Evolution of Planning Theory and Practice: Engineering Implications
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 112, Issue 2
Abstract
Planning theory and practice has evolved from a concern with “scientific efficiency” in the mid‐1800s to a recent emphasis on rationalized decision‐making. The period between has seen a continuing shift in focus including the “city beautiful” movement of the late 19th century, the pragmatists/technicians of the 1920s, the national resources concerns of the 1930s and 1940s, and the rational planning movement of the past three decades. The rational planning model (RPM) is a 5 step process that involves setting goals, defining alternatives, comparing alternatives, making a choice, and implementing the selected alternative. The RPM has three major problems, however: limited knowledge; the community welfare function; and implementation. Failures because of these problems have led to various attempts to modify the RPM. Although there is no single, best theory of planning, the planning function continues to play an important role and to evolve in response to continually changing societal needs.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Citizen Participation in the American Federal System, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.
2.
Altshuler, A., “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1965, pp. 186–195.
3.
Bacow, L., and Wheeler, M., Environmental Dispute Resolution, Plenum, New York, 1984.
4.
Churchman, C. W., The Systems Approach, (revised), Laurel, 1983.
5.
Davidoff, P., “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1965, pp. 331–338.
6.
Dyckman, J. W., “The Practical Uses of Planning Theory,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1969, pp. 298–300.
7.
Etzioni, A., “Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making,” 1967, pp. 217–229, in A Reader in Planning Theory, by Andreas Faludi, Ed., Pergamon, New York, 1973.
8.
Fischoff, Baruch, et al., Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
9.
Friedmann, J., and Hudson, B. M., “Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1974, pp. 2–16.
10.
Funigiello, P. J., “City Planning in World War II: The Experience of the National Resources Planning Board,” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, 1972, pp. 91–104.
11.
Harris, B., “A Fundamental Paradigm for Planning,” 1975 Symposium on Planning Theory, edited by R. H. Wilson and T. Noyelle, University of Pennsylvania, Papers in Planning, 1975.
12.
Heskin, A. D., “Crisis and Response: An Historical Perspective on Advocacy Planning,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1980, pp. 50–63.
13.
Hill, M., “A Goals‐achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1968, pp. 19–29.
14.
Holling, C. S., and Goldberg, M. A., “Ecology and Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1971, pp. 221–230.
15.
Hudson, B. M., “Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 45, No. 4, 1979, pp. 387–398.
16.
Krueckeburg, D. A., “The Culture of Planning,” Introduction to Planning History in the United States, The Center For Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1983, pp. 1–12.
17.
Lake, L. M., Environmental Mediation: The Search for Consensus, Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, 1980.
18.
Lave, L. B., Ed., Quantitative Risk Assessment in Regulation, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1982.
19.
Lee, D. B., “A Requiem for Large‐Scale Models,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1973, pp. 163–178.
20.
Lindblom, C. E., “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1959, pp. 79–99.
21.
McAllister, D. A., “Theory of Cost Benefit Analysis,” Evaluation in Environmental Planning, MIT Press, 1981, p. 104.
22.
Mernitz, S., Mediation of Environmental Disputes, Praeger, New York, 1980.
23.
Meyerson, M., and Banfield, E. C., Politics, Planning and the Public Interest, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1955.
24.
Schwing, R. C., and Albers, W. A., Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough, Plenum, New York, 1980.
25.
Simon, H. A., “A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, Administrative Behavior, 2nd ed., MacMillan, New York, 1949.
26.
Susskind, L., and Ozawa, C., “Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as Mediator,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 4, 1984, pp. 5–15.
27.
Wilson, W. H., “Moles and Skylarks,” Coming of Age: Urban American 1915–1945, by W. H. Wilson, Wiley, New York, 1974.
28.
Wrigley, R. L., Jr., “The Plan of Chicago—It's Fiftieth Anniversary,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1960, pp. 31–38.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 112 • Issue 2 • December 1986
Pages: 37 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 ASCE.
History
Published online: Dec 1, 1986
Published in print: Dec 1986
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.