URP 702: PLANNING THEORY II

(NITP Professional Examination)

NOTE

Lecture note prepared by Tpl. Adeleke Akinpelu, MNIM, AITD, MNES, MGARP, RTP, the principal consultant at SMC Professional Services, Lagos Nigeria. The note is for the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners Professional Examination 700 level. In most cases, references and citations are omitted. Enjoy your reading and for clarification please reach out through smcinsights@gmail.com or smcprofessionalservices@gmail.com

Outline

1. The nature of planning, procedural and substantive theories in planning

2. The planning process

3. Planning modes and traditions in both capitalist and socialist economies.

4. Citizen’s participation and evaluation in the planning process

5. Social science contribution to the development of planning theory

1.0       THE NATURE OF PLANNING, PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE THEORIES IN PLANNING

The Nature of Planning

Planning is a process of intervention to alter the existing course of events. It refers to a wide range of systematic activities designed to ensure that desired goals are achieved in the future. Modern planning originated in the late 19th century when the rapid growth of cities following the industrial revolution led to a vast of urban problems, such as inadequate sanitation, water supply, transportation, and housing.

Planning is a process, procedure, or method for setting goals, identifying and assessing options, and developing strategies for achieving desired options. Also, planning could be seen as an orderly sequence of activities that will lead to the achievement of a stated goal or goal. The nature of planning includes forward-looking, and reaching an agreement. The primary functions of planning are: to improve the efficiency of outcomes; enhance social welfare; widen the range of choice and enrich civic engagement and governance.

Theory

A theory is an explanation of why particular events occur.

Planning Theory

·       A well-defined planning theory is an essential component of the planning profession.

·       Planning theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions, behavioural relationships, and assumptions that define the body of knowledge of urban planning.

·       Planning Theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions, behavioural relationships, and assumptions that define the body of knowledge of urban planning. John Friedmann defines planning theory as a systematic reflection on actual existing planning practices in context with the city or region or country.

·       Planning theory can help to solve problems on three different levels: understanding planning (agencies, procedures); the planner’s orientation of himself as a planner. The involved agencies and their operations.

·       Planning practice needs a theory of what planning is or should be. According to Alexander, viewing generic planning theories as ideologies offer the potential for some insight into addressing the issue of their relevance for planning practices.

Andreas Faludi (1973) has argued distinguishing between the understanding of environmental planning concerned on the one hand (‘SUBSTANTIVE’ THEORY) and the understanding of the procedures and process of planning on the other hand (‘PROCEDURAL’ THEORY).

Procedural Planning Theories (Theory of Planning)

·       Can be seen as planners understanding themselves and how they operate the designing of planning agencies and the way they operate.

·       Is concerned with the process by which decisions are taken.

·       Is concerned with why we do what we do as urban and regional planners. This has to do with how might planners act.

·       The theory of Planning’ helps planners to understand themselves and their operating methods.

Rational Comprehensive Planning/Synoptic Planning Theory: Have the following features: goal-setting, identification of policy alternatives, evaluation of means against ends, implementation of the preferred alternative, multiple iterations, feedback loops, and sub-processes. Synoptic planning typically looks at problems from a systems viewpoint, using conceptual or mathematical models relating ends (objectives) to means (resources and constraints), with heavy reliance on numbers and quantitative analysis. Rational theory believed that a planner is an expert capable of designing for and coping with complex urban conditions by using specialized Knowledge, techniques and technologies in support of well-structured decision processes. Comprehensive planning theory entails comprehensiveness, considers all alternatives to all objectives and extensive definition of a problem. An early critique held that the synoptic planning model was unachievable in reality, as true comprehensiveness would require endless amounts of time and money. Rational planning theory led to the engagement of process (planning process) in addressing planning issues.

Strengths

·       it provides a clear, straightforward method of formulating policy and programs, and is useful at many different levels of planning;

·       It also meshes well with the use of indicators to measure sustainability problems and the effectiveness of policies;

·       It appears logical to many members of the public, tends to be respected by local political leaders, and can be designed to offer opportunities for public involvement

·       Objectivity represents the greatest strength of the comprehensive approach which results in a more convincing solution because of the consideration of the widest variety of variables.

Criticism

·       Decisions are taken in ignorance of the future but rather based on assumptions.

·       The process places power and trust in the hands of the planner who is seen as an expert bearing all the information required to solve problems.

·       Ignores public consultation which is paramount in the decision-making process.

·       It is difficult to have each person agree on common goals.

·       No matter how rational we would hope to be there is no way anyone can gather all the facts and take into account every consideration.

