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.
Alexander, Ernest R.1981. If planning isn’t everything, maybe it’s something . Town Planning Review52:131-42.
2.
Alexander, Ernest R.1998a. Evaluation in Israeli spatial planning. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Anna Prat , 299-310. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
3.
Alexander, Ernest R.1998b. Where do we go from here: Evaluation in spatial planning in the post-modern future. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee , and Anna Prat, 355-74. Dordrecht , Netherlands: Kluwer.
4.
Alexander, Ernest R.2000. Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (3): 242-56.
5.
Alexander, Ernest R.2002. Planning rights: Toward normative criteria for evaluating plans. International Planning Studies7 (3): 191-212.
6.
Alexander, Ernest R.2005a. Implementing norms in practice-The institutional design of evaluation. In Beyond benefit cost analysis, ed. Donald Miller and Domenico Patassini, 295-310. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
7.
Alexander, Ernest R.2005b. Institutional transformation and planning: From institutionalization theory to institutional design. Planning Theory4 (3): 209-23.
8.
Alexander, Ernest R.2006a. Dilemmas in evaluating planning, or back to basics: What is planning for?Paper presented at the second World Planning Schools Congress, Mexico City.
9.
Alexander, Ernest R.2006b. Evaluations and rationalities: Reasoning with values in planning. In Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects , ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 39-52. Aldershot , UK: Ashgate.
10.
Alexander, Ernest R.2006c. Evolution and status: Where is planning evaluation today and how did it get here? In Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 3-16. Aldershot , UK: Ashgate.
11.
Alexander, Ernest R.2006d. Problems and prospects: Dilemmas in evaluation and directions for the future. In Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects , ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 267-76. Aldershot , UK: Ashgate.
12.
Alexander, Ernest R., and Andreas Faludi.1989. Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design16 (1): 127-40.
13.
Alterman, Rachel, and Morris Hill.1978. Implementation of urban land use plans . Journal of the American Institute of Planners33 (1): 274-85.
14.
Altes, William K.2006. Stagnation in housing production: Another success in the Dutch planner’s paradise?Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design33 (1): 97-114.
15.
Baer, William C.1997. General plan evaluation criteria. Journal of the American Planning Association63 (3): 329-44.
16.
Banister, David.1992. Energy use, transport and settlement patterns. In Sustainable development and urban form, ed. Michael J. Breheny, 160-81. London: Pion.
17.
Beauregard, Robert A.1990. Bringing the city back in. Journal of the American Planning Association56 (2): 210-15.
18.
Berke, Philip, Michael Backhurst, Maxine Day, Neil Ericksen, Lucie Laurian, Jan Crawford, and Jennifer Dixon.2006. What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design33 (4): 581-600.
19.
Breheny, Michael J.1992. Sustainable development and urban form: An introduction . In Sustainable development and urban form, ed. Michael J. Breheny, 1-23. London: Pion.
20.
Breheny, Michael J.1996. Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: Views on the future of urban form. In The compact city: A sustainable urban form? ed. Mike Jenks, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams, 13-35. London: E & FN Spon.
21.
Brody, Samuel D., Virginia Carrasco, and Wesley E. Highfield .2006. Measuring the adoption of local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida. Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (3): 294-310.
22.
Brody, Samuel D., and Wesley E. Highfield .2005. Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 159-75.
23.
Brody, Samuel D., Wesley E. Highfield, and Sara Thornton.2006. Planning at the urban fringe: An examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design33 (1): 75-96.
24.
Burby, Raymond J.2003, Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association69 (1): 33-49.
25.
Calkins, Hugh W.1979. The planning monitor: An accountability theory of plan evaluation. Environment and Planning A11 (7): 745-58.
26.
Carmona, Matthew, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, and Steven Tiesdell .2003. Public places, urban spaces . Oxford, UK: Architectural Press .
27.
Carmona, Matthew, and Louie Sieh.2005. Performance measurement innovation in English planning authorities. Planning Theory & Practice6 (3): 303-33.
28.
Chadwick, George F.1966. A systems view of planning. Journal of the Town Planning Institute52 (5): 184-86.
29.
Chapin, Timothy S., Robert E. Doyle, and Earl J. Baker .2008. A parcel-based GIS method for evaluating conformance of local land-use planning with a state mandate to reduce exposure to hurricane flooding. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design35 (2): 261-79.
30.
Damme, L., M. Galle, M. Pen-Stoetermeer, and K. Verdaas.1997. Improving the performance of local land-use plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 833-44.
31.
Driessen, Peter J.1997. Performance and implementing institutions in rural land development. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 807-13.
32.
Ellis, Cliff.2002. The new urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design7 (3): 261-91.
33.
Essex County Council.1973. The Essex design guide for residential areas. Chelmsford, UK: Essex County Council.
34.
European Commission.1999. MEANS collection-Evaluating socio-economic programmes. Luxembourg : Official Publications Office of the European Communities .
35.
Fainstein, Susan S.2000. New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review35 (4): 451-78.
36.
