented in subsequent texts: since the beginning the evaluator should be a member of the planning team; the evaluation procedures and criteria should be decided together with the planning team; the evaluation criteria should also be the design criteria for the team that prepares the plan; the necessary data for the evaluation should be defined in the beginning and be part of the data collection for the plan making process; an on-going evaluation improves plan implementation and the eventual adjustments along the process; the ex-post evaluation tests the achievements of the policies and the adequacy of the ex-ante evaluation methods.

Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

The literature on evaluation in planning consensually sustains that the study of the on-going and ex-post dimensions has a rather reduced expression, when compared with the analysis of the ex-ante dimension (Ho, 2003; Lichfield 1996, 2001a, 2003; Voogd, 1997). Lichfield (2001a) analyses the recent development on evaluation in planning, in relation to the evolution of social program evaluation. In the former, the on-going and ex-post evaluation have a marginal role, whereas in the latter, the ex-ante evaluation is usually devaluated, due to the difficulties of the social sciences in providing reliable forecast. The British author challenges academics and professionals on both fields to compare their works and methodologies. Ho (1998, 2003) and Weiss (1999) argue that although evaluation has a lot to offer to plan makers and to policy makers, they seldom support their new proposals on the conclusions of previous evaluation exercises. In the British context, Ho (2003) points out that in the period between 1968 and 1997, there are few examples of urban regeneration initiatives that benefited from the lessons obtained through previous evaluation studies.

Evaluation methods
This section presents five of the most popular evaluation methods developed in the last fifty years: the CostBenefit Analysis (CBA), the Planning Balance Sheet (PBS), the Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM), the Multicriteria Analysis (MA), and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The method developed by Lichfield is inseparable from CBA. Similarly, contemporary MA is strongly related to GAM. CBA is initially conceived to evaluate American federal projects on water resources. Later this methodology was extended to the appraisal of several kinds of public actions and projects. It is probably the evaluation method most widely used. The technique, although complex, follow a simple principle - the association of a monetary value to each identified effect of a project or action. CBA ignores considerations related to equity or sustainability. PBS is presented by Lichfield in the 1950s, and soon after applied by this author in urban and regional plans in Britain. It goes further than CBA in two domains: it integrates non quantifiable impacts, introducing symbols in the appraisal tables alongside with monetary impacts; it records detailed information of costs and benefits on the different groups of persons affected by a proposed plan. More recently, Lichfield (1996) presents the CIE - a natural evolution from PBS, with similar foundations on CBA and on the impact evaluation tradition. Hill presented the GAM in his PhD thesis in 1966, as an attempt to eliminate the weaknesses of the existing evaluation methods, particularly the CBA and the PBS. This method has been used in the evaluation of urban plans in Great Britain. MA emerged in the 1960s in France. The electre-techniques or concordance-tchniques soon became dominant among the new evaluation methodologies. MA methods adopted the form of a matrix with at least two dimensions, one expressing the different project alternatives, and the other, the objectives and the evaluation criteria. In 1969, EIA is introduced in the American federal system. Nowadays, EIA constitutes one of the main policy instruments of most national and regional environmental administration. The EIA process includes the preparation of an environmental impact study, a reviewing procedure, public participation and often times an expost evaluation (Partidrio & Pinho, 2000). Strategic Environmental Assessment is another instrument of impact evaluation, geared towards the evaluation of policies, plans and programmes. It works with strategies and not on specific development proposals, operating on larger temporal and geographical scales, with growing uncertainty levels and thus requiring greater flexibility (Partidrio, 2003).

Urban Morphology
The emergence of an interdisciplinary field
The vision about the origins and developments of urban morphology presented in British literature in the transition for the 1990s, is mainly focused on urban geography, somehow underestimating urban planning and the architectural tradition, although these fields have been producing remarkable material for this body of knowledge, particularly since the 1960s, albeit in a less systematic way. Although Larkham (1997) presents a disciplinary approach supported by a typological reflection, it is Moudon (1997) who under the umbrella of the International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF) projects urban morphology as an emergent interdisciplinary field, in which converge the existing British, Italian and French schools. British research tries to discover how cities are built and why, in order to develop a city making theory. The Italian school focusing on the way cities should be constructed, in order to establish an urban design theory. Finally, the French tries to understand the consequences of previous experiences of city making, particularly the developments throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries.

Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

Three European schools of urban morphology

Larkham (1997), Moudon (1997) and Whitehand (1992, 2001) find the origins of the British school of urban morphology in the German geography. The connection between the two cultures is established by Conzen, a German geographer that immigrates to the United Kingdom before the Second World War. Conzen defends an inductive approach to the study of the urban phenomenon at a time that geography debates quantitative methods. The Conzenian tradition is followed and reinforced by Whitehand, widening the scope of this approach, to the economic issues, the building dynamics in its relationships with the city and its inhabitants. In 1974, Whitehand found in the University of Birmingham, the Urban Morphology Research Group (UMRG), on which converge the principle authors of present British urban morphology, namely Slater, Larkham, Kropf and Hall. Currently, the UMRG is the largest research centre on the geographical aspects of urban form in the United Kingdom, constituting a field of urban knowledge, through the study of urban history, and the agents and the ideas involved in the creation and transformation of the cities. Larkham (1997), Moudon (1997) and Whitehand (1992, 2001), identify some of the current research trends in the British school such as: urban morphogenesis, the study of the actors responsible for the transformations of urban forms, the interaction between urban morphology and building typology, and the relationships between urban morphology and urban planning. The Italian school of urban morphology and typology was found by Muratori in the 1950s. His main contribution was the idea that history is a privileged way of recovering the sense of continuity in architectural practice. For this Italian architect, the urban and architectural crisis of the 1950s was caused by the assumption that an intervention in the city would be more effective dividing the urban phenomena in particular aspects, which in fact depend on specific contexts. Muratori intended to build a theoretical framework in order to explain the creation and transformation of the urban form throughout the years. Caniggia, one of Muratoris assistants in Rome, carry on the tradition after his death, transmitting his ideas in architectural terms, believing that the simplification and reduction of the theoretical system of Muratori would facilitate its dissemination. Currently, the core of the school is in Florence, with authors such as in Maffei, Cataldi and Vaccaro, all part of the Centro Internationale per lo Studio dei Processi Urbani e Territoriali (CISPUT), found in 1981. The aim of this centre is the promote and develop the typo-morphological research applied to the preservation and restoration of the built heritage. Darin (1998) identifies two primary references to the French study of urban form in the 1920s Lavedans L histoire de lurbanism and Potes Une vie de cit; Paris de sa naissance nos jours. In the 1960s the research on cities is divided in two groups, the architectural schools of Paris-Belleville and Versalhes. Currently, the Laboratoire de Recherche, Histoire Architectural et Urbaine - Societs (LADRHAUS) found in 1973, with eminent members such as Castex and Darin, constitutes a fundamental reference on the study of territories, urban morphology, urban fabrics, building typology, and architectural analysis. In recent years, contributions coming from different disciplinary backgrounds enhanced the reflection on the rationale behind the agents strategies on space organization processes and on the use of typo-morphology tools and techniques.

The construction of an evaluation methodology

The second part of the paper is structured in two sections, the definition of a set of guidance principles, and the establishment of the terms of reference for the application of the evaluation methodology to the cities of Lisbon and Oporto. The following contributions stand out from the literature review: i) the characteristics of the implementation process of local plans, ii) the specific features of the so-called on-going evaluation carried out by the planning team throughout the implementation process of local plans, and iii) the nature of planning controls over the morphological aspects of development projects most likely to influence the quality of urban life.

General principles
Bearing in mind the debates between the rational-comprehensive planning model and the communicative planning model, and between the positivist and the constructivist evaluation paradigms, an on-going evaluation methodology of municipal physical plans will be proposed. As mentioned above, the literature highlights the scarce theoretical production and professional application of on-going evaluation methodologies. On the other hand, the morphological dimension seems totally absent from the evaluation debate, despite a growing emphasis on urban design as a major topic of debate in planning and the generalised adoption of a wider concept of built environment. An evaluation vision has to correspond to a planning vision. The city as a rather complex territory cannot be taken by a municipal plan as a homogeneous platform. Different levels of planning uncertainties are always present and as such should be dealt with. In some areas it should be possible to propose new open spaces, public facilities, and the detailed design of subdivisions and urban development projects. In others one should not go beyond a mere recommendation of the most suitable land uses. Kropf (1996, 1997) and Hall & Doe (2000)

Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

present some experiences of integration of urban form recommendations in the contents of municipal plans, as far as the national planning legislation and regulations allows. Probably the most important step in the design of an evaluation methodology is the formulation of the most relevant assessment questions and criteria (see Table I). The methodology is expected to evaluate the rationality and the performance of the plan and the conformity of the results achieved so far. The procedural dimension will be most difficult to assess. Table I: Evaluation questions and criteria General criteria Specific criteria Plan rationality Relevance Internal coherence External coherence Participation (plan making) Plan performance Utilization Participation (implementation) Results conformance Effectiveness Efficiency Leadership

Evaluation questions Are the plan proposals relevant to the city needs? Have the several parts of the plan a logical organization? Is the plan coherent with other policies, programmes or plans implemented in the area? Was there an effective public participation in plan preparation? Was the plan used or consulted in decision making during its implementation? Was the plan used to promote communicative action and interactive practice? Are the plan results in conformance with the plan objectives? Were the foreseen resources to attain those objectives sufficient? Had the plan a significant leading function in the urban development?