·       The need to develop alternative approaches and critics censor comprehensive rationality. The nature of the problems and the complexity of the environment would generate an unmanageable number of alternatives to consider.

·       Only a short-term future can be predicted with confidence.

·       Rational comprehensive planning also requires a great deal of time.

·       Lack of political commitment to implement policies challenges the planner’s agenda of rationality in planning.

·       The approach is often seen as overly expert-driven rather than letting public concerns drive the planning process.

·       Relying on quantitative analysis of data rather than taking into account less tangible qualitative elements of social, human and environmental factors.

·       Also, public inputs, which determine the success of the plans, may be ignored by the comprehensive approach because of its great reliance on quantification technology.

Despite the criticism levelled against the rational comprehensive approach to planning, the approach has taken root in most countries as the paradigm of choice and is the most utilised approach in decision–making. For it has the goal of maximising efficiency by picking the best alternative based on specific criteria and also provides a structured way to address a problem and arrive at a solution. However, to realise total success, it is important to incorporate political interactions and public participation in the planning and decision-making process.

Disjointed Incremental Planning Theory: (also referred to as the Science of Muddling Through): Formulated by Lindblom in 1959, it dismissed rational-comprehensive planning as an impractical ideal. It is believed that planning is less scientific and comprehensive and more politically interactive and experiential. In 1959, Charles Lindblom published the article "The Science of Muddling Through", which first introduces the concept of incrementalism. Lindblom argues that people incrementally make their plans and decisions. He argues that people accomplish goals through a series of successive, limited comparisons. One of the major points is that problems are solved through a series of policies at different points in time, rather than all at once. The planning process is focused on solving existing problems rather than on achieving a future desired state.

Incremental planning developed in reaction to the criticism of Rational Comprehensive planning. General criticisms were: failure to identify the cognitive ability of decision-makers; the nature of social values within the perspective, the separation of ends and means, a general public interest as opposed to pluralist interests; subjectivity toward central control in the definition of the problem, the valuation of alternatives and implementation of decisions; and the reductionist nature of epistemology. Incremental planning could be referred to as ‘partisan mutual adjustment’ or ‘disjointed incrementalism’. The development of incremental planning could be said to be initiated in reaction to rational comprehensive planning. It states that policy and policy decisions should be addressed through familiar institutions in a free market and democratic political economy (Hudson, 1979). The incremental planning approach claims that in everyday life rational decision-making is not possible. Policymakers are constrained by incomplete information, time pressure, political forces and cognitive limitations (e.g., problems are too complex to simplify) (Howlett 2009). Incrementalists point out that the actual decision-making process is much more complicated, chaotic, and only marginally driven by larger policy goals. In his article on

The incrementalist critique of rational planning gained wide circulation by the early 1960s. Political scientist Charles Lindblom (1959) suggested that comprehensive or synoptic planning, as he called it was unachievable and out of step with political realities. He argued that political leaders cannot agree on goals in advance, as the rational model requires. They prefer to choose policies and goals at the same time. He thought that the rational model's preoccupation with the comparison of all possible alternatives and their comprehensive assessment of all measures of performance exceeds human abilities. The relationship between science and policy choice was oblique at best. The real measure of "good policy" is whether policymakers agree on it. Lindblom's alternative, incrementalism, calls for the simultaneous selection of goals and policies, consideration of alternatives only marginally different from the status quo, examination of simplified, limited comparisons among the alternatives, and the preference for results of social experimentation over theory as the basis of analysis.

But in the late 1970s, Lindblom argued that he had been misunderstood. Incrementalism had three meanings planners had blurred:

·       strategic analysis, or any attempt to simplify complex policy problems;

·       disjointed incrementalism or analysis carried out without the advance determination of goals, with few alternatives considered, and with modest complexity of data;

·       simple incrementalism, where the alternatives considered are only marginally different from the status quo.

Planning had embraced the third meaning, simple incrementalism, while Lindblom claimed he had been arguing for disjointed incrementalism. Altshuler (1965) examined the experience of land and transportation planning in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. He found that planners were seldom able to achieve their objectives in scientific aspirations. Their claims of comprehensiveness were not backed up by reality. Decision-makers often ignored their recommendations in favour of the wishes of politically connected stakeholders. Organizers of citizen input to planning processes railed against the often-futile nature of public participation (Arnstein, 1969). Marxist-inspired analyses of planning outcomes argued that planners were the handmaidens of downtown development interests and seldom really addressed meaningful policy choices (Kravitz 1970; Goodman 1971).

