ABSTRACT
This section contains four chapters and all of them seek either to develop a holistic and comprehensive framework or model of evaluation or to address the perceived gaps in existing models. Specifically, they reflect on how existing planning evaluation methods can address the issues of complexity born of competing forces attempting to determine the objectives of the planning system; vagueness in long-term unifying concepts such as “sustainable development”; interdependence between spatial planning and other public policies; “wickedness” of planning problems and the bounded capacity of human rationality. All are based on normative conceptions of the purpose and value of evaluation and engage with the conceptual and methodological issues relevant to the retrospective analysis of planning process and planning results. These issues include linearity of planning process, “grounded theory”, intended versus unintended outcomes, policy analysis and evaluation, causality and values in planning. Each of the chapters in this section makes a useful contribution to the
critique of existing methods for evaluation. The chapters by Cecilia Wong and E. R. Alexander have a broad framework. Whereas Wong’s aim is to develop robust and reliable indicators to evaluate the performance of spatial planning, Alexander’s aim is to develop a holistic and comprehensive approach to evaluate planning. The other two chapters present more specific methods; Morten Edvardsen introduces “backward mapping” in order to carry out ex post evaluation of planning efforts and David Prosperi and Julia Lourenco put forward quadralogue to evaluate multiple place qualities and changing spatial identities.
