Beyond the divide: evaluation in co-evolutionary spatial planning

ABSTRACT Spatial developments are becoming increasingly a-linear and dynamic with a wide range of possible actors. The awareness of uncertainty is growing and, therefore, projects need to integrate a high level of flexibility. But simultaneously, there is a growing demand for more informed and well-argued decisions. Predictions from the ‘best estimated model’ are no longer credible nor accepted, being too fragile and uncertain. How can we keep long-lasting, multi-actor projects in permanent transition on track? This expresses an important demand for more integrated evaluation in spatial planning. In this respect, this paper analyses existing theoretical evaluation strategies and how these strategies deal with spatial developments. They are still usually structured along static, generic and circular approaches; in fact, many neglect the dynamic, plural and a-linear realities. Therefore, this paper develops a post-structural evaluation approach for various planning issues and different playing fields of actors, followed by an illustration of the various settings for this approach in a Flemish case. Finally, we discuss how spatial planning and future plans might be evaluated with a dissipative role for evaluation.

[1]  Philip Berke,et al.  Evaluating Plan Implementation: A Conformance-Based Methodology , 2004 .

[2]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust , 2014 .

[3]  Philip Berke,et al.  What Makes Plan Implementation Successful? An Evaluation of Local Plans and Implementation Practices in New Zealand , 2006 .

[4]  Valérie Pattyn,et al.  Why organizations (do not) evaluate? Explaining evaluation activity through the lens of configurational comparative methods , 2014 .

[5]  K. Christensen.  Coping with Uncertainty in Planning , 1985 .

[6]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Social impact assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[7]  Jean Hillier,et al.  Plan(e) Speaking: a Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning , 2008 .

[8]  Louis Albrechts,et al.  More of the Same is Not Enough! How Could Strategic Spatial Planning Be Instrumental in Dealing with the Challenges Ahead? , 2010 .

[9]  Lasse Gerrits,et al.  Managing Complex Governance Systems , 2009 .

[10]  Lasse Gerrits,et al.  Managing complex governance systems: dynamics, self-organization and coevolution in public investments , 2009 .

[11]  Vítor Oliveira,et al.  Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects , 2010 .

[12]  Emily Talen,et al.  Success, Failure, and Conformance: An Alternative Approach to Planning Evaluation , 1997 .

[13]  Jan-Eric Furubo,et al.  International atlas of evaluation , 2002 .

[14]  Nathaniel Lichfield,et al.  Economics of Planned Development , 1956 .

[15]  E R Alexander,et al.  Planning and Plan Implementation: Notes on Evaluation Criteria , 1989 .

[16]  M. Scriven.  Evaluation thesaurus, 4th ed. , 1991 .

[17]  Jonathan Murdoch,et al.  Post-structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space , 2005 .

[18]  C. Achilles,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1980 .

[19]  Juval Portugali,et al.  Self-Organization and the City , 2009, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science.

[20]  Jean Hillier,et al.  Problematising responsibility in planning theory and practice: On seeing the middle of the string? , 2007 .

[21]  Louis Albrechts,et al.  Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to Strategic Projects , 2006 .

[22]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Huib Huyse,et al.  Dealing with complexity through actor-focused planning, monitoring and evaluation (PME) , 2012 .

[24]  N. Luhmann.  Political Theory In The Welfare State , 1990 .

[25]  Abdul Khakee,et al.  Evaluation and planning: inseparable concepts , 1998 .

[26]  Matthew Carmona,et al.  Performance Measurement in Planning—Towards a Holistic View , 2008 .

[27]  L. Boelens,et al.  Fuzzy tales for hard blueprints: the selective coproduction of the Spatial Policy Plan for Flanders, Belgium , 2015 .

[28]  Gert Verschraegen,et al.  The Limits of Planning: Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory and the Analysis of Planning and Planning Ambitions , 2008 .

[29]  L. Boelens.  The Urban Connection: An Actor-Relational Approach To Urban Planning , 2009 .

[30]  J. Abbott.  Understanding and Managing the Unknown , 2005 .

[31]  Abdul Khakee,et al.  The Emerging Gap between Evaluation Research and Practice , 2003 .

[32]  R. Houthaeve,et al.  Structuurplanning : instrument voor het denken over en de vormgeving aan de ruimtelijke structuur , 1994 .

[33]  H W Calkins,et al.  The Planning Monitor: An Accountability Theory of Plan Evaluation , 1979 .

[34]  Morris Hill,et al.  A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans , 1968 .

[35]  T. Bovaird.  Emergent Strategic Management and Planning Mechanisms in Complex Adaptive Systems , 2008 .

[36]  G. de Roo,et al.  Planning of undefined becoming: First encounters of planners beyond the plan , 2016 .

[37]  A. Rip.  A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance - and its ironies , 2006 .

[38]  N. Thrift.  New Urban Eras and Old Technological Fears: Reconfiguring the Goodwill of Electronic Things , 1996 .

[39]  K. Popper.  Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach , 1972 .

[40]  Janet Crawford,et al.  Evaluating the Outcomes of Plans: Theory, Practice, and Methodology , 2010 .

[41]  Jean Hillier,et al.  Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations , 2012 .

[42]  R. Beunen,et al.  The Search for Evolutionary Approaches to Governance , 2015 .

[43]  John Beattie Paterson,et al.  Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis , 1998 .

[44]  R. Swinburne.  OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE: AN EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH , 1973 .

[45]  Emily Talen,et al.  After the Plans: Methods to Evaluate the Implementation Success of Plans , 1996 .

[46]  Wesley E. Highfield,et al.  Does Planning Work?: Testing the Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida , 2005 .