2022 年 10 巻 3 号 p. 302-320
Evaluation is one of the most important steps in the planning process that has been widely considered in recent decades by scholars in the field of planning. Despite the extensive studies on the plan and planning evaluation, no specific studies have yet been conducted on planning evaluation schools. This gap can cause a theoretical and practical ambiguity on the subject of planning evaluation. Hence, exploring and describing theoretical and practical historical developments in the field of evaluation schools in planning can be useful in resolving this ambiguity. In this article, using the meta-theory and a genealogical perspective, four schools of planning were identified: The causal school under the rational planning theories, the communicative school under the participatory planning theories, the Dutch school under the Dutch planning, and the IOR School of planning, and finally, the evidence-oriented school under the emerging theories of sustainable development and environmental planning. This classification was conducted based on the philosophy of thought, the influential scholars, and how to use evaluation. Identifying these schools of thought contributes to a clear understanding of how this concept is described and applied in planning evaluation, states the reasons for its formation and critiques of each school, and ultimately strengthens its practice.
Evaluation as a step in the planning process seeks to judge the successes and failures of planning (Alexander, E. R. and Faludi, 1989). Evaluation judges whether the planning has been able to solve or realize the given challenges and goals. Over the past six decades, from the introduction of evaluation into the literature on urban and regional planning (Guyadeen, 2018), many attempts have been made in this field based on the challenges of evaluation, and each has developed part of this concept. The evaluation concept is mainly influenced by factors such as paradigms, the type of planning, the purpose of planning, etc. These factors have evolved in the theory and practice of evaluation, including how to choose the optimal plan (the 1950s to 1970s) (Lichfield, N., 1970), conformance of goal and outcome (Alterman and Hill, 1978; Anselin and Getis, 1992; Calkins, 1979; Chapin, Deyle et al., 2008; Kapoor, Jain et al., 2019), the impact of the plan (Barrett, 1981; Mastop and Needham, 1997), and quality of plans (Baer, 1997; Berke, Philip R. and French, 1994). Such extensive studies shape the various concepts, methodologies, and approaches, leading to the multi-conceptuality and multi-functionality of evaluation. Thus, to better understand the planning evaluation, it is necessary to identify dominant thoughts as well as their past and present situations. Identifying the schools of thought in planning evaluation reveals the skeleton of the planning evaluation and contributes to the future theoretical and practical development of the field to resolve theoretical and practical ambiguities (Dadashpoor and Alvandipour, 2020; Peris, Meijers et al., 2018; Sheydayi and Dadashpoor, 2022; Ziafati Bafarasat, 2014). Despite the contribution of scholars in different approaches to planning evaluation, a lack of studies to explore and describe the schools of urban and regional planning evaluation is strongly sensed.
In addition to the vast scope of evaluation at three levels of ex-ante, ongoing, and ex-post implementation (Baer, 1997; Oliveira and Pinho, 2010b), various factors have influenced schools of thought in planning evaluation, including paradigm shifts in the three categories of rational-comprehensive, communicative, and pragmatism (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2018); planning developments such as the maximum realization of goals and minimum consumption of resources (Hill, 1968); future control (Wildavsky, 1973); decision-making framework guiding (Faludi, 1987), practice, and learning (Berke, P. and Godschalk, 2009; Faludi, 2006); planning purpose developments such as economic welfare distribution (Lichfield, N., 1960, 1961); problem finding and problem-solving (Faludi, 1987; Needham, 1971); and moving towards sustainable development (Berke, Philip R., 2002; Berke, Philip R. and Conroy, 2000; Conroy and Berke, 2004). Thus, the existing article addresses three key questions: What schools of thought can be identified in the field of urban and regional planning evaluation? How can these schools be distinguished, and what are their characteristics? And finally, what is the relationship between evaluation theory and practice in each school? This article identifies the schools based on the historical period of planning evaluation from the 1960s to the 2020s and the philosophy of thought that grounds the planning changes, planning paradigms (that provide a bird's eye view of planning changes over time), definitions of planning (that directly affect the evaluation process and reveal the purpose of the planning), and the evaluation method (that pays attention to the mechanisms and focal points of evaluation).