Fainstein, Susan S.2005. Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (2): 121-30.
37.
Faludi, Andreas.1987. A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
38.
Faludi, Andreas.2000. The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice & Research15 (4): 299-318.
39.
Faludi, Andreas.2006. Evaluating plans: The application of the European spatial development perspective. In Evaluation in planning: Evolution and prospects, ed. Ernest R. Alexander, 119-43. Aldershot , UK: Ashgate.
40.
Forrester, John.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley : University of California Press.
41.
Fudge, Colin, and Susan Barrett.1981. Reconstruction of the field of analysis . In Policy and action: Essays on the implementation of public policy, ed. Susan Barrett and Colin Fudge, 249-78. London: Methuen.
42.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson .1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 95-106.
43.
Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln .1989. Fourth generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44.
Haberl, Helmut, and Heinz Schandl.1999. Indicators of sustainable land use: Concepts for the analysis of society-nature interrelations and implications for sustainable development. Environment Management and Health10 (3): 177-90.
45.
Hall, Peter.1988. Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
46.
Hall, Tony.2005. Achieving design quality in the average modern European town-The example of Chelmsford. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of European Schools of Planning , Vienna.
47.
Hall, Tony.2007. Turning a town around a proactive approach to urban design . Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
48.
Hall, Tony, and James Doe.2000. Design control policies for small areas: The Dacorum Residential Area Character Study. Planning Theory & Practice1 (2): 235-56.
49.
Healey, Patsy.1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy foundation. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design23 (2): 217-34.
50.
Hill, Morris.1968. A goals-achievement matrix for evaluating alternative plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners34(1) 19-29.
51.
Ho, Suet Y.1999. Evaluating urban regeneration programmes in Britain. Exploring the potential of the realist approach. Evaluation5 (4): 422-38.
52.
Ho, Suet Y.2003. Evaluating British urban policy: Ideology, conflict and compromise. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate .
53.
Hoernig, Heidi, and Mark L. Seasons .2004. Monitoring of indicators in local and regional planning practice: Concepts and issues. Planning Practice & Research19 (1): 81-99.
54.
Innes, Judith E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-90.
55.
Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams.1996. The compact city: A sustainable urban form?London: E & FN Spon.
56.
Khakee, Abdul.1998. Evaluation and planning: Inseparable concepts. Town Planning Review69 (4): 359-74.
57.
Khakee, Abdul.2003. The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice . Evaluation9 (3): 340-52.
58.
Knaap, Peter.2004. Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and changes. Evaluation10 (1): 16-34.
59.
Kropf, Karl.1997. Typological zoning. In Typological process and design theory, ed. Atilio Petruccioli , 127-40. Cambridge, MA: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture .
60.
Kropf, Karl, ed. 2001. Stratford-upon-Avon district design guide. Stratford-upon-Avon, UK: Stratford-upon-Avon District Council.
61.
Lange, M., Hans Mastop, and Tejo Spit.1997. Performance of national policies. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 845-58.
62.
Larkham, Peter, David Chapman , Nick Morton, and Alex Birkhamshaw, eds. 2005. Stratford-upon-Avon District residential character study. Stratford-upon-Avon, UK: Stratford-upon-Avon District Council.
63.
Laurian, Lucie, Maxine Day, Michael Backhurst, Philip Berke, Neil Ericksen, Jan Crawford, Jennifer Dixon, and Sarah Chapman.2004. What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47 (4): 555-77.
64.
Laurian, Lucie, Maxine Day, Philip Berke, Neil Ericksen, Michael Backhurst, Jan Crawford, and Jennifer Dixon.2004. Evaluating plan implementation. A conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association70 (4): 471-80.
65.
Lichfield, Nathaniel.1996. Community impact evaluation. London : UCL Press.
66.
Lichfield, Nathaniel.1998. Trends in planning evaluation: A British perspective. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee, and Anna Prat , 1-15. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
67.
Lichfield, Nathaniel.2001a. The philosophy and role of community impact evaluation in the planning system. In Recent developments in evaluation , ed. Henk Voogd, 153-73. Groningen , Netherlands: Geopress.
68.
Lichfield, Nathaniel.2001b. Where do we go from here? In Recent developments in evaluation, ed. Henk Voogd, 7-15. Groningen , Netherlands: Geopress.
69.
Lichfield, Nathaniel.2003. Planned development and its children. Planning Theory & Practice4 (1): 48-65.
70.
Lichfield, Nathaniel, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitbread .1975. Evaluation in the planning process. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
71.
Lichfield, Nathaniel, and Anna Prat.1998. Linking ex-ante and ex-post evaluation in British town planning. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee , and Anna Prat, 283-98. Dordrecht , Netherlands: Kluwer.
72.
Lynch, Kevin.1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73.
Madanipour, Ali.2006. Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of Urban Design11 (2): 173-93.
74.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J.1979. A complete general theory of planning is impossible. Policy Sciences11 (1): 59-71.
