Planning Theory Flashcards
Theories of Planning Practice
Rational, Incremental, Mixed Scanning, Advocacy, transactive, radical, communicative.
Rational Planning
The basic steps in rational planning are to:
set goals
determine alternatives
evaluate the alternatives
choose an alternative
implement the alternative
evaluate
Rational planning was the dominant planning theory through the 1950s. While this model has been discredited, it can still be seen in use in all areas of the planning practice. In particular, transportation planning is one area in which rational planning persists.
Pure Rationality
assumes that a planner has perfect knowledge of all of the factors in a given situation. A planner is able to evaluate all alternatives and is not constrained by limits of time and money. However, no planner can use pure rationality becasue we can never have complete information.
“Satisfice”
A term coined by Herbert Simon, who developed the principle ofbounded rationality, which accepts that the human mind is limited in its ability to solve problems. we instead choose alternatives that are good enough. Simon argued that the rational “economic man” should be replaced by the “administrative man” who satisfies.
Rational Model Criticism
One of the criticisms of the rational model is that it cannot be used when we have “wicked” problems. Wicked problems are those that are complicated and diffcult to solve. For example, homelessness might be considered a wicked problem because there is no one root cause and no one alternative that can eliminate the problem. Rational planning can only work when the problem can be easily deinfed and there can be the the best solution. Another criticism is that it does not specify who sets goals. Rationality is supposed to be value-free. Goals are based on public interest, defined as the good of the whole community. Rational planning should not be used if there is no consensus.
Incremental Planning
In 1959, Charles Lindblom published the article “The Science of Muddling Through”, which introduced the concept of incrementalism. Lindblom argued that people make their plans and decisions in an incremental manner, accomplishing their goals through a series of successive, limited comparisons. He suggested that planning has to be piecemeal, incremental, opportunistic, and pragmatic. Planning in the real world is not rational and comprehensive, but is instead disjointed and incremental. Lindblowm aregued that decision-makers compare and evaluate increments. They do not attempt to analyze alternatives in detail but instead consider where alternatives differ from one another or from what is being done presently. Decision makers consider only a limited number of policy alternatives and, while doing so, consider only a limited number of important consequences. Problems are solved through a series of policies at different points in time, rather than all at onces. One example in many communities is the zoning ordinances. Planning departments rarely conduct a complete overhaul of the zoning ordinances; instead, the ordinance is tweaked to assist in achieving the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Mixed Scanning
Amitai Etzioni introduced the concept of mixed scanning as a compromise between rational and incrememental planning theories. Mixed scanning views planning decisions at two levels; the big picture and the small pictures.
Etzioni argued that fundamental policy-shaping decisions should be based on a more careful rational analysis of alternatives. Implementation decisions, on the other hand, should use an incremental approach.
For example, a comprehensive plan would be created using the rational planning approach, while the implementation of the plan would use an incremental approach.
Assumes that there is a centralized decision-making process. As with the rational and incremental approaches, it does not identify who is involved in the process or whose values are used.
Advocacy Planning
Developed in the 1960s by Paul Davidoff as a way to represent the interests of groups within a community. Prior to the development of advocacy planning, planning practice was based on the public interest, in turn, defined as “the good of the whole”. However, planning for the good of the whole results in inadequate representation for many groups. Davidoff argued that planners should represent special interest groups rather than acting for the good of the whole community.
Planners, therefore, should work to create plans that represent varying interest groups, resulting in plural plans for public consideration. As an example, downtown building owners may put together a plan for revitalizing downtown, homless advocates may put together a plan for shelters in downtown, and the merchants association may have a plan for increasing downtown retailing.
The advocacy planner should be responsible for a particular interest group in the community and create plans that express that group’s values and obectives.
Advocacy planning shifted for whom the planner plans, but it did not change what the planner does. The planner would still utilize rational and incremental approaches to planning.
Advocacy Planning Criticisms
While it can be successful in blocking insensitive plans, it can also result in conflict among interest groups. In the previous example, the city would have a difficiult decision in determining whose plan should be adopted and funded.
While advocacy planning promoted the planner as an advocate for special interest groups, some argued that the role of the planner should be to advocate specifically for the disadvantaged in the community. This is known as equity planning
Norman Krumholz
Adopted equity planning in Cleveland during the 1970s and helped make the needs of low-income groups the highest priority. Krumholz’s view on equity planning was that planners should work to redistribute power, resources, or participation away from the elite and toward the poor and working-class residents of the community. Inceased emphasis should be given to the process of personal and organizational development, not to specific community objectives. Plans are evaluated on improvements to the quality of life, not the delivery of services.
One criticism of equity planning is that it leaves planners with few options if local leaders (mayor and council) are not in tune with the need for progressive political action.
Transactive Planning
in 1973, John Friedmann published the book “Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning”. While advocacy planning focused on working with specific groups in a community, the planner still served as the technical expert that determined alternatives. Transactive planning theory was developed in the 1970s as a way to get the public more involved in the planning process.
In transactive planning, the planner meets with individuals in the community to discuss issues and help develop a plan. Through a process of “mutual learning” the planner shares technical knowledge, while the citizens provide commmunity knowledge.
Transactive Planning Criticisms
there are a number of criticisms of transactive planning. The first is that it takes a large amount of time to meet with individuals and utilize the mutual learning process. second is the question of how to evaluate the importance of each person’s community knowledge. third, transactive planning cannot work in situations in which there are large differences of opinion and/or many stakeholders.
Radical Planning
in 1987, John Friedmann published a book titled “Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action”. In it, he discusses the concept of radical planning, which involves taking power away from the government and giving it to the people. in this process, citizens get together and develop their own plans.
It is a form of planning that is particularly difficult to implement, as we are hard-pressed to find examples of US governments allowing neighborhoods or individual groups to develop and implement their own plans. However, there are examples of the partial use of radical planning. For instance, some public housing authorities have turned management decisions over to tenants, who are responsible for proposing policy change.
Communicative Planning
Currently the theory of choice among planning practitioners. Planners around the nation have moved towards more open planning that includes a much more intensive citizen participation process. this theory recognizes that planning operates within the realm of politics and that it contains a variety of staekholder interests. The communicative approach tries to use a rational model as a basis for bringing mutual understanding among all stakeholders. Planners can provide the stakeholders with information and bring people together to discuss the issues.
Communicative planning grew out of american pragmatic philospohy and European criticial theory, essentially considering how citizens and planenrs come together to create a plan (American Pragmatism). Additionally, it evolved out of advocacy planning and transactive planning. However, it is a shift from planning for different groups of people to a situation where the planner acts as a facilitator among stakeholders.
The communicative planner’s primary function is to listen to people’s views and assist in forging a consensus among different viewpoints. the planner’s role is to mediate among stakeholders through talk and discussion. Here, social interaction can be structured to foster group understanding and consensus.