As to the rationality of the plan, it is necessary to understand: if the plan objectives are justifiable comparatively with the city needs and problems; if the several parts that constitute the document are organized in a logical way; if there are conflicts or incoherencies relatively to other plans, programmes or policies for the area; and finally, if the most significant groups and organizations have been heard during the plan preparation. As to the performance of the plan, one should realize that if the answers to the conformance questions are positive, the performance issue is bound to have less importance. This criterion is intended to avoid a simplistic position that would judge as plan failure, a situation where reality does not fit the corresponding forecast. When reality is different from the planning forecast, one should understand the reasons why that is so. Another relevant aspect is to understand if the plan was used to promote a communicative discourse. As to the conformance of the results with the plan, it is important to realize to what extent the expected objectives have been attained, if that happened at a reasonable cost, and if the plan played a leadership role in the local development process. This simultaneous evaluation of substance, process and results, draws on the model presented by Alexander & Faludi (1989). This model is supported on three planning visions. This contribution had an enormous impact on the planning literature on evaluation. The debate around the conformance concept was particularly relevant (Baer, 1997; Talen, 1997; Laurian et al, 2004; Norton, 2005), as well as the investigation of new criteria to distinguish good from bad planning (Alexander, 2002), and the reviewing criteria to assess strategic plans (Faludi, 2000). Evaluators should design each evaluation procedure to suit the characteristics and requirements of each particular situation, instead of following a rigid set of standardized procedures. They should also have a solid knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each evaluation methods, and select the most appropriate one in accordance to the nature of the problem under assessment. It is also important to understand the full implications of the evaluation results for the plan implementation process. These implications can take two distinct forms, to change the use of the plan or to change the substance of the plan. The use of the plan may not be difficult to modify. However, a change in the plan contents is dependent on the specific planning system and may well be difficult to get through. In any case it is important to explore the introduction of the necessary changes in a given plan, in a transparent and balanced way, if that is clearly justified by the evaluation conclusions. In this way one could profit from unexpected opportunities and/or take advantage of the introduction of a greater design detail.

Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

Application of the evaluation methodology in the cities of Lisbon and Oporto

In this section, the general conditions for the application of the proposed evaluation methodology to the master plans (Plano Director Municipal) of Lisbon and Oporto are presented. The choice of these two cases allows the consideration of two distinct on-going evaluation situations. The master plan of Lisbon is in its final stages of implementation, whereas the master plan of Oporto has just been approved. As a general background note we have to point out that there is not a significant practice of plan evaluation in Portugal, although some evaluation mechanisms are present in planning legislation. Generally speaking, the municipal master plan is expected to establish the spatial structure for the whole territory of the municipality, and to propose a development strategy able to integrate national and regional policy options with local development objectives. The municipal master plan for Lisbon was prepared between 1990 and 1993, being approved by the municipal assembly and ratified by the government in 1994. The main objectives of the plan are: the revaluation of the residential function in the city, particularly in its central area; the stabilization of the consolidated urban fabric; the rehabilitation of an old industrial zone on the eastern part of the city for advanced services industries and the development of a logistic platform; the enhancement of the urban environmental quality; and the general improvement of the accessibility to the central area. The preparation of the new municipal master plan for Oporto started in 2001 and the plan was approved by the present executive in 2005. The strategic objectives of the plan are: the strengthening of the urban identity of Oporto, the rehabilitation of the public space and of the built environment, the rationalization of the transportation systems, the reduction of the existing urban imbalances, and the promotion of the historic quarters and of the central area. The application of the methodology will be supported by our previous work on the evolution of the urban form of these two cities during 19th and the 20th centuries (Oliveira, 2004; Pinho & Oliveira, 2004).

Conclusions
Our methodological proposal is intended to contribute to strengthen the articulations between urban morphology, urban planning and evaluation. The relationships between planning and evaluation have already some consistency. The same can not be said of the other possible relationships in that triangle. The methodology aims to evaluate in particular the implementation of municipal physical plans and will be applied to the municipal master plans of Lisbon and Oporto. In the meantime, a number of evaluation questions and specific criteria structured around the concepts of plan rationality, plan performance and conformance of results have already been proposed and justified.