75.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J., Luigi Mazza, and Robert W. Burchell .1996. Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
76.
Mastop, Hans.1997. Performance in Dutch spatial planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 807-13.
77.
Mastop, Hans, and Andreas Faludi.1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 815-32.
78.
Mastop, Hans, and Barrie Needham.1997. Performance studies in spatial planning: The state of the art. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 881-88.
79.
McAllister, Donald.1982. Evaluation in environmental planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80.
McGlynn, Sue, and Ivor Samuels.2000. The funnel, the sieve and the template: Towards an operational urban morphology. Urban Morphology4 (2): 79-89.
81.
McLoughlin, J.B.1969. Urban and regional planning: A systems approach. London: Faber.
82.
Meyerson, Martin, and Edward Banfield .1955. Politics, planning and the public interest: The case of public housing in Chicago. New York: Free Press.
83.
Needham, Barrie, Tim Zwanikken, and Andreas Faludi.1997. Strategies for improving the performance of planning: Some empirical research. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (6): 871-80.
84.
Neuman, Michael.2005. Notes on the uses and scope of city planning theory. Planning Theory4 (2): 123-45.
85.
Nijkamp, Peter, Piet Rietveld, and Henk Voogd.1990. Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
86.
Norton, Richard K.2005a. Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Education and Research25 (2): 149-71.
87.
Norton, Richard K.2005b. More and better local planning: A state-mandated local planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (1): 55-71.
88.
Norton, Richard K.2005c. Striking the balance between environment and economy in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management4 (2): 177-207.
89.
Owens, Susan E.1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and land-use planning . In Sustainable development and urban form, ed. M. Breheny, 79-105. London: Pion.
90.
Partidário, Maria R.2003. Guia para avaliação estratégica de impactes em ordenamento do território. Lisbon: MCOTA/ DGOTDU.
91.
Partidário, Maria R. , and Paulo C. Pinho.2000. Guia de apoio ao novo regime de avaliação de impacte ambiental . Lisbon: Instituto de Promoção Ambiental.
92.
Pattacini, Laurence.2001. Landscape and design guidance: Saint Gervais-les-Bains, a case-study. Journal of Urban Design6 (3): 317-25.
93.
Patton, Michael Q.2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
94.
Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley.1997. Realist evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
95.
Rossi, Peter H., Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Lipsey1999. Evaluation, a systematic approach . 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samuels, Ivor.1999. A typomorfological approach to design: The plan for St . Gervais. Urban Design International4 (3-4): 129-41.
98.
Seasons, Mark L.2003a. Indicators and core area planning: Applications in Canada’s mid-size cities. Planning Practice & Research18 (1): 63-80.
99.
Seasons, Mark L.2003b. Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning. Journal of the American Planning Association69 (4): 430-40.
100.
Söderbaum, Peter.1998. Economics and ecological sustainability: An actor network approach to evaluation. In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity, ed. Nathaniel Lichfield , Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri, Abdul Khakee , and Anna Prat, 51-72. Dordrecht , Netherlands: Kluwer.
101.
Sternberg, Ernest.2000. An integrative theory of urban design. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (3): 265-78.
102.
Talen, Emily.1996a. After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research16 (1): 79-91.
103.
Talen, Emily.1996b. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning . Journal of Planning Literature10 (3): 248-59.
104.
Talen, Emily.1997. Success, failure and conformance: An alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design24 (4): 573-87.
105.
Talen, Emily.2005. New urbanism & American planning: The conflict of cultures. New York: Routledge.
106.
Talen, Emily.2008. Beyond the front porch: Regionalist ideals in the new urbanism movement. Journal of Planning History7 (1): 20-47.
107.
Talen, Emily, and Cliff Ellis.2002. Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (1): 36-49.
108.
Valk, Arnold J., and Andreas Faludi.1992. Growth regions and the future of Dutch planning doctrine. In Sustainable development and urban form , ed. Michael J. Breheny, 122-37. London : Pion.
109.
Voogd, Henk.1983. Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning . London: Pion.
110.
Voogd, Henk.1997. The changing role of evaluation methods in a changing planning environment: Some Dutch experiences. European Planning Studies5 (2): 257-66.
111.
Voogd, Henk.1998. The communicative ideology and ex-ante planning evaluation . In Evaluation in planning: Facing the challenge of complexity , ed. Nathaniel Lichfield, Angela Barbanente, Dino Borri , Abdul Khakee, and Anna Prat, 113-26. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
112.
Weiss, Carol H.1999. The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation5 (4): 468-86.
113.
Whitehand, Jeremy W., and Nick Morton.2003. Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: An academic concept and planning practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design30 (6): 819-39.
114.
Whitehand, Jeremy W., and Nick Morton.2004. Urban morphology and planning: The case of fringe belts. Cities21 (4): 275-89.
115.
Wildavsky, Aaron.1973. If planning is everything maybe is nothing. Policy Sciences4 (2): 127-53.
116.
Wolman, Abel.1969. The metabolism of cities. Scientific American213:179-90.