Mixed Scanning Planning Theory: Amitai Etzioni's (1967) middle-range bridge was an effort to reconcile rational planning with incrementalism. Combines the positive of synoptic planning theory with positive features of incrementalism. Users of this theory integrate the characteristics of the rational model and incremental (Hanekom, 1987) first by reviewing the overall policy and second by concentrating on a specific need, policy result or policy impact. The approach was developed in contrast to rationalist models of decision-making and incrementalism. Rationalist approaches were held to be Utopian because actors cannot command the resources and capabilities rational comprehensive planning theory requires. Incrementalism was shown to overlook opportunities for significant innovations and to ignore the empirical fact that incremental decisions are often, in effect, made within the context of fundamental decisions.

Amitai Etzioni introduced the concept of mixed scanning as a compromise between rational and incremental planning theories. Mixed scanning views planning decisions at two levels: the big picture and the small picture, Etzioni argues that fundamental policy-shaping decisions should be based on a more careful rational analysis of alternatives. Implementation decisions should use an incremental approach.

Rationalistic models tend to posit a high degree of control over the decision-making situation on the part of the decision-maker. The incrementalist approach presents an alternative model, referred to as the art of “muddling through,” which assumes much less command over the environment. Finally, the article outlines a third approach to social decision-making which, in combining elements of both earlier approaches, is neither as utopian in its assumptions as the first model nor as conservative as the second. For reasons which will become evident, this third approach is referred to as mixed scanning.

Elements Defining Mixed Scanning:

·       Mixed scanning is best defined as an approach to decision-making that incorporates both rational-comprehensive decision-making and incremental decision-making.

·       Rational-comprehensive believes that problems can be easily identified and solved. It requires a vast amount of information to be an effective approach to decision-making.

·       Incremental decision-making believes in a remedial approach to making decisions, amongst other things.

·       While both of these decision-making processes have benefits, they also have several distinct disadvantages that must be considered.

·       It is because of the belief that the above decision-making processes are too flawed to be completely effective that mixed scanning was created.

·       Mixed scanning was developed by sociologist Amitai Etzioni.

·       Etzioni found flaws in rational-comprehensive and incremental and chose to develop an approach to making decisions that incorporated both fundamental and incremental decisions.

·       The broad-based analysis is utilized in mixed scanning. However, there are other situations in which mixed scanning will utilize in-depth analysis instead.

·       One of the most intriguing components of mixed scanning is how it takes into account the varying capacities of decision-making individuals.

Advocacy Planning Theory: Advocacy planning formulated in the 1960s by lawyer and planning scholar Paul Davidoff represents a departure from scientific, objective, or rational planning. It is premised upon the inclusion of the different interests involved in the planning process itself. The advocacy planning movement grew up in the sixties rooted in adversary procedures modelled upon the legal profession and usually applied to defending the interests of the weak against strong-community groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the disenfranchised against the established powers of business and government. Advocacy planning challenged the traditional view of “public interest”, Applied to defending the interest of weak or poorly represented groups, such as low-income, environmental activists, minorities, the disadvantaged etc. and a direct result of this theory: increasing requirements for environmental, social, and financial impact reports to accompany large scale project proposals. Advocacy planning gives voice to less-represented groups and encourages an open planning process.

It concerns itself with ensuring that all people are equally represented in the planning process by advocating for the interests of the underprivileged and seeking social change. Public participation is a central tenet of this model. A plurality of public interests is assumed, and the role of the planner is essentially the one of a facilitator who either advocates directly for underrepresented groups or encourages them to become part of the process.

Advocacy planning is vague in terms of governance. It is primarily concerned with client-centred and social welfare. It does not address the changes it proposes in the structure of planning practice and the interaction between institutions and operating procedures for implementation (Healey et al., 1982). Advocacy planning initiated the challenge to traditional planning by creating awareness of a pluralist public interest as opposed to a unitary public interest (Peattie, 1968). The planner’s role was seen as being more political than the traditional view of planning in his calling and focus on the ‘many interests groups and their involvement in planning and the development of the public (Taylor, 1998).

Advocacy planning criticises ‘physical’ planning or traditional planning as being one-sided. Planners need to be familiar with and understand socio-economic problems, their causes and solutions (Davidhoff, 1965). Advocacy planning emphasises that planning should be able to aid the needy by the transformation in government structure, which would allow the planner to influence policy with regards to planning for the city environment with particular attention on the poor and disadvantaged and enable their involvement in the planning process. It is largely influenced by a judicial perspective and theories of economics. The law is used in comparison to advocate for those who cannot fend for themselves, because of their status. Economics is used to explain the unequal division of resources and that there should be a redistribution of these resources.