This study aimed to explore and describe the schools of urban and regional planning evaluation using a genealogical approach to solve the existing conceptual complexity and fusion (Dadashpoor and Alvandipour, 2020). The reason for using this approach is that from a historical point of view, it increases the descriptive power and provides a better understanding of the phenomenon or subject (Christensen, 2016). Genealogy demonstrates how particular discourses are historically constituted, and how these are changed and reconstituted into qualitatively different practices (Meadmore, Hatcher et al., 2000). The beginning of genealogy has to do with Foucault's thoughts (Meadmore, Hatcher et al., 2000), who argues that to understand the Phenomenon, its historical evolution needs to be considered (Vucetic, 2011). This approach represents the "history of the present" based on the available evidence (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 2014). The starting point of genealogy is the identification of the evidence (here are articles and books). Hence, the starting point of the subject should be determined.
Evaluation, theoretically and practically, stepped into the field of urban and regional planning in the 1960s (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2018). Hence, the time frame for data collection was chosen from 1960 to 2020. The primary studies were selected by searching related keywords to planning evaluation, plan evaluation, planning evaluation approaches, planning paradigms, planning theories, conformance approach, performance approach, plan quality, and planning/plan evaluation review (195 sources). Then, in the second step, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed to select articles that realize the main purpose of the article. At this stage, 148 studies were obtained. In the final stage, the text of all the articles obtained in the second step was carefully studied, and another 28 articles were excluded. Finally, 120 articles were selected for final review.
As genealogy has a historical perspective, the time classification of the studies was created in the EndNote software for 10 years, to help clarify the intellectual background of different studies in a given period. Then, the orientation of different studies was extracted by the in-text markup technique. This matter shows the intellectual orientation of each study. The alignment of these intellectual orientations is very useful in exploring and describing schools of planning evaluation. Finally, the characteristics and criticisms of each school were examined based on the body of the studies.
The 1950s to the 1970s, under the influence of rational planning, can be considered an era of the causal school. The beginning of rational planning can be traced back to the Cartesian intellectual age in the 17th century when the basis of the Cartesian concept of reason is on the thoughts that look for one's inner beliefs about the external world and norms. The Cartesian reason ignores the specific cultures and values (Alexander, E. R., 2000). Rather, it is a rational procedure that can validate actions and beliefs. In this period, the rational paradigm was prevailing in the planning and its objective was to create a rational framework for what the government does (Hill, 1968). Rationality was used as a tool to advance the activity and create rational causalities. Thus, an instrumental view of planning was dominant in this era. The instrumental view is seen in Weberian rationality, known as classical rational planning, and looks for creating a rational process in planning (Alexander, E. R., 2000). From the ontological point of view, the rational view adheres to interpretation based on observation, scientific method, and cause and effect rules. From an epistemological point of view, as was common in the intellectual age, the rational view argues that the analyst must have a neutral view, and the phenomena before being analyzed lack the value and superiority over each other (Khakee, 2003). These debates illustrate the nature of evaluation from the 1950s to the 1970s.
After examining the philosophy of thought and paradigm, the definition of planning in this era is considered, which has a direct effect on the evaluation mechanism. After the Second World War and the damages caused by it, the economic recession prevailed in Europe. This is an influential factor in planning and evaluation in this era. Economic welfare and its distribution were among the goals of planning in the 1960s (Lichfield, N., 1960, 1964; Wildavsky, 1966). Rational planning in this period was defined as the process of maximum realization of the goals (economic, physical) and the minimum consumption of resources (Hill, 1968). This definition highlights the mechanism, purpose, and type of evaluation. That is, the evaluator is required to examine how much the available and potential alternatives use the resources and how well they achieve the goals– the most optimal alternative is the best choice. This view of evaluation is known by the concept of utilitarianism (Alexander, E. R., 2006; Campbell and Marshall, 2002; Moroni, Stefano, 2006). Utilitarianism occupies a large part of the field of urban and regional planning evaluation (Moroni, S., 2006). The mechanism of this category is based on the comparison between the alternative and the goal and the selection of the most optimal ones. The roots of such an evaluation can be traced back to the pre-planning years in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States and the Flood Risk Reduction Act (Berke, Philip R., 2002). The cost-benefit mechanism arises from Marshallian economics (Alexander, E. R., 2006). This mechanism generally states how much profit (achievement of goals) occurs based on cost (resource consumption). The definition of purpose is essential in this school. The first step in rational planning is to define goals clearly (Berke, Philip R., 2002), which shows the importance of goals in this school.
