PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 15 February 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice and ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713442503

The Performance of Spatial PlanningAndreas Faludi

Online publication date: 19 August 2010

To cite this Article Faludi, Andreas(2000) 'The Performance of Spatial Planning', Planning Practice and Research, 15: 4, 299— 318To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/713691907URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713691907

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 299–318, 2000

ARTICLE

The Performance of Spatial PlanningANDREAS FALUDI

Introduction

This article is about strategic spatial planning. Strategic spatial planning con-cerns major spatial development issues. Such issues may arise on any planningscale, but it is more common for them to be addressed at the regional and evenmore so on national level.

More in particular, this article asks how can strategic spatial plans beevaluated. At face value, evaluation in planning seems simple enough. Lest itshould be considered a failure, planning must ‘deliver the goods’. This meansthat the outcome of planned action must conform to what the plan says. Forplanning to achieve this, it must make the various agents that are normallyshaping development according to priorities of their own, fall into line. So inorder for strategic spatial plans to be effective, conventional wisdom has it thatthey must ‘have teeth’. The government agency responsible for making the planmust be able to rein other actors in. ‘Other actors’ may refer to other governmentagencies, whether on the same level of government (horizontal coordination) oron other levels (vertical coordination). The need for control also applies toprivate actors.

Deep in their hearts though, planners may see horizontal and vertical coordi-nation and the exercise of control over private actors as stopgap measures.Ideally, they may feel that they themselves should look after the implementationof the plan. The problem is that they do not normally have the means.Exceptions are single-purpose agencies set up to deal with unique and hugeissues, like the vast land reclamation schemes and storm � ood barriers in theNetherlands, the organisation of Olympic games, the development of La Defensein Paris, and so forth.

Dutch authors are not the only ones to question the view that strategic spatialplanning always is, or indeed should be, like such projects where vast powersand resources are vested in planners. They base themselves on the appreciationthat much planning is not a technical process of producing material things butrather a process of mutual learning involving interaction between a multitude ofactors. This understanding of planning as a ‘soft’ process is more attuned to theseemingly endless multifarious negotiations that many practising planners areconstantly involved in, and to the, at best, often very indirect impact that theirplans have. Planners often feel bad about their day-to-day practice and the fact

AndreasFaludi,Professorof SpatialPolicy Systems in Europe,Universityof Nijmegen,PO Box 9108,6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: a.faludi@bw.kun.nl

2990269-7459 Print/1360-0583 On-line/00/040299-20 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/02697450020018754

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

that their plans are more often indicative than binding. They think that this fallsshort of what planning should stand for. Shedding misconceived ideas aboutwhat planning stands for should help planners in making sense out of what theyin fact do.

Be that as it may, this also means that evaluation is not simply a matter ofmeasuring outcomes. Where planning-as-learning, producing indicative plans isconcerned, a more subtle evaluation is called for. So the answer as to the typeof evaluation needed depends on our assumptions about planning, its function,or purpose. After having discussed these assumptions, the message of this articlewill be that strategic spatial plans must be evaluated, not primarily in the lightof their material outcomes, but for how they improve the understanding ofdecision makers of present and future problems they face. Where having suchplans increases this understanding, they may be said to perform their role,irrespective of outcomes. Plans perform their role if and when they help decisionmakers make sense of their situations, and so they need to be evaluated in thislight.

The end of this article relates the analysis of plan performance to another lineof argument. It is about ‘planning doctrine’ as a structuring device responsiblefor success in planning. In so doing I draw on work that analyses the structureof meaning behind plans. Planning doctrine is a comprehensive concept thatextends to the institutional capacity for analysis and action concerning spatialissues. Relating two hitherto disparate lines of reasoning, the article ends withan exposition of ‘planning doctrine’ and its implications for evaluation research.

Since this article is about a speci� cally Dutch approach to evaluation respond-ing to situations that are, if not wholly speci� c to, then at least frequently to befound in Dutch planning with its abundance of indicative plans, a short outlineof the Dutch planning system seems apposite.

Outlines of the Dutch Planning System

The Dutch planning system is comprehensive in that it includes planning atlocal, provincial and national levels. At the local level we � nd the bestem-mingsplan. It is the direct reference for applicants for building permits and thirdparties interested in how future development will affect them. This plan isdetailed, covers relatively small areas (in particular those due to be developed inthe short- and medium term) and binding in that building permits must conformto them. In reality, the system is more � exible, but this article is not concernedwith this type of plan. Rather, it discusses the more strategic plans. At the locallevel, these are called structuurplan and are indicative. In making this type ofplan, municipalities are guided by the provincial so-called streekplan, amongstothers, but the structuurplan is not subject to provincial approval. Against this,the bestemmingsplan is subject to provincial approval. In giving or withholdingits approval, the province refers to its streekplan. However, that plan, too, isindicative so the province is not duty-bound to follow it to the letter. So themunicipality and the provincial authorities can deliberate about the bestem-mingsplan and how it relates to the streekplan.

300

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

In making streekplannen, provinces are not subject to any form of governmentcontrol. However, the government has reserve powers (that are very rarely used)to ensure that in case of con� ict national concerns prevail. Streekplannen arebrought to the attention of national planners, leading once again to mutualdiscussions.

National policy as such is articulated in so-called key planning decisionsadopted after due deliberation and consultation by both Houses of Parliament.The most prominent of these key decisions relate to overall spatial developmentand arise out of major planning exercises, culminating in the publication ofNational Spatial Planning Reports. To eschew any association with comprehen-sive plans and the like, these reports are not called national plans. They arestrategic planning documents with key diagrams not unlike British structureplans. Since 1960, four such reports have come out at intervals of approximately10 years, and the � fth one is currently in preparation. These reports attempt tosynthesise spatially relevant policies into one overall scheme expressing nationalaspirations. Such schemes are much discussed, not only in the professionalcommunity, but also in the national press, which is an indication of Dutchplanning being in the public eye.

