Performance Measurement in Planning—Towards a Holistic View

Abstract

Introduction Questions of performance measurement in public services have been recognised by governments around the world and are beginning to be addressed in policy development. However, the fundamentals of performance in planning are by no means well understood, let alone practised. So, for example, the heavy reliance on national performance measures for spatial planning in England, while putting some sort of agenda on the table, have not taken local planning authorities very far along the road to developing more useful performance measurement systems locally (Carmona, 2003a). Perhaps because of the complex inherently political and multiobjective nature of planning, relatively few attempts have been made to conceptualise a performancemeasurement framework for the discipline. Planning is at one and the same time: a`regulatory' process, but also a`visionary' process; both a`political arena' and à legally defined' entity; concerned with protecting both the`public interest' and`private interests'; a`long-term' and a`short-term' process; concerned with`large-scale' and small-scale' change; with the`physical and environmental' consequences of development and with the`socioeconomic' outcomes; a`generalist' discipline concerned with the operation of the statutory process but encompassing a range of deep`specialisms'; defined by a`process', but also`product' oriented, concerned with the qualities of place and space; operated through`public sector' intervention but increasingly relying on a large`private sector' consultant base;`action oriented' and a`communicative discipline' (Carmona and Sieh, 2004, page 21). Attempting to understand this complexity, let alone develop a framework for how performance can be measured, is therefore always likely to be a major challenge. Despite this there is general agreement that, in order to develop a useful and influential measurement system, it is important to integrate policy needs and

Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review

“…Most tools feature a standard chart summarising the result, acknowledging the importance of communicating the results clearly, succinctly and to a wide audience. Because of the complexity of the subject matter and in an attempt to avoid masking the multi-criteria nature of the evaluation process, the preferred chart is the multi-level pie chart for which Spear became known (Carmona and Sieh, 2008), with small variations between the different tools. The tools based on graphical software platforms (Citycad and Index) feature the possibility of mapping the results in a two-or three-dimensional representation of the urban area, offering spatial disaggregation of several indicators.…”

“…This structure progressively links higher level concepts of sustainability, present in policy targets and the development vision, to specific issues that are relevant to the project and to objectives that can be measured (Briassoulis, 2001;Mitchell, 1996). This hierarchy should provide compatibility with evaluation standards and theory, provide a clearer understanding of the issues and give greater relevance to the results (Carmona and Sieh, 2008).…”

Citizen Assessment as Policy Tool of Urban Public Services: Empirical Evidence from Assessments of Urban Green Spaces in China

“…However, the quality or performance of most public services is extremely complex to measure and assess [53,54]. Therefore, citizen assessments should not be seen as valid in every case [6].…”

Monitoring the Performance of State Structure Plan in Delivering Output Using Dynamic Model

“…Meanwhile, few researches and practices deal with plan implementation and monitoring (Berke et al, 2006;Laurian et al, 2010;Seasons, 2003;Talen, 1997). Even in countries where plan monitoring is mandatory, such as in the United Kingdom, plan monitoring remains scarce (Carmona & Sieh, 2008).…”