According to epistemology, another feature of the causal school is the focus on science and method. Given the extent to which methods were produced in the 1960s and 1970s (Lichfield, N., 1970; Lichfield, N., 1996; Lichfield, N., P. and Kettle, 1975), it is clear that this school focuses on the development of evaluation methods and methodologies. The focal point is that these methods often have no planning basis and have entered the field of planning from other sciences. Since in the field of planning, attention to the theory in planning or planning theory is considered among researchers (such as Faludi (1973)), this school can be considered an evaluation in planning that the basis of its judgment is often derived from economic and managerial debates. However, in the 1960s, scholars such as Lichfield, N. (1960, 1964) and Hill (1968) tried to integrate the cost-benefit mechanism into urban and regional planning as an attempt to move from evaluation in planning to the planning evaluation. In the 1970s, with the introduction of policy implementation debate into the planning (Pressman Jeffrey and Wildavsky, 1973; Talen, 1996) along with the critiques of Calkins (1979) on the neglect of implementation evaluation, the causal school gained more power and stepped into the implementation phase. Highlighting the cause-and-effect aspect and planning implementation, Wildavsky (1973) emphasized in his paper that “If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing.” He stated that planning must be implemented and deviation from goals is a failure. Calkins (1979), using the term "new plan syndrome,” criticized planning and stated that planners formulate new plans without consideration of the previous ones, their outcomes, and their successes or failures. Such a view, known as the conformance approach, expresses that each goal is the cause of an objective outcome. With the rise of remote sensing science, the use of software such as GIS flourished (Anselin and Getis, 1992; Calkins, 1979; Chapin, Deyle et al., 2008; Kapoor, Jain et al., 2019; Muazir and Hsieh, 2021). This made it easier to measure the conformity between the plan goals and the development that took place in reality and made it possible to control the future. This strengthened the conformance approach.
The casual school was criticized in the 1970s and 1980s. These criticisms were initially highlighted under critical rationality and focused on the definition of planning and its goal-oriented nature. Critical thinking started with Popper's views on rejecting the scientific theories. In the planning based on Popper's thought, the planners cannot fully understand the whole reality, as they stand in an ambiguous network of cause-and-effect relationships. Thus, the problem must be identified, and then its nature must be explored (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Needham (1971)stated that planning seeks to solve the problems, not to achieve goals. Faludi’s theories (1973; 1983; 1987; 1989) are in the process of transition from a goal-oriented approach to a planning process that fits under critical rational and decision-making planning. Accordingly, defines planning as problem-solving and guiding decisions for future development, not achieving goals. With the rise of strategic planning, the substance or procedure debate in the 1970s and 1980s ended in favor of the procedure. Hence, evaluation moved to focus on the process instead of focusing on the goals. Another critique has been made of the nature of the cause-and-effect view, which essentially defines planning as an isolated matter and ignores uncertainty (Faludi, 1989). In this regard, it is argued that reality cannot be obtained just by observing and creating a cause-and-effect relationship. The last critique concerns the manner of evaluation and its mechanism. The focus was on the data that solely professionals can use–termed as professional data (Voogd, H., 1998). These criticisms often indicate the ignorance of discourse data.
Communicative schoolIn the 1980s, with the work of Habermas (1984) and his emphasis on interaction in planning, a new form of the definition of planning and, consequently, evaluation was formed. Ignorance of participation and stakeholders in planning was the most important critique of Habermas to the planning. Habermas's ideas are rooted in the idealism of Hegelianism and critical Marxist analysis (Fainstein, 2000). Hence, this school is critical in nature. The beginning of this thinking goes back to the Frankfurt School. Before Habermas and in the 1960s, some studies focused on participatory and pluralistic approaches, such as the works of Altshuler (1965); Davidoff and Reiner (1962); but at the time, these ideas had little effect on planning evaluation. The paradigm shift from rational to communicative was also emphasized in the studies of scholars such as Forester (1980); Friedmann (1987); Healey (1996); Innes (1995); Sager (1994). During this period, the difference between theory and practice was highlighted. A communicative perspective was developed to respond to the practice of planning (Forester, 1980). In a way, planning in this period is out of the technocratic mode and focuses on aspects of discourse that are often overlooked and invisible (Healey, 1992). The communicative perspective reinforces communication ethics and discourse to respond to the practice of planning (Faludi and Altes, 1994; Healey, 1998).