This does not remove the usual problems of horizontal coordination betweengovernment departments nor those of vertical coordination between levels ofgovernment. However, at least there is continuous discussion of such matters,and the planning key decisions punctuate these discussions with authoritativepronouncements that form reference points for the future. The importance ofspatial planning may be gauged amongst others from the efforts of departmentsof government other than planning to articulate spatial concepts that suit theirconcerns. Thus, the departments of transport, agriculture and of economic affairshave all come out with spatial policy documents of their own (Priemus, 1999).These documents contribute to the richness of spatial discourse. Dutch planningreceives much international acclaim, and it seems plausible that the neatness ofDutch development commented upon by foreign observers is indeed a mark ofits effectiveness.

This does not mean to say that Dutch planners are always satis� ed. Indeed,as elsewhere, planners are often beset by doubts. The indicative nature ofmost of their plans makes it dif� cult to identify what their real contributionhas been. This is why there has been sustained Dutch research into theeffectiveness speci� cally of strategic, indicative planning. In so doing, theDutch academic literature has allowed itself to be in� uenced by the IORSchool (the Institute for Operational Research existing between the 1960sand the 1980s as a branch of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations). Ithas also drawn on Barrett & Fudge (1981) where they contrast conformancewith performance as criteria for evaluation. Lastly, it has drawn inspiration fromthe policy science literature on the ‘argumentative turn’ (Fischer & Forester,1993) where the latter shows the embeddedness of planning and policy inmore general discourses, or discourse coalitions. On this basis, Dutch researchhas formed an understanding, not only of the performance of indicative plans,but also of the dynamic process by which policy � elds like planning areconstituted and changed. Another feature of Dutch research that sets it apart is

301

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

that many Dutch authors publish in English. So, wherever possible, English-language sources will be referred to.

Two Types of Planning

The � rst question this article seeks to answer is: What is the purpose of spatialplanning at the more strategic level of regional and even more so nationalplanning?

This question will be answered in the spirit of what is called the ‘decision-centred view of planning’. This view forms the backdrop also for evaluating therole of plans.

The decision-centred view derives its key characteristics from the ‘IORSchool’. The most radical departure from previous thinking introduced by thatschool concerns the very question discussed in this section: the nature ofplanning. It answers this question by emphasising, not plans but day-to-daydecision making (Faludi & Mastop, 1982; Faludi, 1987, pp. 91–92). In the wordsof the IOR School, planning must be seen as “… not so much concerned withproducing a plan as with gaining a better understanding of the problems withwhich we are faced now and in the future, in order that we can make betterdecisions now” (Centre for Environmental Studies, 1970, p. 16). This emphasison improved understanding pre-dates much of the current talk about planning-as-learning. What is also remarkable is the pragmatic concern with action ratherthan plans. At the same time this indicates an important lesson about the role ofplans. According to the IOR School, they are instruments and not the embodi-ment of some higher wisdom, as some planners may be inclined to think.

Of course, this needs to be quali� ed. Planning is not always learning.Sometimes planning is indeed what many planers have seen it as in the past: atechnical exercise in the production of material things, thereby drawing onavailable expertise. Planning-as-learning particularly relates to situations requir-ing the coordination of various actors, each with a perspective on the issues athand of his or her own, perspectives that need to be adjusted to each other beforeaction can be taken. The notion of planning varies accordingly, and so does thenature of the plan invoked. Where we talk about a technical exercise, there theplan is a document giving a set of prescriptions for action, a blueprint for howto bring the desired state of affairs about. In a learning situation, any attempt tospecify the end result is inappropriate, if for no other reason than that byde� nition the end state cannot be known. Rather, the plan needs to be a � exibledocument capable of guiding the process and of evolving alongside with it.Where, for reasons of communication and democratic legitimacy, strategic plansneed to be published and thus � xed, the formulations will necessarily be largelyvague, leaving room for interpretation, announcing the need for more research,consultation, and so forth.

In this spirit (Faludi, 1989a; see also Faludi & Van der Valk, 1994; Mastop& Faludi, 1993, 1997; the original formulation is in Van der Valk, 1989) theproject and strategic plans can be distinguished as the two ideal types and thisarticle looks at how each of them is being prepared, their respective form andintended effects (see Table 1). This is done in more general terms, and not just

302

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

TABLE 1. Two types of plan

Project plans Strategic plans

Object Material DecisionsInteraction Until adoption ContinuousFuture Closed OpenTime-element Limited to phasing Central to problemForm Blueprint Minutes of last meetingEffect Determinate Frame of reference

Source: Faludi (1989a).

in terms of spatial planning. The pair of concepts ‘project plans’ and ‘strategicplans’ should be of more general applicability and not just restricted to spatialplanning.

Project plans are blueprints of the intended end-state of a material object andthe measures needed to achieve that state. In project planning, interaction in theplanning process focuses on the adoption of the plan. Once adopted, the plan issupposed to be an unambiguous guide to action, so its adoption implies closureof the image of the future. The time-element in project planning is restricted tophasing works in line with the exigencies of producing the � nal outcome. Aproject plan is expected to have a determinate effect. In other words, withinprede� ned margins of error, outcomes must conform to the speci� cations in theproject plan. This is of course not wholly the case. As with all documents,project plans can be misread and/or interpreted in unexpected ways. This is whythere is much effort spent on standardising expressions and specifying prescrip-tions in project plans. However, whether project plans ever achieve the degreeof precision and of conformance of outcomes to intentions is not the issue here.It is in the nature of ideal types as analytical constructs that they have no exactcorrespondents in reality.

