In 1995, Judith Innes recognized the increasing influence of a new type of planning theorist. Adverse to “armchair theorizing,” these theorists have taken a fine-grained analysis of planning practice as the basis for reconstruction of planning theory. Despite the proliferation of this theoretical project, its impact on urban planning has yet to be analyzed in a comprehensive manner. The major impetus for the research is to assess the ways that empirical research in planning practice has informed or failed to inform planning theory. Have empirical studies of planning practice resolved existing theoretical contentions? Or have they generated only more conflicting opinions and a lack of resolution of the existing debates? This article presents a meta-analysis of empirical studies in planning theory.
Abram, Simone. 2000. Planning the public: Some comments on empirical problems for planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research19:351-357.
2.
Adler, Sy.1990. Environmental movement politics, mandate to plan, and professional planners: The dialectics of discretion in planning practice. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research7 (4): 315-329.
3.
Albrechts, Louis. 1999. Planners as catalysts and initiators of change. The new structure plan for Flanders. European Planning Studies7 (5): 587-603.
4.
Alexander, E. R.1998. Planning theory in practice: The case of planning Highway 6 in Israel. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25:435-445.
5.
Alexander, Ian, and Oren Yiftachel. 1997. Sacred site or sacred cow? The frontier of urban racial struggle in Australia. In “Frontier development and indigenous peoples,” edited by Tovi Fenster and Oren Yiftachel, Progress in Planning47 (4): 275-290.
6.
Andrew, Caroline. 2000. Resisting boundaries? Using safety audits for women. In Gendering the city, edited by Kristine B. Miranne and Alma H. Young. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
7.
Asmervik, Sigmund, and Aksel Hagen. 2001. Planning as rhetoric: An examination of the rhetoric of county planning in Norway. Housing, Theory and Society18:148-157.
8.
Baum, Howell S.1994. Community and consensus: Reality and fantasy in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research13:251-262.
9.
Bickerstaff, Karen, and Gordon Walker. 2001. Participatory local governance and transport planning. Environment and Planning A, 33:431-451.
10.
Black, Alan. 1990. The Chicago Area Transportation Study: A case study of rational planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research10 (1): 27-37.
Boyer, M. Christine. 1983. Dreaming the rational city: The myth of American city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Briggs, Xavier De-Souza. 1998. Doing democracy up-close: Culture, power and communication in community building. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:1-13.
14.
Campbell, Heather, and Robert Marshall. 2000. Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies5 (3): 321-344.
15.
Carp, Jana. 2004. Wit, style, and substance: How planners shape public participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research23:242-254.
16.
Caulfield, Janice, and John Minnery. 1994. Planning as legitimation: The Brisbane Strategy Plan. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research18 (4): 673-689.
17.
Claydon, Jim, and Bryan Smith. 1997. Negotiating planning gains through the British Development Control System. Urban Studies34 (12): 2003-2022.
18.
Cowell, Richard, and Jonathan Murdoch. 1999. Land use and the limits to (regional) governance: Some lessons from planning for housing and minerals in England. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23 (4): 654-669.
19.
Cuthbert, Alexander R.1999. For a few dollars more: Urban planning and the legitimation process in Hong Kong. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research15:575-593.
20.
Dalton, Linda C.1985. Politics and Planning Agency Performance: Lessons from Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association51(2): 189-199.
21.
Dalton, Linda C.1989a. Emerging knowledge about planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research9 (1): 29-44.
22.
Dalton, Linda C.1989b. The limits of regulation: Evidence from local plan implementation in California. Journal of American Planning Association55 (2): 151-168.
23.
Dear, Michael. 1989. Survey 16: Privatization and the rhetoric of planning practice. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7:449-462.
24.
Ellis, Geraint. 2000. Addressing inequality: Planning in Northern Ireland. International Planning Studies5 (3): 345-364.
25.
Faludi, Andreas. 1999. Patterns of doctrinal development. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:333-344.
26.
