The Planning Monitor: An Accountability Theory of Plan Evaluation

Abstract

This paper presents the concepts of a planning monitor as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of plans and the planning process. The concepts of the planning monitor present a structure for preparing an urban or regional plan. There are two separate components of the planning monitor: (1) a set of rational planning procedures; and (2) a supporting information system. The paper argues that planning, in its present form, does not use information effectively. It is not that information is ignored but rather that planning has adapted to an environment where there is a lack of adequate information and has therefore developed procedures which allow it to function without information. It is even conceivable that these procedures may have evolved to the point where they not only do not require information but in fact cannot utilize the information even if it is provided. The discussion encompasses plan preparation and the information systems necessary to make a planning monitor work. A planning monitor would provide information that is needed for modification of a plan and for the evaluation of planning as an effective means of controlling development. When fully operational a planning monitor would introduce accountability into the planning process through the evaluation of plan implementation actions. This evaluation is based on a structure for relating goals and objectives to specific program and policy actions. Finally a planning process is proposed which encompasses monitoring and plan evaluation.

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

“…Plan outputs are typically described in terms of unit and time (Faludi, 2000;Seasons, 2003), such as the number of houses to be built within five years, or the number of open space required within the next ten years. Calkins (1979) calls this as the plan's end-state targets.…”

“…Although some scholars do investigate plan conformance, these are centred on outcome conformance (or more specifically on land use change) rather than output conformance (Ahmad Nazri Muhamad Ludin, Mohd Nuruddin Abdul Kadir, & Susilawati Sulaiman, 2009;Alterman, Carmon, & Hill, 1984;Chapin, Deyle, & Baker, 2008;Combe, 2008;Hao, Sliuzas, Zhan, & Geertman, 2009;Laurian et al, 2010;Tarmiji Masron & Ruslan Rainis, 2004). Except for Calkins (1979), who proposes a 'planning monitor' to measure plan output conformance. He suggests that, by using the planning monitor, performance of plan can be measured based on conformance of actual output change to end-state target.…”

“…These, for instance, include schools, open spaces, houses, hospitals, roads and transport terminals. Calkins (1979), in the meantime, calls these plan outputs as the measurable attributes of the plan. The opposite of plan outputs are plan outcomes, which are the intangible results of development plan implementation such as improved environmental quality, safer living environment and reduced illiteracy rate.…”

O Uso da Accountability Theory em Pesquisas sobre Transparência Governamental: Abordagens e Perspectivas

“…The accountability of NGOs in civil society and its public spheres (Lehman, 2007) (Calkins, 1979) 17 (WEBOFSCIENCE, 2017) Fonte: Dados da Pesquisa (2017).…”

Urban Planning Implementation Evaluation: A Multilevel Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Approach

“…As supporters of conformance-based approach, a number of researches have emerged: At the earliest, Alterman and Hill (1978) measured and examined the implementation of land use plan for Krayot area in Israel [5]; Calkins (1979) introduced a planning monitor to help the evaluation of planning as an effective means of controlling development [6]; Talen (1996) proposed methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans focusing on the distribution of public facilities [4]; Talen (1997) gave a specific example of how implementation success could be evaluated in a conformance approach [7]; Laurian (2004) presented a conformance-based plan implementation evaluation methodology to assess whether and to what degree plan policies were implemented [8]; Brody (2005) examined the spatial pattern of wetland development permits over ten years by comparing the original land use design with subsequent development activities [9]; Berke (2006) examined local plans implementation in New Zealand by both conformance and performance basedapproach [10]; Chapin (2008) evaluated the implementation of local land use policies that call for limits of development in hurricane hazard zones in Okaloosa County, Florida, with the help of a parcel-based Geographic Information System [11]. On the other hand, the work of advocators of performance-based approach are briefly described as follows: Driessen (1997) addressed the performance relations between spatial planning and rural land development [12]; Lange (1997) discussed the evaluation methods of national spatial policies by their performance [13]; Faludi (2000) argued that performance-based approach is suitable for strategic spatial planning evaluation and presented the method for evaluating plan performance.…”