Strategic plans concern the coordination of projects and other measures takenby a multitude of actors. As always, these actors can be other agencies ofgovernment and/or private actors. The set of decisions taken by these actorsforms the object of planning. The coordination of these decisions is a continuousprocess. Since everybody wants to keep options open, time is of central concern.The strategic plan itself is no more than a momentary record of agreementsreached. It forms a frame of reference for negotiations and is indicative. Thefuture remains open.

Spatial plans can take either shape. Many spatial plans are of course projectplans. Indeed, one form of spatial plan, the blueprint used by architects andengineers, has become the prototype project plan. However, as in other forms ofplanning, there is a range of situations in spatial planning in which theassumptions underlying the making of project plans simply do not apply. Therecan be too much uncertainty and con� ict, and there can be too many actorsmaking the situation too complex. Whilst this can (and sometimes does) occurat local level, this is more usual at the regional and national level. This is why,in the terms outlined above, spatial planning at these levels is predominantly

303

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

strategic in character. Saying ‘predominantly’ is meant to recognise that this isnot always so. Sometimes, regional and even national planning includes ahard-and-fast prescription, in other words, elements of a project plan. Con-versely, what appears to be a project by virtue of the fact that it concerns a largeinfrastructure project or some such artefact may in actual fact require a strategicplan by virtue of the persistent uncertainty and con� ict surrounding it. It is onlyafter these uncertainties have been removed that the planning of infrastructureand the like can switch to a technical mode of operation appropriate to projectplans.

We can now answer the question at the beginning of this section. It is that thechief purpose of spatial planning at the level of regional, and even more sonational planning is to give guidance in situations that are characterised byuncertainty and con� ict around spatial development where there needs to bemutual learning. The guidance is for the bene� t of subsequent decision makersand concerns their decision situations. Strategic plans inform them aboutimplications of their various courses of action. They can draw such informationfrom the plans which have prede� ned courses of action for them and exploredthe implications. Alternatively, the information they need may be in the mindsof those who have participated in preparing a strategic plan. Such ‘invisibleproducts’ of planning like a common appreciation of problems, a con� uence ofviews as regards desirable solutions and so forth, are important, sometimes moreso than the ‘visible products,’ the plans themselves (Wallagh, 1994). Only afterlearning has taken place, after consensus has been established, can the switch bemade to formulating plans for selected projects.

Evaluating ‘Planning-as-Learning’

The question that is central to this article is this: What is the best approach toevaluating ‘planning-as-learning’?

Planning-as-learning raises dif� cult issues, including the most serious one ofhow one is to evaluate it. After all, whether planning ‘delivers’ is no longer theonly test that applies. In the Netherlands there has been sustained research intohow such evaluation should take place. Recently, this has resulted in a collectionof papers in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (see amongstothers Mastop, 1997). This article draws on this Dutch school of ‘performance’research.

Albeit implicitly, much evaluation takes the Scripture as its point of departurewhere it says “By their fruits ye know them”. The implication seems that theevaluator must go and look whether the outcomes of a planning exerciseconform to intentions as laid down in the plan. This is certainly true for projectplans, and there is literature on how to evaluate them that is not included in thisarticle. As we know, project plans are concerned with material things. It is fairthat evaluation should be in terms of material effects, and where there isconformance between outcomes and intentions, there the project plan may bedeemed a success.

As we have seen, the purpose of strategic plans is different. It is to guide themaking of decisions. To put it differently, it is to allow decision makers to learn

304

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

FIGURE 1. The conventional approach: effectiveness 5 conformity. Source: Mastop & Faludi, 1997.

about what their situation is and what they, individually or collectively, can doabout it. Such learning does not always occur ‘on the � y’. There are all too manyissues to be dealt with. Since this is so, the quality of strategic plans must bemeasured in terms of the performance of plans in facilitating decision making.

Co-authored works with Mastop (Mastop & Faludi, 1993, 1997) lay bare theunderlying assumptions as regards the object of planning. In the case of theproject plan, the assumption is that of an inanimate object being manipulated.Account is taken of external variables (see Figure 1). This is not a suitableassumption as regards strategic plans. Once again, such plans are addressed tohuman agents and do not concern inanimate objects. Human agents analyse plansfor any messages that are relevant to them, deciding how to deal with themessages on that basis. In so doing, they re-interpret the messages, and in thissense distort them.

Indeed, another co-authored article, this time with Korthals Altes (Faludi &Korthals Altes, 1994; see also Korthals Altes, 1995) points out that communi-cation between plan-makers and those to whom they address their messages isalways and necessarily distorted. Such communication must be viewed as the‘double reconstruction of texts’. After all, the author of the plan conceives of therecipient in the abstract, and the recipient thinks of the author of the plan in theabstract, too. So meaning assigned to a plan and its messages is never the sameas intended.

This is very different from manipulating inanimate objects. This is whereDutch evaluation theory comes into its own. Following amongst others Barrett& Fudge (1981), it differentiates between conformance and performance (seeamongst others Faludi, 1989a). Performance (being the more dif� cult term of the

305

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

FIGURE 2. The decision-centredview: effectiveness 5 performance.Source: Mastop & Faludi, 1997.

two) refers to how a plan fares during negotiations, whether people use it,whether it helps clarifying choices, whether (without necessarily being followed)the plan forms part of the de� nition of subsequent decision situations. So whathappens with the plan becomes the key to evaluation. Whether or not it isfollowed is not the issue.

This has profound implications for what is commonly described as the objectof planning (Mastop & Faludi, 1993, 1997). The immediate object is not‘society’, ‘social problems’, ‘social development’, or such like. The planningobject in the sense of that which planning is concerned with is the set ofdecisions and actions that are being coordinated by means of a plan. We sharplydistinguish this planning object from the material object, the problems in theoutside world that the plan relates to (see Figure 2).

We may now proceed to de� ning plan performance. A plan is ful� lling itspurpose, and is in this sense ‘performing’, if and only if it plays a tangible rolein the choices of the actors to whom it is addressed. This may include the makerof the plan who then in a manner of speaking sends messages to him or herself

306

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

FIGURE 3. The interactive-perspective: effectiveness 5 performance.Source:Mastop & Faludi, 1997.