Feagin, Joe R.1990. Are planners collective capitalists? The cases of Aberdeen and Houston. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research14 (2): 249-273.
27.
Feldman, Marshall M. A.1995. Planning theory and political economy: The need for a reintegration. Planning Theory14:65-95.
28.
Filion, Pierre. 1996. Metropolitan planning objectives and implementation constraints: Planning in a post-Fordist and postmodern age. Environment and Planning A28:1637-1660.
29.
Filion, Pierre. 1999. Rupture or continuity? Modern and postmodern planning in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23 (3): 421-444.
30.
Fischler, Raphaël. 1998. Toward a genealogy of planning: Zoning and the welfare state. Planning Perspectives13:389-410.
31.
Fischler, Raphaël. 2000. Linking planning theory and history: The case of development control. Journal of Planning Education and Research19:233-241.
32.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2002. Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research21:353-366.
33.
Foley, John, and Mickey Lauria. 2000. Plans, planning and tragic choices. Planning Theory and Practice1 (2): 219-233.
34.
Forester, John. 1987. Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association53 (3): 303-314.
35.
Forester, John. 1993. Challenges of organization and mobilization: Examples from community-labor coalitions. In Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
Forester, John. 1999a. Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. International Planning Studies4 (2): 175-193.
37.
Forester, John. 1999b. Challenges of mediation and deliberation in the design professions: Practice stories from Israel and Norway. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research16 (2): 116-132.
38.
Gilg, A. W., and M. P. Kelly. 1997. The delivery of planning policy in Great Britain: Explaining the implementation gap: New evidence from a case study in rural England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy15:19-36.
39.
Gotlieb, Yosef. 1997. Irreconcilable planning: The transformation of life-place into economic space in Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan. In “Frontier development and indigenous peoples,” edited by Tovi Fenster and Oren Yiftachel, Progress in Planning47 (4): 321-331.
40.
Gottdiener, Mark. 1983. Politics and planning: Suburban case studies. In Remaking the city, edited by John Pipkin, Mark La Gory, and Judith R. Blau, 310-333. Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
Graham, Stephen, and Patsy Healey. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies7 (5): 623-646.
42.
Grant, Jill. 1994. On some public uses of “planning theory”: Rhetoric and expertise in community planning disputes. Town Planning Review65 (1): 59-76.
43.
Greed, C. H.1996. Planning for women and other disenabled groups, with reference to the provision of public toilets in Britain. Environment and Planning A28:573-588.
44.
Grengs, Joe. 2002. Community-based planning as a source of political change: The transit equity movement of Los Angeles’ bus riders union. Journal of the American Planning Association68 (2): 165-178.
45.
Gunder, Michael. 2003. But is there, or can there be, a communicative turn?In “Passionate planning for the others desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning,”Progress in Planning60:270-278.
46.
Gunder, Michael, and Clare Mouat. 2002. Symbolic violence and victimization in planning processes: A reconnoitre of the New Zealand Resource Management Act. Planning Theory1 (2): 124-145.
47.
Hanna, Kevin. 2000. The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information: A case study. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (4): 398-410.
48.
Healey, Patsy. 1992. A planner’s day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (1): 9-20.
49.
Healey, Patsy. 1993. The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20:83-104.
Healey, Patsy. 1999. Sites, jobs and portfolios: Economic development discourses in the planning system. Urban Studies36 (1): 27-42.
52.
Heikkila, Eric J., and Mark Griffin. 1995. Confucian planning or planning confusion?Journal of Planning Education and Research14:269-279.
53.
Helling, Amy. 1998. Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 Project. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (3): 335-349.
54.
Heskin, Allan David. 1991. The struggle for community. Boulder, CO: Westview.
55.
Hibbard, Michael, and Susan Lurie. 2000. Saving land but losing ground: Challenges to community planning in the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:187-195.
56.
Hillier, Jean. 1993. To boldly go where no planners have ever... Environment and Planning D: Society and Space11:89-113.
57.