Criticism

·       Advocate planners tend to be demographically quite different from the residents they served.

·       Advocacy planning seemed to raise expectations that could not be met in those communities.

·       It seemed to lull the residents themselves into lowered political action profiles as a result of the belief that the city was working on their behalf.

·       Victories were often won at the great personal expense on the part of the planners involved. More often,

·       Political naïve – no change in the distribution of power

·       Highly influenced by the political climate

Transactive Planning Theory: a radical break from previous models. Instead of considering public participation as a method that would be used in addition to the normal training planning process, participation was a central goal. For the first time, the public was encouraged to take on an active role in the policy-setting process, while the planner took on the role of a distributor of information and a feedback source. Transactive planning focuses on interpersonal dialogue that develops ideas, which will be turned into action. One of the central goals is mutual learning where the planner gets more information on the community and citizens become more educated about planning issues.

Transactive planning also refers to the evolution of decentralized planning institutions that help people take increasing control over the social processes that govern their welfare. Planning is not seen as an operation separated from other forms of social action, but rather as a process embedded in the continual evolution of ideas validated through action. Plans are evaluated not merely in terms of what they do for people through the delivery of goods and services, but in terms of the plans’ effect on people-on their dignity and sense of effectiveness, their values and behaviour, their capacity for growth through cooperation, and their spirit of generosity. By contrast, incremental planning adheres more closely to the economic logic of individuals pursuing their self-interest.

Transactive planning refers to interpersonal discourse through a process of mutual learning, which is enabled through decentralised planning institutions. This would promote the contribution of people over social processes that govern their welfare (Friedmann, 1973). During the early 70s, John Friedmann proposed a new way of thinking about planning as opposed to rational decision-making planning. He proposed planning as social learning, which would involve dialogue as a basis for mutual learning between planners and client groups. It aimed to be one of innovation and action, involving questions of what values should guide practice and what strategies and how to develop community participation in planning. Emphasising dialogue and the development of trusting interpersonal relationships, which would focus more on face-to-face interpersonal dialogue with the people affected by decisions.

Friedmann’s proposed a mixed method of scientific and personal knowledge through mutual learning in discourse. Knowledge was connected to action with the purpose to create a learning society of people working together. It calls for the development of community-based institutions which are traditionally overshadowed by centralised and bureaucratically organized agencies of government and corporate activities. The transactive planning approach revolves around the experience of people’s lives, which should inform policy issues.

Communicative Planning Theory: 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 stakeholder interests. Planners can provide the stakeholders with information and bring people together to discuss the issues.

The Communicative Planning Theory claimed to have constituted a revolutionary shift in the world of planning theory. The idea of the communicative planning process is unconstrained dialogue; a democratic craft created on an argumentative platform within the planning practice. It should foster community empowerment and recognise differences, diversity and disadvantages which have implications for the development of balanced local democracy transcending issues. Communicative planning theory rests on two assumptions, the first being that planning discourse is the best view into planning practice and the other that the most important element of planning practice is moving from subject-to-subject interaction.

The vulnerability of the communicative planning theory lies in its tendency to substitute moral persuasion for analysis. The planner needs to understand the different arguments of the community, identify what is factual and substantive (Sager, 2006) and guide the knowledge or direct the attention to where it is needed (Innes, 1995). Planners’ roles in communicative planning theory include technical expert, mediator, initiator, facilitator and presenter.

Radical Planning Theory: John Friedmann discusses the concept of radical planning. Radical planning takes the power away from the government and gives it to the people. In this process, citizens get together and develop their plans. While radical planning cannot be fully implemented, there are examples of the partial use of radical planning. Some public housing authorities have turned management decisions over to the tenants, who are responsible for proposing a policy change. This allows increased control by the people who live in public housing.

Radical planning is aimed at permanent change in social institutions and values. The Radical Perspective is a postmodern critique of planning (rooted in civil society rather than the state. Emphasis is placed on the heterogeneous public and providing a democratic foundation to everyone, enabling different groups and interests in society. It is action-orientated. There are two streams within Radical planning, firstly, a combination of activism, idealism and pragmatism which focus on precise substantive ideas about collective action with results for the immediate future, for example, transactive planning. The second stream of thought focuses more on the theory of the state and the cause of class structures and economic connections. The criticisms of advocacy planning theory led to a wave of radical approaches to planning for the underprivileged.