Planning in the 1980s focused on the formation of consistency and the quality of consensus on different issues (Innes and Booher, 1999). From an ontological point of view, analysts engage in a reasoned critique of their normative hypotheses and experiences, and social constructivism is accepted in policy research (Khakee, 2003). In other words, how subjectivity becomes a social reality that arises through interaction and action is important. Therefore, it can be said that the communicative perspective emphasizes the abstraction of planning (Fainstein, 2000). From an epistemological point of view, individuals are active participants, and the values set by the analysts mediate the research (Khakee, 2003). Attention to the gap between theory and practice, focusing on the quality of consensus and abstraction, and focusing on the originality of the mind are prominent features of evaluation in this view. In this regard, evaluation with a normative look seeks to find how to create the right platform for consensus. To address the gap between evaluation and evaluation practice, the slogan of evaluation is inseparable from planning theory (Khakee, 1998). In this view, each planning process has its own evaluation framework that often aims to convince the groups involved in planning. Therefore, the classification of planning theories is of great importance. As a result, the transition from method-oriented and goal-oriented to problem-oriented and process-oriented can be identified (Voogd, H., 1998) in this school. The most comprehensive classification to date has been provided by Innes (1995) who has been the reference for some studies in this field. The quality of consensus-building is also defined by a normative view of how a decision-making process should be, focusing on how to participate, the quality of the data exchanged, and the opportunity for each group to comment (Innes and Booher, 1999) and emphasizes the commitment of groups to planning (Healey, 1993). Therefore, evaluation in this period can be considered an abstract, subjective, and theory-based activity that measures the degree of consensus and commitment to planning. Unlike the previous school–which was basically the evaluation in planning- this school emphasizes planning evaluation.
In practice, southern countries, especially Latin countries, can be considered a clear example of participatory evaluation. The move towards liberalism and empowering of local communities has strengthened local participation at various levels of planning, including budgeting and prioritization of plan alternatives in the planning structure of these countries (Souza, 2007).
The communicative school also faces criticism. With the rise of theories of urban livability, urban form, and sustainable development in the 1980s and 1990s (Oliveira and Pinho, 2010a), too much focus on process was criticized. Breheny (1996) considers the excessive focus on the process as an obstacle to recognize the reality of the common good (public interest) and the purposes that can be the basis of urban livability. Berke, Philip R. (2002) defined the common good as sustainable development and stated that planning must move towards the achievement of sustainable development (Conroy and Berke, 2004). On the other hand, with the rise of globalization debate and the growing role of local plans as the drivers of development, the attention to environmental, physical, and land use planning became important; because the nature of local plans is often project-oriented and physical-oriented (Berke, Philip R. and Conroy, 2000; Faludi, 1989). Another critique is the abstract nature of the communicative perspective. The views of Foucault (Alexander, E. R., 2001), Forester (1982); Hoch, C. J. (1984) highlight the neglect of the communicative perspective on the issue of power in planning. They argue that, in practice, it is the power of various groups that determines the direction of planning and that different groups do not have the same power to advance their aspirations, leading to the emergence of a new school of evaluation. This new school is in line with the communicative school, but it can be considered an independent school due to its special form of planning and its impact on the evaluation literature.
Dutch schoolDutch planning itself is considered a school of urban and regional planning, and scholars in the field were able to make a significant impact on the urban and regional planning evaluation literature in the 1990s. The scholars such as Alexander, E. (1988); Alexander, E. and Faludi (1990); Faludi and van der Valk (1994); Van Der Valk (1991); van der Valk and Faludi (1997) contributed to the Dutch planning school. The Dutch school is inspired by planning experiences. Therefore, it is completely planning-oriented. The Dutch school of planning had a great influence on planning theories, such as Faludi's decision-oriented theory and strategic planning. Hence, it has been able to have a great impact on the evaluation literature. From a philosophical point of view, the strategic choice presented by John Friend- in “local government and strategic choice: An operational research approach to the process of public planning” (Friend and Jessop, 1977)- was the philosophy of planning in Dutch planning that was developed in Britain (Faludi, 2004). The IOR School of planning and structural planning in the 1960s were the fallout of this philosophy in British planning (Healey, 2003). In this school, instead of focusing on traditional methods that were often mathematical and rigid, soft approaches such as decision relationships, decision situations, and decision environments were highlighted. Although it was the beginning of philosophical thought in England, it was reflected in Dutch planning from the point of view of the evaluation literature.