Hillier, Jean. 1996. Deconstructing the discourse of planning. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 289-299. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press.
58.
Hillier, Jean. 1998. Beyond confused noise: Ideas toward communicative procedural justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:14-24.
59.
Hillier, Jean. 2000. Going round the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environment and Planning A32:33-54.
60.
Hoch, Charles. 1994. What planners do: Power, politics and persuasion. Chicago: Planners Press.
61.
Hoch, Charles. 1996. What do planners do in the United States? In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 225-240. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press.
Innes, Judith. 1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (4): 440-453.
64.
Innes, Judith. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-191.
65.
Innes, Judith. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 460-472.
66.
Innes, Judith. 1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 52-63.
67.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 1999a. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (4): 412-423.
68.
Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 1999b. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (1): 9-26.
69.
Jamal, Tazim B., Stanley M. Stein, and Thomas L. Harper. 2002. Beyond labels: Pragmatic planning in multistakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts. Journal of Planning Education and Research22:164-177.
70.
Jones, Katherine. 2000. Planning, representation, and the production of space in Lexington, Kentucky. Journal of Planning Education and Research19:379-388.
71.
Kaufman, Sandra. 1990. Neighborhood redevelopment: The planner’s role in conflict management. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research7 (4): 303-313.
72.
Kemp, Ray. 1980. Planning, legitimation, and the development of nuclear energy: A critical theoretic analysis of the Windscale Inquiry. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research4 (3): 350-371.
73.
Khisty, C. Jotin, and Steen Leleur. 1997. Citizen participation through communicative action: Towards a new framework and synthesis. Journal of Advanced Transportation31 (2): 119-137.
74.
Knudsen, Tim. 1988. Success in planning. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research12 (4): 550-563.
75.
Kumar, Ashok, and Ronan Paddison. 2000. Trust and collaborative planning theory: The case of the Scottish planning system. International Planning Studies5 (2): 205-223.
76.
Langmyhr, Tore. 2000. The rhetorical side of transport planning. European Planning Studies8 (5): 669-684.
77.
Lauria, Mickey, and Michael J. Soll. 1996. Communicative action, power, and misinformation in a site selection process. Journal of Planning Education and Research15:199-211.
78.
Lauria, Mickey, and Robert K. Whelan. 1995. Planning theory and political economy: The need for a reintegration. Planning Theory14:8-33.
79.
Lowry, Kem, Peter Adler, and Neal Milner. 1997. Participating the public: Group process, politics, and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research16:177-187.
80.
Margerum, Richard D.1999. Getting past yes: From capital creation to action. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (2): 181-192.
81.
Margerum, Richard D.2002a. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research21:237-253.
82.
Margerum, Richard D.2002b. Evaluating collaborative planning: Implications from an empirical analysis of growth management. Journal of the American Planning Association68 (2): 179-193.
83.
McCann, Eugene J.1997. Where do you draw the line? Landscape, texts, and the politics of planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15:641-661.
84.
McDermott, P.1998. Positioning planning in a market economy. Environment and Planning A30:631-646.
85.
McGuirk, P. M.2001. Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A33:195-217.
86.
Murtagh, Brendan. 1999. Listening to communities: Locality research and planning. Urban Studies36 (7): 1181-1193.
87.
Needham, B., T. Zwanikken, and A. Faludi. 1997. Strategies for improving the performance of planning: Some empirical research. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24:871-880.
88.
Paterson, Robert G.1999. Negotiated development: Best practice lesions from two model processes. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research16 (2): 133-148.
89.
Pearce, Stubbs. 2000. The role of mediation in the settlement of planning disputes at appeal. Environment and Planning A32:1335-1358.
90.
Peattie, Lisa, Stephen Cornell, and Martin Rein. 1985. Development planning as the only game in town. Journal of Planning Education and Research5 (1): 17-25.
91.
Phelps, Nicholas A., and Mark Tewdwr-Jones. 2000. Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance: Identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building. Environment and Planning A32:111-130.