Feminist Planning Theory: Feminist planning theory, comfortable operating within the post-modem critique, calls planners to task for valuing economic production while undervaluing or ignoring familial and community re-production, as well as ignoring the different ways men and women use space. The feminist theorists argue that economic efficiency measures universally used in planning analyses attach zero value to home child care, or to volunteer work in community organizations, among others. They also cite transportation models as oriented around the journey to work. Women, in particular, tend to make more trips other than the conventional journeys from home to the workplace.

Substantive Planning Theory (Theory in Planning)

There were very clear pieces of evidence on the distinction in the planning education and practice of that time. Firstly, it was apparent from the two types of problems faced by planners in practice. The first set of problems was planners’ specific concern about their particular core subject. Examples include land-use planning, what motivates the object of their planning, what causes changes, etc. This problem can be taken care of through appropriate means, for example, computer models and factor analysis. This is known as the ‘Theory in Planning’ or substantive theory.

2.0       THE PLANNING PROCESS

The steps of the planning process vary across literature, however, there are steps in the Planning Process that cut across different generated lists, therefore the below list indicates the most items on the planning process. The planning process stages are:

The planning process is the stages/steps planning efforts to address urban and rural settlement challenges are taken through. If you examine the diagram above, it consists of 8 steps/stages, so for example, if we intend to address the development challenges of any city, i.e., Abuja, we follow through the eight steps to provide a solution to the development challenges of Abuja. Again, let's say to address these developmental challenges we intend to prepare a master plan.

Step 1: The first step is the identification of issues, opportunities and assumptions. You need to first understand what is it that we want to do, this could be the feedback in the towns that make up Abuja on the different challenges they face, newspaper reports, or your on-field assessment.

Step 2: The second step is the formulation of goals and objectives. The goal is the overall intention of the master plan, why we desire the master plan, and to do what. In addition, objectives are generated; the objectives are the means to achieve the stated goal of the master plan.

Step 3: The next stage is to collect relevant data that could help to determine the needs of the people and also help to ascertain the level of provided required. Data such as socio-economic features of the people, their trip characteristics, data on infrastructure availability, and adequacy, health, transportation, housing, education, economic, social and environmental are collected using different data collection instruments such as questionnaires, interviews, focus groups etc. After this, the data collected are analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics; this is, for example, to identify patterns, trends, correlation and causation among others. The result of this analysis will dictate largely what and how we plan for the settlement.

Step 4: Please note that if some other instances step four could be merged with step 2, however, in this instance, the is to enable adjustment to the goal generated in step 2 probably based on the outcome of the field investigation.

Step 5: based on the outcome of the analysis of data, alternative plans are generated to address the identified development challenges in the settlement. For example, in most planning activities two to three alternative plans are generated to address identified challenges. It should be noted that any of this plan is worth implementing. For this, we can generate three alternative plans (A, B, C)

Step 6: The alternative plans (A, B, C) generated are taken through plan evaluation using different evaluation approaches including include goal achievement matrix, and checklist approach among several others. After this, one alternative will be selected as the preferred based on the fact that this (selected plan) performs better than the other two plans.

Step 7: This stage involves the implementation of the different segments of the selected plan as carried out in step 6. Note this plan could be put in phases, for example, if the plan is for 20 years (2019-2039), we could decide to have four phases of five years each.

Step 8: During and after the implementation of the different segments of the selected masterplan, there is a need to review the actions taken, what has been done, what is left undone, has the plan achieve stated goals, what areas need improvement etc. this among several others are issues to be treated in the monitoring stage.

3. PLANNING MODES AND TRADITIONS IN BOTH CAPITALIST AND SOCIALIST ECONOMIES

As indicated earlier planning is to ensure order and an overall sustainable urban and rural environment. In the world governance system, there are two broad forms of governance, these are capitalism and socialism. Also, this identifies two economic systems in the world. For capitalist economies, the economic process is largely controlled by the private sector while for socialist economies the economic process is directed by the government. Planning activities would differ in these two economies. Capitalism is understood as a system based on private ownership, market allocation and entrepreneurship. Socialism, defined as a system based on social ownership and planned coordination of the economy,

Capitalism is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of the property by their interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes

In such a socialist society based on economic planning, the primary function of the state apparatus changes from one of political rule over people (via the creation and enforcement of laws) into a technical administration of production, distribution and organization, that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of political and class-based control and thereby ceasing to be a state in the traditional sense. In a capitalist economy market force dictates the planning process while the state controls the apparatus of planning in a socialist economy. Comparisons between the planning model in socialist and capitalist should involve how the governance system operates as this also dictate other institutional processes. The urban planning management system is defined as a system encompassing all means, methods, and tools to realize goals set.  To compare and contrast the planning system/process between socialist and capitalist urban planning management system is constrained by its unique political, socio-economic, and other factors operational in a country i.e., socialist or capitalist.