(like all of us do in using our diary as a major device for managing our time).The range of addressees may also include other actors not explicitly named inthe plan to whom (for whatever reason) it appeals so that they want to take itinto account. Once again, in all these cases the plan performs a useful role,irrespective of whether the outcomes correspond to the plan.

Playing a role in the choices of target groups is then what plan performanceis about. This can be expressed in terms of ends and means. Planning statementsare then the means to an end, the end being to let ideas of the maker of the planbecome part of subsequent decision processes. However, in a way the languageof ends and means seems inappropriate. The plans we are talking about addresspeople. People should not be regarded as means to an end. In fact, ‘implemen-tation’ can better be seen as a process of social interaction between the makersof a plan and the group or groups to whom it is addressed (see Figure 3). It isa form of ‘communicative action’ (Grin & Van der Graaf, 1996).

The conclusion is that project and strategic plans need to be evaluated usingdifferent approaches. In the case of a project plan, evaluation must follow thelogic of ends and means and of conformance of outcomes to intentions.

307

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

Technically, such evaluation can be complex. However, the logic is simple andneed not concern us here.

Strategic plans are different. Their addressees may interpret them freely, muchas judges interpret (and thereby change!) the law in cases where strict adherencewould create anomalies. In such cases we do not say that the law is ineffective.Likewise, even where and when departed from, a strategic plan is not necessarilyineffective. It can still be a framework for deliberating about what to do. Itcontinues to ful� l this function for as long as it informs decision makers aboutthe original intentions and the reasoning behind them, in other words for as longas, by looking at the plan, the decision maker can learn something about his orher situation. So, where strategic plans are concerned, we must establish whetherthey perform their function as decision-making frameworks.

A real-life example will elucidate what this means. It is drawn from researchby Postuma (1987) into the 1935 General Extension Plan of Amsterdam, the � rstDutch plan based on extensive surveys. The plan boldly covered the period untilthe year 2000. The research is about how the plan was used until it becameobsolete in 1955. This involved studying proposals for housing projects, includ-ing land acquisition and compulsory purchase, but also of port facilities and thelike. In each instance, the research established whether reference had been madeto the plan. In the case of departures, the research established the reasons. In sodoing, it sought to understand the role the General Extension Plan had played indecision making during the two decades after its adoption.

The research found that before the war housing schemes did conform to theplan. However, the Port Authority had no stake in the plan and disregarded it.So on this count the plan was anything but useful. A plan that is not referred tocannot ful� l its function, not even under the performance criterion. For a planto have any effect at all, it needs to be consulted.

After the war, sand was dif� cult to get. There was not enough equipment toship it to where it was needed in order to raise the land well above the watertable. In the Western Netherlands, this is necessary because of the well-knownconditions prevailing in an area below sea level. Even so, with sand being lessreadily available, it became imperative to use less of it and thus to make do withraising the land to a lower level than required. This meant more rainwaterstorage. Larger areas had to be set aside for this purpose, and this meantdeparting from the original plan, well thought-out though it had been. Theproposal in the pre-war plan to raise the land to the higher level had been takenafter due deliberation. Decision makers could use previous analyses in establish-ing what the effects would be of making do with less sand. In this way, and eventhough the material outcome was different from what had been foreseen, theGeneral Extension Plan proved to be useful. The city fathers used the plan,pointing out to the council where they recommended departures. When deliber-ating about proposals, sometimes the council, too, invoked the plan. So the ideaof a plan working by assisting decision makers in understanding the situationsthat they are faced with does re� ect reality.

The answer to the question as to the best way of evaluating ‘planning-as-learning’ is now clear. One needs to look at how plans are used by decisionmakers in practice, at how plans perform the function assigned to them under the

308

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

decision-centred view which is to help increase the understanding of decisionmakers faced with concrete choices.

The Method for Evaluating Plan Performance

Now that we know the general direction that needs to be taken in evaluating theperformance of strategic plans, the next question is clearly: What is theappropriate method for evaluating the ‘performance’ of planning as a learningprocess?

For evaluation to be rigorous there must be criteria. They provide benchmarksfor differentiating between good and bad strategic plans. Formulating thecriteria, I begin with the conditions of a strategic plan being as effective asidenti� ed by Mastop (1987 [1984]; p. 344):

(1) The plan must name the operational decisions for which it is intended as aframework.

(2) The plan must be of continuing relevance to the situation as it evolves.(3) The plan must help in de� ning operational decision situations. In other

words, lest the plan be considered ineffective, it must actually be invoked.

I myself have made do with two conditions, one necessary and one suf� cient.The necessary condition is that operational decision makers must know the plan(in Faludi, 1986, p. 101, I say they must form part of the same community ofdiscourse). The suf� cient condition is that decision makers must accept the planas part of the de� nition of their decision situations. To this extent, there mustthus be agreement between the maker of the plan and the decision makers towhom it is addressed. Measuring the degree of acceptance (in terms of Mastop:the extent to which plans actually help de� ning operational situations), theevaluator must identify statements expressing policy contained in planningdocuments and look at the relevant decisions and actions of the groups to whomthey are addressed (Mastop & Faludi, 1993, 1997).

Two situations are conceivable. The � rst situation is that subsequent to theplan being adopted, decisions are taken that conform to the plan. Theoreticallyit is possible that this outcome is coincidental, so in order to establish whetherthe plan has worked, a causal relation between intention and outcome needs tobe established. Anyway, there will be many situations in which subsequentdecisions do not conform to the plan, and for the purposes of discussing theevaluation of plan performance they are more interesting. In such situations, theevaluator must � nd out what really happened to the plan, how (if at all) it hasbeen considered. By way of example, it will be remembered that close analysisin the study of the 1935 General Extension Plan of Amsterdam revealed that theplan did ful� l a useful purpose.