Faludi and Mastop (1982) were among the scholars who linked this thinking to Dutch planning. From a paradigm perspective, this school is consistent with the coordinating paradigm proposed by Alexander, E. R. (2000), given the views of its exponents who often focus on rationality (such as Faludi and Alexander). Its features include a focus on organizational units, organizational networks, attention to implementation, and strategic planning (Alexander, E. R., 2000). Thus, this type of planning focuses on law and order (Faludi and van der Valk, 1994) and highlights organizational relationships in planning and evaluation. In addition to the IOR School of planning, the failures of traditional approaches in the planning evaluation have led to the realization that conformance-oriented approaches do not well highlight the failure and success of strategic plans (Faludi, 1989; Laurian, Day et al., 2004). The issue of population control in Dutch cities by creating a green belt and failing to select the population overflow options are among these experiences (Van der Valk, 2002). The evaluation experience of Dutch planning is as an experience to examine the evaluation evolution (Voogd, Henk, 1997), which indicates the impact of this school on the evaluation literature. The Dutch experience coincides with the changes in the implementation policy approaches, where the bottom-up approach is replaced with the top-down approach (Barrett, 1981; Sabatier, 1986). Such developments in the planning and evaluation led to the empowerment of the performance approach. In his critique of Wildavsky (1973) definition of planning, Alexander stated that if planning isn’t everything, maybe it’s something (Alexander, E. R., 1981). In this line, Alexander, E. R. and Faludi (1989) also stated that, due to uncertainty, implementation cannot be an appropriate measure of success and failure of planning; therefore, it is more appropriate to focus on the impact of one plan on the other decisions. This statement is the evaluation framework of the Dutch school on which scholars agree (de Lange, Mastop et al., 1997; Driessen, 1997; Faludi, 2006; Mastop, 1997; van Damme, Galle et al., 1997). Hence, the Dutch school is more focused on the implementation of planning which is in contrast to the causal school. Evaluation in this school sought to measure the coordination of the network of actors, (Driessen, 1997) classify the plan statements and their comprehensiveness (de Lange, Mastop et al., 1997; van Damme, Galle et al., 1997), and points of deviation from the plan and its causes (Mastop, 1997).
With the rise of strategic and structural planning, the Dutch school also spread rapidly in different countries. The contrast between performance planning and conformance planning led planners to focus on evaluating the performance of operational policies. Countries such as Australia affected by structural and strategic planning developments in the United Kingdom, the United States, EU member states (Janin Rivolin, 2008), and southern countries such as South Africa (Abrahams, 2015) provide the examples of Dutch school application and performance evaluation.
Evaluation in this school is closely related to communicative school. For example, both schools emphasize subjectivism (de Lange, Mastop et al., 1997; Faludi and Altes, 1994), so criticisms of the communicative school can be related to this school as well. Another challenge of evaluation school is to determine when the impact of a plan begins. On the other hand, this critique can be generalized to the planning structure. Dutch and English planning are structurally similar and centralized (Carmona, 2003; Needham, Zwanikken et al., 1997). Therefore, organizational coordination can be better managed. However, such coordination is complex in countries with decentralized planning. Another criticism of this school involves its large-scale nature. To move away from implementation and focus on operational decisions requires a national and trans-regional perspective, and often a performance approach is used in this regard (Faludi, 2006); But as mentioned, urban and regional planning is moving towards local planning. All these cases and criticisms related to the communicative school led to the formation of the evidence-oriented school.
Evidence-oriented schoolThe latest school in the field of urban and regional planning evaluation is the evidence-oriented school. This school is under the paradigm of pragmatism, which tends towards empiricism. The philosophy behind this school is formed in America by scholars such as John Dewey and Richard Rorty (Fainstein, 2000). They state that empirical knowledge is theories about cause and effect and the production of evidence in a systematic way and comprehensive attention to all their dimensions and combinations that organize choices and judgments (Healey, 2008). From an ontological point of view, truth is not something that can be fully mastered, so it must focus on the amount of knowledge needed to solve the leading problems (Hoch, C. J., 2002). Knowledge is acquired through experience and exercise, and skill is considered an application of created knowledge in the action. From an epistemological point of view, this paradigm completely focuses on practical wisdom. Dualism is eliminated in this paradigm (Hoch, C. J., 1984). Dualities such as the process or goal, quantitative or qualitative, rational choice or dialogue, theory or practice are rejected and these elements are seen as complementary. Alexander (1998, 2000) and Lichfield, N. (1998) assume these paradigms as complementary, emphasizing that rational thinking continues and exists in the follow-on paradigms. Faludi (2000) states that planning can be taken both as a technical practice (rational-comprehensive) and a learning (communicative) process. Hence, evaluation under this paradigm focuses on the combination of measures of evaluation under the rational-comprehensive and communicative paradigms.