4. CITIZEN’S PARTICIPATION AND EVALUATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

4a. Citizen Participation

Citizen participation is regarded as citizen power because it enables the citizen/public participants in the development process, it allows the public to have a say. Citizen participation (or public participation) is a process through which citizens can address and be a part of the implementation of their concerns, needs, and monitoring processes in conjunction with political agenda and central/local government strategies. Originally conceived as a mechanism for obtaining local views on complex issues, public participation provides a safeguard against ill-informed decisions, educates the public and decision-makers alike of each other’s concerns, builds public confidence and understanding, and provides new and valuable information to planners and policymakers. It involves the process of information, consultation, involvement, collaboration and empowerment.

There are two groups of citizen participation model:

·       One-dimensional model (top-down, dominant before the 1990s, emphasizes planners and governmental authority)

·       Multi-dimensional model (bottom-up, after the 1990s, theory of communicative action and communicative planning, considers local communities as the main actors).

One-dimensional models’ general features are:

·       Technical hierarchy

·       Efficiency in using resources and providing solutions

·       Citizen Participation requires technical and legal knowledge

·       Urban planning as a rational tool: Market control, human needs

·       Degrees of citizen participation in decision-making processes

·       Population involvement depends on elites' will and experts’ help

Multi-dimensional model general features are:

·       Reveals social conflict, inequalities and hierarchies

·       Democratic means and social reforms

·       Institutional openness and support favour citizen participation

·       Urban planning as a result of multiple processes and rationales

·       Multiple Levels and Dimensions of possible citizen participation

·       Population involvement depends on its own will and initiatives

Typical participation mechanisms include public hearings, citizen forums, community or neighbourhood meetings, community outreaches, focus groups, the Internet, and e-mail are also used. Public participation leads to satisfying the needs of the public; it helps build consensus on organizational goals, service priorities, good performance, and fiscal commitment; and it improves public trust in governmental decisions

Citizen Participation Ladder

Arnstein, Sherry R. identifies eight (8) levels of citizen participation referred to as the "Ladder of Citizen Participation”, what the ladder shows that there are significant gradations of citizen participation. This means that it starts from the lowest to the highest level, this also indicates sometimes some people might be involved in a project but might not be participating as dictated by the tenets of citizen participation.

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of "nonparticipation" that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in the planning or conducting of programs, but to enable powerholders to "educate" or "cure" the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of "tokenism" that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions, they lack the power to ensure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no "muscle," and hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation is simply a higher-level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide. Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats or full managerial power.

4b. Evaluation in the Planning Process

Planning as a discipline is concerned with decision-making to effect change in the future. These changes when implemented need to be evaluated to determine whether they are in line with the objective the planner had in mind when it was proposed. Apart from as an instrument of review, evaluation serves to determine if a project will be implemented in the first place. Evaluation in the planning process is integrating evaluation within the decision-making process in urban and regional planning. Evaluation is used to determine the best o plan, and which plan to select. Generally, the benefits and costs should be measured. Plan evaluation in urban and regional planning presents the avenue to assess intended actions and determined the most suitable options.

Evaluation is a process that critically examines a program. It involves collecting and analyzing information about a program’s activities, characteristics, and outcomes. Its purpose is to make judgments about a program, to improve its effectiveness, and/or to inform programming decisions. Evaluation is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object. It is also the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object. This definition shows that evaluation is a systematic endeavour and it uses the deliberately ambiguous term 'object' which could refer to a program, policy, technology, person, need, activity, and so on. The definition emphasizes acquiring and assessing information rather than assessing worth or merit because all evaluation work involves collecting and sifting through data, making judgments about the validity of the information and of inferences we derive from it, whether or not an assessment of worth or merit results.

Evaluation can also be defined as a systematic, rigorous, and meticulous application of scientific methods to assess the design, implementation, improvement, or outcomes of a program. It is a resource-intensive process, frequently requiring resources, such as evaluation expertise, labour, time, and a sizable budget. Evaluation, in a broad sense, is concerned with the effectiveness of programs. While common sense evaluation has a very long history, evaluation research which relies on scientific methods is a young discipline that has grown massively in recent years. Evaluation is a systematic process to understand what a program does and how well the program does it. Evaluation results can be used to maintain or improve program quality and to ensure that future planning can be more evidence-based.

