The Emerging Gap between Evaluation Research and Practice

Khakee, Abdul

doi:10.1177/13563890030093007

Cited by 46 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Starting from the proposition that there is a gap between theory and practice (Alexander, 1997;Khakee, 2003), this review seems to confirm it to some extent. Looking at Table 2 and focusing on the institutions involved in the development of the different tools, there were only two (closely related) cases in which there was direct collaboration between industry and academia or between government and academia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…On the other hand, planning practice has remained positivist, believing in objective quantitative measurement (Khakee, 2003). 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).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Alexander (2006), this evolution has represented recognition of the complexities of the evaluation process in urban planning and has resulted in a move to scientifically and technically more sophisticated methods: from 'simple' calculation methods to complex assessment frameworks; from an environmental focus to an integrated sustainability agenda; from an aggregated or reductionist strategy to a disaggregated and multi-dimensional approach. This evolution reflects the progress of planning evaluation theory from a positivist stance of instrumental rationality to a dialectic stance of communicative rationality (Khakee, 2003).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sustainable urban development evaluation frameworks need to respond to several requirements in order to be effectively applied as decision and design support tools to urban design practice in the ex ante evaluation of design proposals. They need to & have an integrated conception of sustainable urban development (Gasparatos et al, 2009;Hacking and Guthrie, 2008;Munda, 2006) & reflect a widely accepted vision that provides guidance during the design process (Cole, 1999(Cole, , 2005Jensen and Elle, 2007;Leitmann, 1999) & agree objectives and targets to work towards, instead of comparing to the reference baseline scenario (Cole, 1999;Pope et al, 2004) & allow for early stage deployment, when few data on a project are available (Cole, 1999;Hunt et al, 2008) & use disaggregate measures and include MCA features (Ding, 2008;Gasparatos et al, 2009;Hacking and Guthrie, 2008;Munda, 2006) & offer interaction with the design and be sensitive to design changes (Cole, 1999;Leitmann, 1999) & allow for (re)iteration, assessing alternatives and supporting the evolution of the design (Becker, 2004;Cole, 1999Cole, , 2005Leitmann, 1999;Oliveira and Pinho, 2010) & offer communication methods that make the results clear and understandable to the various stakeholders (Becker, 2004;Cole, 1999;Leitmann, 1999;Oliveira and Pinho, 2010;Walton et al, 2005) & assess the planning process itself in terms of dialogue and participation of the various stakeholders (Gaffron et al, 2008;Khakee, 2003;Munda, 2006;Oliveira and Pinho, 2010).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Evaluation Of Sustainable Urban Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…According to the latter, what is needed is an open and value related discourse in order to make the consequences of a plan or a policy measure as clear as possible. In practice there is however, a strong adherence to the rational approach and to the quantification of consequences, which has led to an emerging gap between research and practice (Henkel 1991;Khakee 2003).…”

Section: Fundamentals and Purpose Of Planning Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Principles in Planning Evaluation

Hull¹,

Khakee²,

Miller³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning and evaluation have been described as inseparable concepts both from a theoretical and a practical point of view Khakee 1998). In fact there has been a growing appreciation of this interrelationship owing to the increased integration of democratic concerns in planning and a convergence of ecology with urban planning. In the following pages we trace this development with the help of a brief retrospect of the recent evolution of planning evaluation research and with reference to the institutional realities of planning evaluation practice. Planning Evaluation in RetrospectPlanning evaluation has been an established field of research for a considerable number of years. Its development had been closely associated with changes in planning theory and practice as well as in policy analysis and programme evaluation. Planning evaluation most obviously refers to the making of normative judgements about the success (or otherwise) of the intervention outcomes of planning or assessing the success of the process of planning. As such, planning evaluation acquires knowledge from a vast number of disciplinary sources. It is difficult to track down all the changes that have taken place in the field of planning evaluation during these years. Very roughly, however, we can discern the development of planning evaluation research along three lines: the fundamentals and purpose of planning evaluation, the scope of planning evaluation, and the methodological innovations and improvements. Fundamentals and Purpose of Planning EvaluationTwo distinct paradigms, consisting of clear and well-defined theoretical and empirical propositions, have determined planning theoretical research. These paradigms are rational planning and communicative (also referred to as 'deliberative') planning respectively. The two planning theories are both descriptive and normative. They not only explain the nature of planning and the process this involves but also guide various phases of the process including evaluation (Lichfield et al. 1975 New Principles in Planning EvaluationRational planning is based on instrumental rationality and has dominated planning research for more than half a century. Instrumental rationality implies that the most favourable relationship between goal achievement and resource use is obtained. This requires that goals are carefully specified and that goal achievement implies the minimization of expenditure or the most effective use of resources. In policy programme evaluation the rational paradigm has found its expression in various measurement methods and goal achievement models. These have been characterized as the 'first' and the 'second' generation of evaluation methods (Guba and Lincoln 1989).Several theoretical phenomena e.g. incrementalism, advocacy, implementation and strategic planning were developed to redress shortcomings in the rational planning model. They showed that in reality problems are poorly defined, many goals can only be formulated qualitatively, relationships between goals and means are poor on account of ...

show abstract

Expanding Churchman’s Philosophical Discourse

Agrell¹

2006

Wisdom, Knowledge, and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Emerging Gap between Evaluation Research and Practice

Cited by 46 publications

References 19 publications

Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review

Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review

New Principles in Planning Evaluation

Expanding Churchman’s Philosophical Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About