ABSTRACT
Two important developments in planning research and planning practice imply significant changes in theory and methods of evaluation. The first development relates to planning methodology. The rational planning model focused almost exclusively on a set of analytical and appraisal techniques related to specific planning phases including goal-making, goals-means analysis, design of alternative plans, evaluation of alternative plans, implementation and feedback. The last two phases were either neglected or de-emphasized since the planning process was often regarded as the preparation of a plan document. Today planning methods include, in addition to analytical and appraisal techniques, forms of presentation of planning material, rhetorical ability, and openness and clarity in argumentation. In short, communicative aspects of the planning process are regarded as important as the analytical ones. The other development is the shift in emphasis from the plan as a source of policy formulation to the planning process during which policy commitments are made. It is no longer the plan as a document but the process which results in the preparation of the plan that is central to the decision-making process. Plans often represent a compromise about a set of broad policy outlines, whereas the planning process informs us about the actual negotiations on how and with what resources policies will be implemented.
This paper accounts for the methods used during the first round of structure planning in Sweden. It analyses the impact of this choice of methods on the results of the planning process.