Goals of Evaluation

The generic goal of most evaluations is to provide "useful feedback" to a variety of audiences including sponsors, donors, client groups, administrators, staff, and other relevant constituencies. Most often, feedback is perceived as "useful" if it aids in decision-making. But the relationship between an evaluation and its impact is not a simple one -- studies that seem critical sometimes fail to influence short-term decisions, and studies that initially seem to have no influence can have a delayed impact when more congenial conditions arise. Despite this, there is broad consensus that the major goal of the evaluation should be to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback. Other important goals of evaluation include

Improve program design and implementation: It is important to periodically assess and adapt activities to ensure they are as effective as they can be. Evaluation can help identify areas for improvement and ultimately help realize goals more efficiently. Additionally, when the results about what was more and less effective are shared, it helps advance environmental education.

Demonstrate program impact: Evaluation enables you to demonstrate your program’s success or progress. The information you collect allows you to better communicate your program's impact to others, which is critical for public relations, staff morale, and attracting and retaining support from current and potential funders. An alternative view is that "projects, evaluators, and other stakeholders (including funders) will all have potentially different ideas about how best to evaluate a project since each may have a different definition of 'merit'. The core of the problem is thus about defining what is of value." From this perspective, evaluation "is a contested term", as "evaluators" use the term evaluation to describe an assessment, or investigation of a program whilst others simply understand evaluation as being synonymous with applied research. On the importance of the two broad types of evaluation, Formative Evaluations provide information on improving a product or a process while Summative Evaluations provide information on short-term effectiveness or long-term impact to deciding the adoption of a product or process.

However, not all evaluations serve the same purpose, some evaluations serve a monitoring function rather than focusing solely on measurable program outcomes or evaluation findings and a full list of types of evaluations would be difficult to compile. This is because evaluation is not part of a unified theoretical framework, drawing on several disciplines, which include management and organizational theory, policy analysis, education, sociology, social anthropology, and social change

Major Category of Evaluation

Planning evaluation could be Ex-ante (A priori) or Ex-post.

Ex ante Evaluation

Ex ante is the evaluation carried out before plan implementation while Ex post is the evaluation carried out after plan implementation. Ex ante evaluation is a process that supports the preparation of proposals for new or renewed Community actions. Its purpose is to gather information and carry out analyses that help to define objectives, to ensure that these objectives can be met, that the instruments used are cost-effective and that reliable later evaluation will be possible.

A priori evaluation means estimating the projected future impacts of a planned undertaking before its implementation. Often such evaluation involves comparing feasible alternatives in a relatively early stage of planning, to select the best one for detailing and elaboration. Evaluation before deciding to commit resources provides information on a project’s estimated value to enable better decisions.

An ex-ante evaluation can take place at different levels of activity. It can address a policy, a programme or a project. Ex ante evaluation is a tool for improving the quality of new or renewed programmes and for providing information based on which decision-makers can judge the value of a proposal. Therefore, it is important to start ex-ante evaluation work early on in the process when options for programme formulation are still open.

Ex-post Evaluation

Ex-post evaluation is retrospective and is the process of evaluation after the implementation of a project. Ex-post evaluation is a systematic and objective assessment of a completed project, programme or policy – in the context of their planning, implementation and obtained results. It enables project personnel to collect data on how a project has been implemented; if the projects’ anticipated goals were met; if the project is cost-effective; and the potential reasons for the resulting difficulties/unintended effects etc. This information will enable the sponsor institutions and the government, in general, to decide whether the considered project should be amended or replaced by a new project.

Evaluation ex post facto involves measuring or assessing the impacts and effects of the subject undertaking – policy, plan, program or project – to evaluate its outcomes. This kind of evaluation usually begins upon completion or later, to allow time to observe relevant impacts. The evaluation here often includes a systematic analysis of relations between inputs, outputs and impacts to explain the observed results. The purpose of the ex-post evaluation is to learn from experience: its findings may be useful lessons for similar undertakings in the future.

Types of Evaluation

There are different evaluation techniques, some of these include Payback Period, Average Rate of Returns, Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return, Cost Benefit Analysis, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Planning Balance Sheet Analysis, Goal Achievement Matrix, Checklist Approach, Threshold Analysis, Linear Programming, Overlay Method etc. the most widely used evaluation technique for planning project is checklist approach which often combines cost and non-cost factors.

Checklist Approach: The checklist approach procedural process involves the identification and collection of major relevant factors; establishment of relative values (weights for each major criterion based on the magnitude of the comparative degree of relevance and importance; evaluation of all strategic alternative plans by considering each plan individually and proceeding through the list of factors and scoring them accordingly to the degree of achievement of the relevant performance objective and summation of the factor points earned by each plan under consideration construction. From the evaluation process, one alternative will be adjudged as the most suitable option of the two alternatives.

