Response to “Letter to the Editors”: Action and Planning—Where Do We Draw the Line?

Al-Kodmany, K. 1999. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: Process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 37-45.

Beard, V. 2002. Covert planning for social transformation in Indonesia . Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 15-25.

Beard, V. , and V. Basolo. 2009. Commentary: Moving beyond crisis, crossroads, and the abyss in the disciplinary formation of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 233-42.

Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31: 544-55.

Davoudi, S. , and I. Strange , eds. 2009. Conceptions of space and place in strategic spatial planning. New York: Routledge.

Dubrow, G. , and M. Corbin Sies. 2002. Letting our guard down: Race, class, gender and sexualty in planning history. Journal of Planning History 1: 203-14.

Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Friedmann, J. 1992. Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

Grabow, S. , and A. Heskin. 1973. Foundations for a radical concept of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 39: 106-14.

Hayden, D. 1997. The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history . Boston: MIT Press.

Healey, P. 1999. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 111-21.

Helling, A. , and D. Sawicki. 1997. The central sixth theme: Linking knowledge and collective action. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16: 228.

Hopkins, L.D. 2007. Using plans and plan making processes: Deliberation and representations of plans. In Engaging the future: Using forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects, edited by L. D. Hopkins and M. A. Zapata , 283-314. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Hopkins, L.D. Forthcoming. Plan assessment: Making and using plans well. In Oxford handbook of urban planning, edited by R. Crane and R. Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jojola, T. 1998. Indigenous planning: Clans, intertribal confederations and the history of the All Pueblo Council. In Making invisible: Insurgent planning histories, edited by Leonie Sandercock, 100-19. Berkeley : University of California Press.

Kipfer, S. , and R. Keil. 2000. Still planning to be different? Toronto at the turn of the millennium. DISP Journal 140: 28-35.

Lane, M.B. 2001. Affirming recent directions in planning theory: Co-management of protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 14: 657-71.

Lane, M.B. , and M. Hibbard. 2005. Doing it for themselves: Trans-formative planning by indigenous people. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25: 172-84.

Martin, D. 2003. "Place-framing" as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93 (3): 730-50.

Massey, D. 1995. The conceptualization of place. In A place in the world? edited by D. Massey and P. Jess , 45-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meir, A. 2005. Bedouin, the Israeli state and insurgent planning: Globalization, localization or glocalization? Cities 22: 201-15.

Meth, P. 2010. Unsettling insurgency: Reflections on women’s insurgent practices in South Africa. Planning Theory and Practice 11: 241-63.

Miraftab, F. 2009. Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global South. Planning Theory 8: 32-51.

Sandercock, L. , ed. 1998. Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sandercock, L. 1999. Introduction translations: From insurgent planning practice to radical planning discourses. Plurimondi 1: 37-46.

Sweet, E.L. , and E. Chakars. 2010. Identity, culture, land and language: Stories of insurgent planning in the Republic of Buryatia, Russia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30: 198-209.

Wildavsky, A.B. 1973. If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences 4: 127-53.