Comparison and combination of performance and conformance planning system in land use planning of England, some EU countries (Janin Rivolin, 2008), USA (Elliot, 2008), and Australia are the examples of the combination of two communicative and rational - comprehensive perspectives in urban and regional planning.
Criticizing the focus on theory and evaluation process has led to a new direction with an emphasis on the plan. Discussing the importance of the plans, Neuman (1998) stated that, despite the importance of decision and process in the 1980s, the progress is mostly due to the plan. Categorizing the different types of plans, Baer (1997); Hopkins (2001) reinforced the focus on the plan, and this view has continued to this day. That is because plans are known as the input and output of planning and are responsible for the future development of plans (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016). In this era, the aim is to learn from the planning experiences and create a good plan (Baer, 1997; Berke, P. and Godschalk, 2009). Hence, planning is seen as a learning process (Brody, 2003; Faludi, 2000). Plans are the best documents for such learning, so the focus of the evaluators is to examine the text of the plans and extract the criteria for measuring their quality. Any criteria that can lead the planners to a good or better plan are useful. Thus, criteria and data are often a combination of schools under different paradigms (Connell and Daoust-Filiatrault, 2017; Norton, David et al., 2018; Tang and Brody, 2009). Such integration of criteria can also be seen in the implementation field. Altes (2006); Berke, P., Backhurst et al. (2006); Feitelson, Felsenstein et al. (2017); Laurian, Crawford et al. (2010); Zhong, Mitchell et al. (2014) are among the scholars who combined the conformance and performance metrics to determine the success and failure of planning as it is close to the reality.
Another important aspect of the evidence-oriented school is the re-emphasis on the substantive evaluation. After criticizing the substantive planning in the 1960s and 1970s and its decline in the 1980s, it again became important as a central theme in evaluation with the rise of urban form theories and sustainable development. These themes include the natural hazards reduction assessment (Berke, Philip R. and French, 1994; Dalton and Burby, 1994), coastal management (Berke, P. R., Dixon et al., 1997; Norton, 2005, 2008), climate changes (Guyadeen, 2018; Tang, Brody et al., 2010), resilience (Berke, Philip R., Malecha et al., 2019), and other interesting issues in the environmental planning (Hossu, Iojă et al., 2020). This thematic approach also expanded the theoretical literature on evaluation, even though similar mechanisms are used for judgment, evaluating each requires data on the same subject. This re-emphasizes the substantive evaluation and shows that it has become important to refocus on the subject matter of the plan after a period of emphasizing the process. In other words, the subject of plan and planning is influential in the way of judging and is not the only prominent planning process.
This school also faces criticism. First of all, good plan evaluation or quality measurement is relative and the quality of one plan is determined by other plans (Baer, 1997). To put it simply, it can be said that a plan may be identified better than one set of plans and lower than other collections, and this cannot determine what the quality of the plan really is. Another critique is the neglect of outcomes. The evidence-oriented school is based on the idea that we cannot miss the opportunity to learn from the plans and improve the planning process, due to the uncertainty and unclear time of the outcome’s emergence (Berke, P. and Godschalk, 2009). Despite the limited efforts in measuring the outcomes, this statement shows that there is a neglect of outcome and some researchers have pointed it out (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016; Laurian, Crawford et al., 2010). However, plans will have an objective impact or outcome that needs to be judged and we cannot ignore them just because the future is uncertain.
As noted above, evaluation is seen as an important step in urban and regional planning, and four schools can be identified over six decades (Table 1). The causal school, the communicative school, the Dutch school, and the evidence-based school were described for a deeper understanding of the field from the 1960s to the present. In this section, a comparison between schools is considered. The first comparison concerns the intellectual philosophy of schools. The casual school, influenced by the modern intellectual era, goes back to Descartes' ideas (Alexander, E. R., 2000). Reason plays a central role in this philosophy, it is a reason that legitimizes actions and beliefs. This led planners and evaluators to look for the cause and effect of events and to proceed with a rational reason. The reason for naming this school also stems from this point. According to the scholars like Alexander, E. R. (2000), such a view also exists in other periods of planning, and the traces of rationality can be seen in all other planning debates. The critical views from the late 1960s and 1970s, such as Popper's idea about the ability to reject reason, gradually formed a new stream of philosophical thought in planning. On the other hand, the theories of scholars such as Altshuler (1965); Davidoff and Reiner (1962) reinforced the move toward pluralistic planning; so that a communicative paradigm was formed under the shadow of the Frankfurt School and the Habermas (1984) ideas, with the focus on the actions of different groups in planning. According to this view, reality is not comprehensible only by observation, but it arises from actions (Khakee, 2003). Concurrent with this thinking, in Britain, the philosophy of strategic choice was proposed by John Friend (Faludi, 2004) under the influence of structural planning that roots in the systematic planning of Chadwick (1966); McLoughlin (1969). The IOR School of planning, which focuses on operational decisions, is one of the outputs of such a philosophy. With the transfer of this philosophy from Britain to the Netherlands by Dutch scholars, the Dutch school of evaluation developed in the 1990s. The Dutch and communicative schools are closely related, as both pay attention to the relationships of the actors and criticize the casual school. However, some differences can be identified.