Cost Benefits Analysis/Benefit-Cost Analysis: The French economist Dupuis was probably the first to articulate the principles of Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) in 1844, as a way to ensure that the allocation of public investments would maximize total social benefit. BCA was intended to be the public sector equivalent of the private sector’s “discipline of the market”, which could evaluate prospective enterprises based on their potential profit. BCA was first applied in public investment analysis in evaluating large-scale public engineering projects (dams and other flood-control projects) funded under the US (1936) Flood Control Act – among the “New Deal” program’s public works projects It is quite a useful tool for appraising the total aggregated social value of a project (quantified in terms of money), however, BCA gives no answers to other equally important questions asked in the project- or plan- evaluation. These include the question of who gets what and who pays and the proposal’s impacts in terms of distributional equity.

Planning Balance Sheet Analysis (PBSA): this is a modification of BCA, it was developed primarily to address this shortcoming and to add to the Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) index of aggregate social utility some indicators to enable the assessment of distributional impacts. In essence, PBSA is a form of impact analysis: it is a method for analyzing and displaying the repercussions of the subject plan or project, or what Lichfield called its “implications”. A planning Balance Sheet (PBS) was proposed by Lichfield in 1956[7]. It tries to identify and separate the impacts of different alternatives for different groups (producers and consumers). Costs and benefits are expressed in monetary terms, if possible, but may otherwise be entered in any physical measurement unit or score, or even in descriptive terms. A critique of the methods is that it only addresses a very high-level goal like "enhancing community welfare" while impacts only have a meaning concerning a well-defined objective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA): CEA is primarily a tool for ex-post program evaluation. In CEA the undertaking’s costs are assessed, computed and monetarized just as in BCA, but benefits are expressed differently. CEA’s measure of benefits is an effectiveness indicator, which is specifically developed to reflect the proposal’s goal attainment. CEA is well accepted as a valid method for quantified a priori comparison of alternative public investments in goal-related programs, for example, alternative programs in health such as, say, technology and training for early diagnosis of breast cancer vs. advanced technology and training for operative treatment. It can also substitute for BCA in giving a better ex-post evaluation of program effectiveness, for example. assessing the effectiveness of a job placement program by cost per job placement rather than trying to monetarize the aggregate social utility of the program’s impacts.

Goals Achievement Matrix (GAM): This method of evaluating plans assumes that all the relevant goals of the plans under consideration have been identified. Goals are defined operationally to be analyzed in the goals-achievement matrix. According to this procedure, the costs and the benefits of a course of action, which has been designed to serve a set of objectives, are its positive and negative contributions to the achievement of each of the objectives. This, the costs and the benefits resulting from a particular course of action are considered only concerning the goals for which they have significance. The extent of goal achievement is measured in monetary units, in other quantitative units or qualitative terms, depending on how the relevant goals have been defined. The incidence of the costs and the benefits is also recorded. Finally, the relative effectiveness of alternative courses of action in achieving the set of desired objectives is determined. This is done by applying a weighting system to objectives and to subgroups, sectors, locations or activities which are affected.

Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM) was proposed by   Morris Hill. The core idea is to view costs and benefits always in terms of the achievement of objectives, which are clearly defined in an operational rather than abstract sense. For each goal that can be identified, the applicable unit of measurement is established, in quantitative terms, if possible, otherwise in qualitative terms. GAM performs a trade-off of benefits and costs across sectors per objective. It is quite capable to express the complexity of decision problems. However, GAM is complex and costly, and it does not give a quick answer.

Step 1: Determine criteria relevant to the project (Technical feasibility of the project, financial feasibility (resource availability), Coordination with other projects etc.)

Step 2: Select weights and scoring indicators. Criteria can either be all given the same importance or weight, or they can be differentially weighted.

Step 3: Conclude the assessment

Advantages

GAM     is a  highly visible, transparent tool to select priority projects, allowing broad participation of stakeholders in thematic groups.

As the criteria used to choose projects are decided transparently by the people involved, there is no feeling on the part of stakeholders that projects were chosen indiscriminately.

Disadvantages

It is time-consuming and needs technical expertise (to use Excel sheets) to integrate the prioritization results from various persons, and various working groups. It still provides room for subjective bias, as the final score could sometimes lead to decisions which are not supported by the community (or by the decision-makers). Criteria might need readjustment, or additional prioritization tools should be used as well.

5. SOCIAL SCIENCE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING THEORY

The rationale behind this is that social scientists contribute to the understanding of social, political, and economic problems in society and help to plan development projects in such a way that they address basic developmental needs involved in development planning.