Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-Postmodernist Perspective

Alexander, Ernest R.

doi:10.1177/0739456x0001900303

Cited by 117 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Althaus et al (2007) recognise decision-making as a series of typical and identifiable steps beginning with establishing goals and objectives and concluding with feedback and assessment to inform future decision-making By itself, the positivistic rational planning paradigm is problematic because it presents an idealistic, simplistic and linear model of decision-making. It also fails to address issues of representation and the plurality of public interests, and inaccurately suggests that the planner has control over the decision-making situation (Alexander, 2000;Altschuler, 1965;Baum, 1996;Dalton, 1986;Davidoff, 1965;Etzioni, 1968). Despite these criticisms, Baum (1977) and B.…”

Section: Conceptualising Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few of these revivals of systems theory, however, including complexity theory, have retained or emphasise some of the most useful characteristics of structural-functional approaches suggested by theorists in the 1950s-1970s (Chettiparamb, 2006(Chettiparamb, , 2014. In fact, these approaches draw on ideas from old and new systems theories, and are often hybrids of modernist and post-modernist approaches to conceptualising or analysing planning processes and governance arrangements (E. Alexander, 2000;Chettiparamb, 2006;Cilliers, 2000;Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).…”

Section: Development Of Structural-functionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please note: Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite this paper.This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders. Corresponding author: Ruth PottsThis is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted following peer review for publication in Planning Theory AbstractExisting planning theories tend to be limited in their analytical scope and often fail to account for the impact of many interactions between the multitudes of stakeholders involved in strategic planning processes. Although many theorists rejected structural-functional approaches from the 1970s, this article argues that many of structural-functional concepts remain relevant and useful to planning practitioners. In fact, structural-functional approaches are highly useful and practical when used as a foundation for systemic analysis of real-world, multi-layered, complex planning systems to support evidence-based governance reform. Such approaches provide a logical and systematic approach to the analysis of the wider governance of strategic planning systems that is grounded in systems theory and complementary to existing theories of complexity and planning. While we do not propose its use as a grand theory of planning, this article discusses how structural-functional concepts and approaches might be applied to underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice, and to provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualising Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of Structural-functionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is reflected in the adoption of indicator systems and aggregate indices for the monitoring of sustainable urban development progress, such as the European common indicators (ECI) (AIRI, 2003) or the UK sustainable development indicators pocket guide (Defra, 2009). The adoption of simpler evaluation methods is linked to the requirements of planning practice and policy (Briassoulis, 2001;Rydin et al, 2003), since practice needs normative and positive theory (Alexander, 1997(Alexander, , 2000. Therefore, despite the mandate for EIA in the USA and for SEA or EIA in the European Union (EU), these complex frameworks have limited use in practice (Hacking and Guthrie, 2008;Jensen and Elle, 2007;Steinemann, 2001).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review

Gil

Duarte

2013

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Desig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present policy objective of sustainable urban development has created the need for methods of ex ante evaluation of local area development projects that assess the contribution of alternative solutions to the general sustainability goals. For this reason, we have seen the evolution of building energy assessment methods into sustainable neighbourhood assessment methods that are more integrative and contextual to accommodate the complexities of the urban scale. This article identifies and reviews a selection of sustainable urban development evaluation tools that are applicable to the early stages of urban design projects, to provide a clearer picture of the state of play to those needing to use such tools and those wanting to develop new ones. The review follows an analytical framework covering the format, structure, content and output of the tools, based on the recommendations of planning evaluation theory and the requirements of urban design practice. Since no single tool stands out from the review, the choice is not simple and there is scope both to further improve existing tools and develop new ones. The paper concludes proposing a strategy for the development of robust and compatible sustainable urban development evaluation methods based on four goals: collaboration, compatibility, customisation and combination.

show abstract

“…The main characteristic of this discourse model of planning is that it implies mediation between different interests. Individuals and groups who have an interest in planning matters are encouraged (with planners acting as facilitators) to "tell their own stories," which will help make planning judgments [1,2]. Forester, in his book the Deliberative Practitioner, claims that " …we are likely to learn far more in practice from stories than from scientific experiments" [7].…”

Section: The New Planning Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting the outcome of plans: retrospect and prospects of the use of models in planning

Pozoukidou

2010

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A planner who claims the quality and assets of his or her plans must be able to justify or even prove their anticipated outcomes. In the midst of the conflicting and sometimes contrasting views of how planning should be done, it seems that the use of models might be the most productive approach.Information technology and urban models entered planning around the 1950s, in a very dynamic but also unilateral way. This in fact created two large groups of planning oriented professionals with regard to the use of models in planning. On the one hand there were the planners that argued that sophisticated analytical tools could provide the foundation for the new science of planning. On the other, there were the more imaginative, creative and wilful planners that viewed the rationalization and mathematical nature of analysis (maybe even the role of analysis itself), with much distrust.Today there is still diversity in the way planners think about models and their role in plan-making. This probably results from the implicit assumption that models would somehow not aid but replace planners' control over the process of planning. If someone seeks the reason for this misperception he will come to the conclusion that it results from planners' limited understanding of what models as planning tools represent and that there has been little research for an appropriate role of information technology in planning. After 60 years of computers first entering planning profession, it won't be an overstatement to say that despite their unambiguous significance in planning and plan-making, there has been little or no use of them in professional planning practice.This paper is an attempt to define or better redefine the role of models in planning and plan making. For that there is a review of information technology and its use in planning over the last fifty years followed by, a parallel exploration of the emerging philosophical needs and theories in planning discipline. The

show abstract

Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-Postmodernist Perspective

Cited by 117 publications

References 60 publications

Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review

Predicting the outcome of plans: retrospect and prospects of the use of models in planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About