First of all, these two philosophies were born from different locations. The communicative school seeks to measure the quality of actions performed between groups involved in planning, and it is important to build a consensus to ensure commitment to planning (Innes and Booher, 1999). The gap between theory and practice was also highlighted and expanded in response to the school's evaluation practice, as communicative planning and paradigms were formed to bridge the gap in practice (Forester, 1980). On the other hand, the Dutch school focused on how to determine the failure and success of the plans and emphasized the level of institutional and organizational coordination – i.e., its coordination aspect was more prominent. Finally, it is the evidence-oriented school that developed in the United States and criticized the abstract nature of communicative philosophy. Empiricism versus idealism states that not all groups have the same role in the advancement of planning, and power is critical in how we plan. Foucault's ideas contrast with the ideas of Habermas (Alexander, E. R., 2001). Pragmatism is a paradigm that is gaining strength in this period in America, which was reinforced by the ideas of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. However, communicative thinking is also related to pragmatic thinking. According to Fainstein (2000), they both belong to the communicative perspective but emerged in two different geographical locations. Most pragmatic theorists, such as Healey and Forester, were also at the forefront of communicative theory. However, they hold a different view of reality. In the pragmatic view, the reality is known as relative, which is difficult to achieve, so according to the available information, the needs and challenges ahead must be met (Healey, 2008). Elimination of dichotomies, including the dichotomy between theory and practice, is a prominent feature of the evidence-based school (Hoch, C. J., 2002). As its designation suggests, evaluation is performed by learning, practicing, and repetition of what is remained and can help improve the planning and judgment process. The more data and information, the more realistic, the judgment would be. The more data and information, the closer the judgment is to be realistic. In a way, it can be said that the evidence-based school connects the previous schools and considers them as complementary and not opposite.
According to the above and the studies of the last decade, the outcome evaluation of the plans can be considered a major gap in the theoretical and practical field of schools of urban and regional planning evaluation (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016, 2018; Laurian, Crawford et al., 2010). Despite efforts to evaluate plan outcomes under a conformance-based approach (in the causal school), performance-based approach (in the Dutch school), and combined approach (in the evidence-based school), the ex-ante evaluation also theoretically and practically overcomes outcome evaluation (Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016). For example, the methodology, criteria definition, and plan quality evaluation process are well established, but the evaluation of plan outcomes has not been able to improve the quality measurement. The reason for this is the existence of incoherent studies and the lack of an accurate and clear methodology for measuring the consequences. In other words, due to the uncertainty in the future and the unpredictability of assuming future consequences (Berke, P. and Godschalk, 2009), researchers have avoided creating a coherent framework for evaluating the outcome of plans and they have only examined the experiences of plan-making and implementation and tried to improve the plans to achieve appropriate consequences in the future. However, it must be borne in mind that plans will ultimately have consequences, and these consequences must be evaluated practically and realistically.
Another important issue is the relationship between evaluation theory and practice. As with planning, attention to theory and practice was formed during the communicative evaluation period (Khakee, 2003). Under the causal school, the distinction between practice and theory was not clear. In other words, researchers focused on creating methods, rather than theorizing, to create a scientific and logical process. If there were shortcomings, the previous methods were replaced by other methods (see studies by Lichfield, N. (1970); Lichfield, N., P. and Kettle (1975)). During the communicative planning period, it was stated that even though evaluation and planning theories moved towards participation, traditional evaluation methods were still used. To respond to the evaluation practice in this period, researchers tried to define a specific evaluation framework based on planning theories. Because it was believed that evaluation is inseparable from planning theory (Khakee, 1998).