92.
Ploger, John. 2001. Public participation and the art of governance. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32:111-130.
93.
Prior, Alan. 2000. Problems in the theory and practice of planning enforcement. Planning Theory and Practice1 (1): 53-69.
94.
Rabinovitz, Francine F.1989. The role of negotiation in planning, management, and policy analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research8 (2): 87-95.
95.
Ragin, Charles C.1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
96.
Ragin, Charles C.2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97.
Rahder, Barbara Loevinger. 1999. Victims no longer: Participatory planning with a diversity of women at risk of abuse. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:221-232.
98.
Richardson, Tim, and Ole Jensen. 2000. Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: A contested view of European spatial planning. European Planning Studies8 (4): 503-520.
99.
Sager, Tore. 1994. Communicative manifestations of power relations in controversial planning: A case study. In Communicative planning theory, 95-112. Hants, UK: Avebury.
100.
Sager, Tore. 1998. How decision cycles arise: Two cases. Progress in Planning50 (2): 123-134.
101.
Sandercock, Leonie. 2000. Cities of (in)difference and the challenge for planning. DISP Online140:7-15, http://www.orl.arch.ethz.ch/disp/issues/140.html
102.
Sanyal, Bish. 1996. Meaning, not interest: Motivation for progressive planning. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell, 134-150. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press.
103.
Schön, Donald A.1982. Some of what a planner knows: A case study of knowing-in-practice. Journal of the American Planning Association48 (3): 351-364.
104.
Selman, Paul. 2001. Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning. Planning Theory and Practice2 (1): 13-30.
105.
Shipley, Robert. 2002. Visioning in planning: Is the practice based on sound theory?Environment and Planning A34:7-22.
106.
Stephenson, Richard. 2000. Technically speaking: Planning theory and the role of information in making planning policy. Planning Theory and Practice1 (1): 95-110.
107.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Connie Ozawa. 1984. Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research4 (1): 5-15.
108.
Tait, Malcolm, and Heather Campbell. 2000. The politics of communication between planning officers and politicians: The exercise of power through discourse. Environment and Planning A32:489-506.
109.
Tauxe, Caroline S.1995. Marginalizing public participation in local planning: An ethnographic account. Journal of the American Planning Association61 (4): 471-481.
110.
Tett, Alison, and Jeanne M. Wolfe. 1991. Discourse analysis and city plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research10 (3): 195-200.
111.
Throgmorton, James A.1996. Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
112.
Umemoto, Karen. 2001. Walking in another’s shoes: Epistemological challenges in participatory planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research21:17-31.
113.
Vagnby, Bo, and Ole B. Jensen. 2002. From slum clearance to urban policy: Discourses and doctrines in Danish inner city redevelopment. Housing, Theory and Society19:3-13.
114.
Voogd, H., and J. Woltjer. 1999. The communicative ideology in spatial planning: Some critical reflections based on the Dutch experience. Environment and Planning B26:835-854.
115.
Waage, Sissel A.2001. Reclaiming space and place through collaborative planning in rural Oregon. Political Geography20:839-857.
116.
Waage, Sissel A.2003. Collaborative salmon recovery planning: Examining decision making and implementation in northeastern Oregon. Society and Natural Resources16:295-307.
117.
Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2000. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration and Society32 (5): 566-595.
118.
Wirt, Frederick M., and Leslie J. Christovich. 1984. The political world of urban planners: A report from the field. Journal of Planning Education and Research3 (2): 93-101.
119.
Woods, Clyde. 1998. Development arrested: The blues and plantation power in the Mississippi Delta. London: Verso.
120.
Yiftachel, Oren. 1999. Planning theory at a crossroads: The Third Oxford Conference. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:267-269.
121.
Yiftachel, Oren. 2000. Social control, urban planning and ethno-class relations: Mizrahi Jews in Israel’s “development towns.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24 (2): 418-438.
122.
Yin, Robert. K.1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