Reference list
Alexander, E. (1998). Conclusion: where do we go from here?. in Lichfield, N.; Barbanente, A.; Borri, D.; Khakee, A.; Prat, A. (ed.), Evaluation in planning. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 355-374. Alexander, E. (2002). Planning rights: toward normative criteria for evaluating plans. International Planning Studies, 7(3), 191-212. Alexander, E. ; Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design, 16, 127-140. Archibugi, F. (2004). Planning theory: reconstruction or requiem for planning?. European Planning Studies, 12(3), 425-445. Baer, W. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344. Carmona, M. (2003). An international perspective on measuring quality in planning. Built Environment, 29(4), 281-287. CEC (1999). The MEANS collection: evaluating socio-economic programmes, Brussels, CEC. Darin, M. (1998). The study of urban form in France. Urban Morphology, 2(2), 63-76. Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451-478. Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research, 15(4), 299-318. Egon Guba & Yvonne Lincoln (1989). Fourth generation evaluation, Newbury Park, Sage. Hall, T. & Doe, J. (2000). Design control policies for small areas: the Dacorum residential area character study. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2), 235-256. Patsy Healey (1997). Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies, London, Macmillan. Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123. Ho, S. (1999). Evaluating urban regeneration programmes in Britain. Evaluation, 5(4), 422-438. Suet Ho (2003). Evaluating British urban policy ideology, conflict and compromisse, Aldershot, Ashgate. Innes, J. (1995). Planning theorys emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183-190.
Oliveira & Pinho

The implementation of municipal master plans and the on-going evaluation process

Khakee, A. (1998). Evaluation and the planning process: inseparable concepts. Town Planning Review, 69(4), 359-374. Khakee, A. (2003). The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice. Evaluation, 9(3), 340-352. Kropf, K. (1996). An alternative approach to zoning in France. European Planning Studies, 4(6), 127-140. Kropf, K. (1997). Typological zoning. in Petruccioli, A. (ed.), Typological process and design theory, Cambridge, Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 127-140. Larkham, P. (1997) Urban morphology and typology in the United Kingdom. in Petruccioli, A. (ed.) Typological process and design theory, Cambridge, Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 159-177. Laurian, L.; Day, M.; Berke, P.; Ericksen, N.; Backhusrt, M.; Crawfard, J.; Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471-480. Nathaniel Lichfield (1996). Community Impact Evaluation, London, UCL Press. Lichfield, N. (2001a). Where do we go from here?. in Voogd, H. (ed.) Recent developments in evaluation. Groningen, Geopress, 7-15. Lichfield, N. (2001b). The philosophy and role of community impact evaluation in the planning system. in Voogd, H. (ed.) Recent developments in evaluation. Groningen, Geopress, 153-173. Lichfield, N. (2003). The concept of planned development. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), 48-65. Nathaniel Lichfield; Peter Kettle; Michael Whitbread (1975). Evaluation in the planning process, Oxford, Pergamon. Seymour Mandelbaum; Luigi Mazza; Robert Burchell (1996). Explorations in planning theory, New Brunswick, Center for Urban Policy Research Rutgers University. Mazza, L. (2002). Technical knowledge and planning actions. Planning Theory, 1(1), 11-26. Moudon, A. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology, 1, 3-10. Norton, R. (2005). More and better local planning. State-mandated local planning in Coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71 (1), 55-71. Vtor Oliveira (2004). A evoluo das formas urbanas de Lisboa e do Porto (unpublished Master thesis). Maria do Rosrio Partidrio (2003). Guia para avaliao estratgica de impactes em ordenamento do territrio, Lisbon, DGOTDU. Maria do Rosrio Partidrio, Paulo Pinho (2000). Guia de apoio ao novo regime de avaliao de impacte ambiental, Lisbon, Instituto de Promoo Ambiental. Michael Patton. (2000). Utilization-focused evaluation, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Ray Pawson & Nick Tilley (1997). Realistic Evaluation, London, Sage. Paulo Pinho & Vitor Oliveira (2004). Planned and unplanned city strategic thinking and urban form in the city of Oporto (CITTA internal document, Faculty of Engineering, University of Oporto). Punter, J. (2002). Urban design as policy: evaluating the design dimension of Vancouvers planning system. International Planning Studies, 7(4), 265-282. Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evolution and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58-76. Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure and conformance: an alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design, 24, 537-587. Talen, E. & Ellis, C. (2002). Beyond relativism, reclaiming the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 36-49. van der Knaap, P. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and learning. Evaluation, 10(1), 16-34. Voogd, H. (1997). The changing role of evaluation methods in a changing planning environment: some Dutch experiences. European Planning Studies, 5 (2), 257-266. Voogd, H. (1998). The communicative ideology and ex-ante planning evaluation. in Lichfield, N.; Barbanente, A.; Borri, D.; Khakee, A.; Prat, A. (ed.), Evaluation in planning. Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers, 113126. Weiss, C. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5(4), 468-486. Whitehand, J. (1992). Recent Advances in Urban Morphology. Urban Studies, 29 (3- 4), 619-636. Whitehand, J. (2001). British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103-109.

Additional Information
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by a research grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).

Oliveira & Pinho