In the evidence-based school, this dichotomy was discarded and theory and practice were considered two complementary elements. This period is referred to as the reconciliation period of theory and practice (Laurian, Crawford et al., 2010). Finally, in recent years, a new approach to planning has been formed, called atheoretical in planning, which emphasizes the practice of planning and considers the definition of planning to be futile (Alexander, E. R., 2016; Hoch, C., 2016). This is briefly addressed in the evaluation literature by Laurian, Crawford et al. (2010). This theory emphasizes evaluation and everything that can be observed; however, due to the ambiguity of its various dimensions, it cannot yet be described as a school. However, given the importance of evaluation practice as a challenging topic, data-driven and atheoretical in the future can make a significant contribution to the planning evaluation literature.
| School | Causal | Communicative | Dutch | Evidence-oriented |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 1950-1970 | 1970-1980 | 1980-2000 | 1990-… |
| Philosophy of thought | The intellectual age and the Cartesian reason | Habermas thought, Hegelian idealism, and critical Marxism | Strategic choice of John Friend | Thoughts of Foucault, Dewey, and Rorty |
| Paradigm | Traditional comprehensive-rational | communicative | Coordinating (communicative) | pragmatism |
| Planning theory | Rational, future control | Participatory, collective | Strategic | Learning process |
| Evaluation approach | Focus on cost and effect, conformance | Consensus building | performance | hybrid |
| The issue under investigation in the evaluation | Selection of the best choice based on the minimum use of resources and maximum achievement of the goals, level of adaptation | The gap between theory and practice | The inefficiency of cause and effect view in evaluating strategic plans | A good plan and realistic judgment |
| Mechanism of evaluation | Cause and effect relation | Subjective analyses | Impact evaluation | Combination of the variety of criteria |
| Focus point | Goal/method | Process/ participation/ Problem finding | Operational decisions/ policies | plan |
| Data | Quantitative | Qualitative | Qualitative | Combined |
The main purpose of this article was to explore and describe the schools of urban and regional planning evaluation and to explain their characteristics and relationships to provide a better understanding of evaluation in planning over the past 6 decades. Mapping the evolution of the planning evaluation schools can be a platform for future evaluation ideas. To realize this goal, the specific three questions were taken into consideration: What schools can be identified in the field of urban and regional planning evaluation? How can these schools be distinguished and what are their characteristics? These questions were based on the genealogy of evaluation. Each school was examined from the perspective of intellectual philosophy, planning paradigm, planning theory, and its evaluation and characteristics. Finally, four causal, communicative, Dutch, and evidence-oriented schools of the evaluation were identified. These schools help evaluation practitioners to gain a deeper understanding of evaluation according to the type of planning philosophy, the type of planning, and the nature of planning and choose the right tools to judge plans practically. This avoids the incompatibility between planning and evaluation (something that happened in Dutch planning in the 1990s and made it clear that conformance-based evaluation cannot be suitable for strategic planning). The discovery of schools also identified the boundaries of the urban and regional planning evaluation literature, which helps identify future evaluation frameworks. In terms of theoretical and practical evolutions, there are four general periods: goal-oriented and method-oriented under the causal school, problem-finding and process-oriented under the communicative school focusing on statements and operational policies under the Dutch school, and plan-oriented under the evidence-based school.
By considering this trajectory, the outcome-oriented evaluation can be considered as a gap in urban and regional planning. Development plans ultimately have consequences that need to be judged realistically. Many studies have been conducted in this field in the last decade, but they do not have the coherence, because they are scattered and do not provide a coherent and clear methodology.
Despite the efforts made in the field of outcome evaluation, in practice, ex-ante evaluation still prevails. In recent years, researchers have tried to combine the two conformance-based and performance-based approaches to fill the gaps in this area. In practice, however, it could not be as widespread as ex-ante evaluation (such as plan quality evaluation).
The second orientation is identifiable based on the relationship between practice and theory. This gap in the communicative school was considered and in the evidence-based school was left aside, and theory and practice were considered as complementary steps. In recent years, atheoretical in the planning literature has been considered by researchers who regard the definition of planning to be useless. Therefore, in the field of evaluation literature, such a view of the evaluation theory is not far from the mind and it can be said that in the future, atheoretical and focus on the evaluation practice can be extended to the planning evaluation literature.
Conceptualization, H.D. and M.H.; methodology, H.D. and M.H.; investigation, H.D and M.H; resources, H.D and M.D; data curation, M.H; writing—original draft preparation, H.D. and M.H; writing—review and editing, H.D and M.H; supervision, H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