So the � rst requirement is to identify plan departures and to � nd out whether,even though departing from it, decision makers have allowed themselves to bein� uenced by the plan. This is the basis for judging performance.

This does not exhaust the possibilities for plans performing a useful function.For instance, it may be that decision makers conclude that they cannot go oninvoking a plan because it is outdated. On this basis they decide that a new plan,

309

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

or (which amounts to pretty much the same) at least a substantial revision of anexisting plan is in order. In such a case, it makes no sense either to saycategorically that the previous plan has failed its purpose. Rather, the answer tothe question of whether it has failed, or whether it has served a useful purposeinspiring the authors of the new plan, depends on whether and how ideas in theformer plan � nd their way into the pages of its successor document.

On this basis, Wallagh (1988, pp. 122–123; see also Wallagh, 1994) gives acomprehensive speci� cation of the types of situations in which a plan performsits function as a learning framework, and this list may at the same time serve asa checklist for the evaluator of plan performance. The situations are as follows:

(1) an operational decision conforms to the plan and explicit reference is beingmade to it, demonstrating that conformance has not been accidental;

(2) arguments are being derived from the plan for taking non-conformingdecisions, so that departures are deliberate;

(3) the plan provides the basis for analysing consequences of an incidentaldecision which happens to contravene the plan, thus bringing that decisionunder the umbrella of the plan;

(4) if and when departures become too frequent and the plan must be reviewed,the original plan may still be said to have worked for as long as the reviewtakes that plan as its point of departure.

We might call the latter the regenerative capacity of a plan.It bears emphasis that studying plan performance is complex and demanding.

Dif� cult questions need answering: Did a decision maker allow him or herselfto be in� uenced by the plan and, if so, to what degree? The evaluator faces theproblem of whether the data are adequate and the recollections of respondentsaccurate, whether respondents are truthful, and so forth. In short, the problemsof interpretative social research stare the researcher in the face. However, thatinvoking the criteria is never a straightforward matter but rather involvesjudgement is inherent to the whole notion of planning-as-learning. Much willdepend on how in each case the decision makers involved appreciate theirsituations and whether they deem the plan to be helpful in making sense of them.

This at the same time provides the most general answer to the question at thebeginning of this section as to the appropriate method for evaluating the‘performance’ of planning as a learning process. It is to look at how decisionmakers take decisions and to � nd out whether plans help them in understandingwhat they are doing. This is unlike conventional evaluation with its characteristicapproaches evolving around combinations of impact assessment and cost-bene� tanalysis. Evaluation of plan performance requires deconstructing decision situa-tions into their components and identifying elements derived from plans and/orfrom the experience of participating in the processes that have led to theirformulation.

Framing Action

There has been a range of Dutch studies concerning the performance of strategicspatial plans. On the whole such plans perform well enough for a while, after

310

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

which they become out of date. This does not mean that development becomesrandom. Dutch development is usually fairly orderly. The reason is that there arevalues, assumptions and concepts underlying plans that can be operative, evenwhere the plan is de� cient. So the next question to be answered is: What makesactors involved in spatial development invoke a common frame of reference?

For the frame of reference invoked in strategic spatial planning, I am not the� rst one to have used the term ‘planning doctrine.’ Classic authors like Selznik(1953 [1949]) on the Tennessee Valley Authority and Foley (1963) on Londonhave preceded me. Others use terms like ‘megapolicy assumptions’ (Dror, 1971)or ‘policy frames’ (Rein & Schon, 1986; Schon & Rein, 1994) or ‘hegemonicproject’ (Hajer, 1989, 1995) in pretty much the same sense. Therefore it isimportant not to worry too much about the term ‘doctrine’. The point is that, likeparadigms according to a widely held view of science, such a discourse or frame,or as it is called here, planning doctrine gives a stable direction. In this respect,doctrine is one of the sources of strength on which plans can draw. The reasonfor addressing this issue is that, as indicated, the existence of such a doctrine, orwhatever one wishes to call it, explains why planning continues to be effective,even where plans are outdated or otherwise de� cient. In such cases, doctrinesimply takes over.

An example will serve to elucidate the issue (see also Faludi, 1987, pp. 128–

132; Faludi & Van der Valk, 1994, p. 15) and it concerns the Dutch ‘Urbanisa-tion Report’ of many years back. It is an example of a broad exercise leadingto what the Dutch have been quoted as calling a ‘planning key decision’. Thisreport is one of the Dutch documents that are national strategic spatial plans inanything but name. It is based on the idea of managed growth throughout theNetherlands according to the philosophy of what the Dutch call ‘concentrateddeconcentration’. This means a policy of allowing suburban-type development(hence ‘deconcentration’) but at the same time insisting that this type ofdevelopment be focused in designated areas (hence ‘concentrated’) so as toprevent uncontrolled suburban sprawl. In practice it entails developing a coupleof new towns and another dozen-or-so existing towns called ‘growth centres’.The policy has been impressively successful. Over half a million people havemoved to these growth centres, and at the height of this policy more than 20%of annual housing production took place where the ‘Urbanisation Report’ hadindicated that it should (Faludi & Van der Valk, 1991, 1994).

However, the analytical base of this strategic plan is weak. It pays only lipservice to uncertainty. Admittedly, the plan does give indications as to theactions that would lead to the achievement of the desired objectives, but it leavesit more or less at that. It does not pay explicit attention to what is being doneday-in, day-out by those engaged in various capacities in spatial development.So the plan runs foul of the � rst of the three conditions of Mastop above: it doesnot specify the decisions for which it is intended as a framework.

