This paper considers the complex issue of how to monitor spatial planning policies. Unlike some forms of spatial policy intervention (eg, area-based urban policy), spatial planning is not time or space bound and is therefore more difficult to assess. Furthermore, it is imbued with a variety of normative and political complexities which frustrate attempts to understand whether or not it is ‘working’. Therefore, we suggest an alternative approach to monitoring what is in many ways a ‘wicked problem’. The paper begins with an overview of past and present approaches to policy monitoring before moving on to consider the nature of spatial planning and the use of indicators as monitoring tools. Strategic indicator bundles are then explained with reference to practitioner input. The twin issues of spatial context and spatial flows are discussed before we reflect upon the implications of such an approach for monitoring spatial planning policy in practice.
AlexanderE, 2000, “Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective”Journal of Planning Education and Research19242–256
2.
AlexanderE, 2011, “Evaluating planning: What is successful planning and (how) can we measure it?”, in Evaluation for Participating and Sustainability in Planning Eds HullAAlexanderEKhakeeAWoltjerJ (Routledge, London) pp 32–46
3.
ArgyrisCSchönD, 1978Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
4.
BeggIMooreBAltunbasY, 2002, “Long-run trends in the competitiveness of British cities”, in Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities, Ed. BeggI (Policy Press, Bristol) pp 103–133
5.
BlasiusJFriedrichsJGalsterG, 2007, “Frontiers of quantifying neighborhood effects”Housing Studies22627–636
6.
CarleyM, 1980Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis (Heinemann Education, London)
7.
CarlisleE, 1972, “The conceptual structure of social indicators”, in Social Indicators and Social Policy Eds ShonfieldAShawS (Heinemann Education, London) pp 23–32
8.
CarmonaMSiehL, 2006Measuring Quality in Planning: Managing the Performance Process (Taylor and Francis, London)
ConnellJKubischA, 1998, “Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects and problems”, in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 2, Theory, Measurement and Analysis Eds Fulbright-AndersonKKubischAConnellJ (The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC) pp 15–44
12.
CurtisRJacksonE, 1962, “Multiple indicators in survey research”The American Journal of Sociology68195–204
European Commission, 2000Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An Indicative Methodology, Methodological Working Papers 3 (European Commission, Brussels)
17.
Fulbright-AndersonKKubischAConnellJ (Eds), 1998New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, Volume 2, Theory, Measurement, and Analysis (Aspen Institute, Washington, DC)
18.
HM Treasury, 2003The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (The Stationery Office, London)
19.
HodgeIDunnJMonkSKiddleC, 2000, “An exploration of ‘bundles’ as indicators of rural disadvantage”Environment and Planning A321869–1887
20.
InnesJBooherD, 2000, “Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy for building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence”Planning Theory and Practice1173–186
21.
JacksonCWatkinsC, 2007, “Supply-side policies and retail property market performance”Environment and Planning A391134–1146
22.
MandelbaumS, 1979, “A complete general theory of planning is impossible”Policy Sciences1159–71
23.
MorrisonNPearceB, 2000, “Developing indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of the UK land use planning system”Town Planning Review71191–211
24.
ODPM, 2005Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister, London
25.
OpenshawS, 1984The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (GeoBooks, Norwich)
26.
RaeA, 2009, “Isolated entities or integrated neighbourhoods? An alternative approach to the measurement of deprivation”Urban Studies461859–1878
27.
RittelHWebberM, 1973, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”Policy Sciences4155–169
28.
RobsonBLymperopoulouKRaeA, 2008, “People on the move: Exploring the functional roles of deprived neighbourhoods”Environment and Planning A402693–2714
29.
RTPI, 2007New Vision StatementThe Royal Town Planning Institute, London
30.
SawickiDFlynnP, 1996, “Neighborhood indicators: A review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological issues”Journal of the American Planning Association62165–183
WongC, 2002Development of Town and City Indicators: Review, Interpretation and AnalysisPolicy Evaluation and Analysis Research Laboratory, Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool
33.
WongC, 2003, “Indicators at the crossroads: Ideas, methods and applications”Town Planning Review74253–279
34.
WongC, 2006Quantitative Indicators for Urban and Regional Planning: The Interplay of Policy and Methods (Routledge, London)
35.
WongCWatkinsC, 2009, “Conceptualising spatial planning outcomes: Towards an integrative measurement framework”Town Planning Review80482–516
36.
WongCJefferyPGreenAOwenDCoombesMRaybouldS, 2004Developing a Town and City Indicators Database Final Report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
37.
WongCRaeASchulze-BäingA, 2006Uniting Britain — The Evidence Base: Spatial Structure and Key Drivers (The Royal Town Planning Institute, London)