However, the plan worked. It did so by articulating an image of a desirablefuture. At that time, some Dutch planners argued that, rather than worrying aboutvertical and horizontal coordination (the bread-and-butter of Dutch planningpractice involving complex negotiations), plans should do precisely this: articu-late attractive future images. In this way, plans should mould perceptions and by

311

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

‘framing with images’ (Faludi, 1996) ensure their own implementation. This wasmore or less what this strategic plan called the ‘Urbanisation Report’ has done.

The Urbanisation Report was not an isolated example. Rather, it was one ofseveral consecutive planning documents that, between them, have cumulativelygenerated consensus about what the Netherlands should look like. In the 1970sand early 1980s, this was suf� cient to guide operational decision makersinvolved in growth management. It is the ‘deep structure’ behind plans that Idescribe as planning doctrine. The suggestion is that strategic plans sometimes‘work’, not as plans in the ordinary sense of the word, but by articulating aspectsof the underlying doctrine.

Planning doctrine as used here stands for a coherent body of thoughtconcerning:

(1) spatial arrangements within an area (urbanisation patterns, the distribution ofindustry and facilities);

(2) the development of that area (responding to expected patterns of growth ordecline in demand, changing patterns of preferences, perceived opportunitiesand threats);

(3) the way both are to be handled (planning approaches and the organisation ofplanning).

Examples of ideas under (1) and (2) are planning concepts, like the neighbour-hood idea and the Green Belt. In the case of planning doctrine, such conceptscombine into an overall principle of spatial organisation for the jurisdictionconcerned. Such a principle of spatial organisation expresses certain values. Inthe Dutch case these values are those of ‘Rule and Order,’ as is the title of thebook on Dutch strategic spatial planning that I co-authored (Faludi & Van derValk, 1994).

Planning principles under (3) form an equally important aspect of doctrine.They concern the preparation of plans, their form, uses and/or effects. Examplesare ‘survey-before-plan’, public participation, ‘deciding cases on their merits’, aswell as recent ideas re-emphasising planning as debate (Healey, 1997). Overtime planning principles become enshrined in practice. They automaticallyinform the work of planners. With the principles of spatial organisation theybecome part of what Barrett & Fudge (1981) describe as the ‘assumptive world’of planners. This relates to the spate of current literature on institutionalisation.Indeed, Mastop (2000a, b), in yet other articles relating to strategic planning andto plan performance emphasises the link with institution building. Commonassumptions that planners can draw upon gives planning institutional capacity,the more so since elements of Dutch doctrine have penetrated the views ofpoliticians and the public at large.

When do we speak of doctrine, and what criteria do we apply to it? In anotherco-authored paper (Alexander & Faludi, 1996) doctrine is de� ned as a concep-tual schema. Such a schema is like a generalised ‘script’ organising the subject’sperceptions, experiences and expressions about an area. The conditions for beingable to speak of doctrine are:

(1) a planning subject, i.e. there must be an agency with planning powers that

312

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

FIGURE 4. Dutch planning doctrine.

(2) views the planning area as a relevant object of concern; and(3) invokes the doctrine over time so that there is continuity of concerns.

A planning doctrine may be expressed in a plan or a succession of plans.Doctrine refers to one or more ideas underlying these plans. Often, doctrinerelies on a metaphor, which is a pervasive mode of understanding by which weuse experiences in one domain to structure another. An example from Dutchplanning is the term ‘Green Heart’ designating the core area of relatively openland enclosed by the ‘Randstad’, a horseshoe-shaped area with various townsand cities of medium size that between them form the urbanised core of thecountry. The power of this metaphor lies in the injunction not to choke the heartby building over it, the more so since it is green! (see Figure 4).

Metaphor has a critical role in human knowledge and action and is central inhuman imagination, providing the quasi-logical framework of associations. Assuch, it enables synthesis. The paradigm (as used in philosophy of science) issuch a metaphor. Paradigms are a feature in a widely accepted model ofscienti� c progress, in which they represent the collective decisions of a scienti� ccommunity which ‘frame’ ‘normal’, puzzle-solving science. Much discussionconcerns whether or not paradigms are rational or not.

This issue is returned to below. At the moment suf� ce it to say that the moreinclusive we de� ne the planning subject, the more actors it includes, the moreimportant doctrine is in securing plan performance. The knife cuts both ways.Successful doctrine binds many actors to it. Such a doctrine will help withforming networks that can be called upon and mobilised to safeguard the valueson which doctrine is based. This is why doctrine has been said above to increaseinstitutional capacity.

313

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

Where doctrine is mature, planning is a ‘normal’ activity. This means that anarena exists in which problems, solutions and their consequences are analysed.As a result, planning is cumulative and progressive (this may account for suchsuccesses as Dutch planning has seen; see Faludi, 1989b; 1991; Faludi & Vander Valk, 1994). The reverse is also true: absence of planning doctrine may bea reason for failure. Another contribution of planning doctrine is to reduce theburden of plan-making. Lastly, doctrine can � ll the gap left by plans that havebecome obsolete.

The combination of its consensus-building and ‘policy framing’ role suggeststhat planning doctrine also performs a social function. Here, Alexander and Imake use of Giddens (1979) where he talks about ‘structuration’. Structurationmay serve as a unifying concept, allowing us to bring together two hithertodisparate streams of thinking about performance and planning doctrine. We � rstneed to look at structuration.

Structuration is a key concept in Giddens, referring to the process by whichsocial action is being structured by the cumulative outcome of previous actions.These outcomes may be belief systems, rules and/or institutions. For instance,consider the multifarious negotiations in planning practice. This certainly in-volves much interaction. According to Giddens such interaction is constrainedby given structures of meaning, facilities and norms, what he describes as‘structuring modalities.’ At the same time, social interaction would be imposs-ible without structures. Structures ‘enable’ interaction much as they constrain it.Furthermore, during interaction structures are being re-established or changed, asthe case may be. So the relationship between structure and interaction is not aone-way process. Rather, they are mutually dependent on each other (for acritique see Hajer, 1989).

Structuration is what happens in every form of planning, recognising, as inthis article, its object as human actors ‘talking back’ to plans, and using plansto their advantage, often in creative and unexpected ways. Following Giddens,there would indeed be something seriously wrong if this did not happen; if therecipients never changed the plans handed down to them. So the idea above ofperformance analysis is in line with Giddens’s view of social interaction.

Doctrine is one form of structuring modality. More speci� cally, it is a beliefsystem in that it conveys meaning, in this case to actors involved in spatialdevelopment. Meaning is further articulated in plans, policies, programmes andprojects. They, too, are structuring modalities, albeit on a more concrete level.Ultimately, they bear fruit in social interaction, in the case of strategic spatialplanning concerning decisions about spatial development. This is what structura-tion stands for: actions taking place within a dynamic framework that is itselfbeing transformed during the process.

In this way, the concept of structuration may act as a unifying device for theperformance of plans and the broader question of how doctrine comes about andworks. In fact both plans and doctrines are structuring devices, the differencebeing that plans give more speci� c guidance whereas doctrine keeps at thegeneral level of de� ning meanings and giving directions. Also, being morespeci� c, we may expect plans to deal more with facilities and the application ofnorms rather than with meaning, which is where doctrine comes into its own.

314

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

However, both plans and doctrines can be evaluated for how they perform theirrole by looking at how they are used by decision makers.

There is a difference though. Performance analysis takes us to the micro-level.The type of analysis required is detailed and demanding. The analysis of doctrineis no less demanding, but it takes place on a macro-scale, tracing historicaltrajectories and making qualitative judgements on that basis. The strength ofdoctrine lies in its appeal to cultural values, in its holistic qualities, embracingvarious aspects of a problem and endowing them with meaning by presentingthem as part of one overall view that is historically rooted and offers perspec-tives on the future at the same time. Analysing doctrine, we are thus into thebusiness of historical interpretation, with all the pitfalls that this entails.

It is the persuasive power of planning doctrine that makes for consensus, andthe importance of consensus in Dutch planning cannot be overemphasised (Vander Heiden et al., 1991; Faludi, 1994). Consensus gives direction to the searchfor alternatives and delineates the range of consequences to be considered inplan-making as well as in taking subsequent decisions. Without consensus,planning means endless argument, and reasoned choice becomes dif� cult.

Consensus is undoubtedly an asset. It can ensure coordination, even in theabsence of reliable plans. People may do what is required, not because they areguided by a plan but because they think the same way about problems. Since wehave de� ned it in terms of whether ideas in a plan form part of the de� nition ofsubsequent decision situation, where there is consensus, plan performanceimproves.

With this we may answer the question that this section deals with as to whatit is that makes actors involved in spatial development invoke a common frameof reference. What is responsible is a long learning process leading to a commonway of perceiving problems and of evaluating solutions, something that bringsorder in our thoughts and actions.

Walking the Tightrope

Recognising the role of frameworks in planning challenges assumptions aboutthe expert planner and his or her trade. The question is as one about the purposeof strategic spatial planning: Is the purpose of planning to articulate a doctrineor frame that gains acceptance, and where does this leave other criteria of goodplanning?

This is an issue because the direction into which the above has taken us hasits disturbing aspects. For the sake of communicative effect, doctrine may bereduced to simplistic notions. Dutch national planning doctrine, for instance,evolves around the Randstad and the Green Heart. They are at the core of theDutch principle of spatial organisation. The concepts have been so successfulthat they have become part of Dutch language. However, whether they corre-spond to reality is debatable. Geographers � nd them notoriously elusive, anddissident planners argue that they are counter-productive (De Boer, 1991; Vander Valk & Faludi, 1992, 1997; Van Rossum, 1994; Van Eeten, 1999; Van Eten& Roe, 2000). However, in applying rigorous standards of analysis, geographersmiss one crucial point. It is that these are policy concepts and not analytical

315

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

ones. Although they may entail oversimpli� cations of reality, their popularappeal is a source of strength. This point is certainly not lost on plannerscriticising the Randstad and Green Heart. They are opposed to the current formof Dutch planning, which is why we have described them as dissidents. In somecases they go even as far as extolling the virtues of patterns of development thatare radically different from the Dutch, like the suburban sprawl exempli� ed byLos Angeles.

Whether Los Angeles is the model to follow is not the issue. The issue is thepurpose of planning at a strategic level. If articulating doctrine around asuccessful metaphor is all there is to strategic planning, where does this leaveexpertise? Is the scope for expert planning limited to narrow issues withinexisting planning doctrine (rather like Kuhn sees the role of scienti� c method aslimited to ‘puzzle-solving’ within existing paradigms)? Or is there a role forexperts even in formulating doctrine?

There should be no misunderstanding. The alternative is to leave planningdoctrine to the visionary designers and/or politicians. Alexander and I debate theissues, amongst others around the notion of ‘open’ planning doctrine (Alexander& Faludi, 1996). As the apparently contradictory term suggests, this would be aform of doctrine that, other than the conventional meaning associated with‘doctrine,’ allows for � exibility. Thus ‘open’ doctrine expects and accommo-dates change. ‘Open’ doctrine is tolerant of ambiguity, expecting concepts to bere-interpreted and policies to be re-evaluated in future. This is not what urbandesigners nor politicians for that matter are normally after (for instance, it wasthe Dutch Parliament that insisted in the early 1990s on the Green Heart, ratherthan remaining the strategic concept that it was, being � xed in space). Nor is thissomething that is easy to make the public recognise.

Anyway, to formulate doctrine that is � exible requires much disciplinedanalysis and thus expert input of a sophisticated kind. This input ranges fromsensitivity tests of proposed policies to the imagining of various situations underwhich doctrine might come under stress. So the next thing to look into might beevaluating the performance of something as elusive as � exible planning doctrine.The mind boggles!

Conclusion

Positing that spatial planning at the more strategic level of regional and evenmore so national planning is to facilitate learning, I have asked for howplanning-as-learning might be evaluated. In seeking to answer this question, ithas been argued that in the case of the indicative plans common at these levels,the criterion to be invoked is that of whether the plan performs well in thesubsequent communicative process, and not whether outcomes conform tointentions. Then the approach to evaluating plan performance has been spelledout. It requires looking in detail at the decisions and actions of the groups towhom a plan addresses its messages and to establish whether, and to what extent,they have taken the messages on board. This implies a micro-analysis of decisionprocesses. However, research also indicates that such processes are embedded ina context shaped, not only by the plan respectively its messages, but also by

316

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Spatial Planning

what has gone on before, by underlying meanings, by assumptions shaping theminds and thus framing the actions of those concerned. For the frames that dothis I have invoked the term ‘planning doctrine,’ but there are other terms aswell. Analysing doctrine requires a form of macro-analysis whereby the interac-tion between plans and the decisions and actions shaping the environment areput in a wider context. Between them the micro-analysis of the performance ofstrategic, indicative plans and the macro-analysis of these broader patterns cangive a better understanding of how spatial planning performs in our society.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a paper for a conference ‘Towards a New Role forSpatial Planning’, organised jointly by the Territorial Development Service,OECD, and the National Land Agency of the Japanese Government, 29–30March 1999, OECD Headquarters, Paris. See also: ‘Towards a New Role forSpatial Planning: The proceedings of the conference’, Room Document No.5, 11May 1999, OECD, Paris, pp. 110–129.

References

Alexander, E. R. & Faludi, A. (1996) Planning doctrine: its uses and implications, in: E. R. Alexander (Ed.)Planning Doctrine (special issue) Planning Theory, 16, pp. 11–61.

Barrett, S. & Fudge, C. (Eds) (1981) Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy(London and New York, Methuen).

Centre for Environmental Studies (1970) The LOGIMP experiment. Information Paper 25 (London, CES).De Boer, N. (1991) Randstadmetropool is hersenschim, NRC-Handelsblad, 21 November, p. 8.Dror, Y. (1971) Ventures in Policy Science: Concepts and Application (New York, American Elsevier).Faludi, A. (1986) Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology (London, Pion Press).Faludi, A. (1987) A Decision-centred View of Environmental Planning (Oxford, Pergamon).Faludi, A. (1989a) Conformance vs. performance: implications for evaluations, Impact Assessment Bulletin, 7,

pp. 135–151.Faludi, A. (Ed.) (1989b) Keeping the Netherlands in shape (special issue), Built Environment, 15, pp. 5–64.Faludi, A. (1990) Dutch strategic planning in historical, theoretical and international perspective: progress

report on a research programme. Working Papers of the Institute of Planning and Demography, No. 127(Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam).

Faludi, A. (Ed.) (1991) Fifty years of Dutch national physical planning (special issue), Built Environment, 17,pp. 1–77.

Faludi, A. (1994) Coalition building and planning for Dutch growth management: the role of the Randstadconcept, Urban Studies, 31, 485–507.

Faludi, A. (1996) Framing with images, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23, pp. 93–108.Faludi, A. & Korthals Altes, W. (1994) Evaluating communicative planning: a revised design for performance

research, European Planning Studies, 2, pp. 403– 418.Faludi, A. & Mastop, J. M. (1982) The IOR-School: The development of a planning methodology,

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 9, pp. 241– 256.Faludi, A. & Van der Valk, A. J. (1991) Half a million witnesses: the success (and failure?) of Dutch

urbanization strategy, Fifty years of Dutch national physical planning (special issue), Built Environment,17, pp. 43–52.

Faludi, A. & Van der Valk, A. J. (1994) Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century(Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (Eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (London,Duke University Press/UCL Press Limited).

317

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011

Andreas Faludi

Foley, D. L. (1963) Controlling London’s Growth: Planning the Great Wen 1940–1960 (Berkeley, CA,University of California Press).

Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory (London, MacMillan).Grin, J. & Van de Graaf, H. (1996) Implementation as communicative action: an interpretative understanding

of interaction between policy actors and target groups, Policy Sciences, 29, pp. 291–329.Hajer, M. A. (1989) City Politics: Hegemonic Projects and Discourses (Aldershot, Gower Publishing

Company Ltd).Hajer, M. A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy

Process (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in a Fragmented Society (Houndsmills,

Basingstoke, Macmillan Press).Korthals Altes, W. K. (1995) De Nederlandse planningdoctrine in het � n de siecle: Ervaringen met

voorbereiding en doorwerking van de Vierde nota voor de ruimtelijke ordening (Extra) (Assen, VanGorcum).

Mastop, J. M. (1987, 1st edn 1984) Besluitvorming, handelen en normeren: Een methodologische studie naaraanleiding van het streekplanwerk. Planologische Studies 4 (Amsterdam, Planologisch en Demogra� schInstituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam).

Mastop. H. (1997) Performance in Dutch spatial planning: an introduction, Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 24, pp. 807–813

Mastop, J. M. (2000a) The performance principle in strategic planning, in: W. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds) TheRevival of Strategic Planning (Amsterdam, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Mastop, J. M. (2000b) Institutional requirements for new local, national and mulitnational planning realitiesin Europe, in: H. Lithwick & Y. Gradus (Eds) Developing Frontier Cities (Dortrecht, Kluwer AcademicPublishers).

Mastop, J. M. & Faludi, A. (1993) Doorwerking van strategisch beleid in dagelijkse beleidsvoering,Beleidswetenschap, 7, pp. 71–90.

Mastop, H. & Faludi, A. (1997) Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle, Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design, 24, pp. 815–832.

Postuma, R. (1987) Werken met het AUP: Stadsuitbreiding van Amsterdam 1939–1955. Working Papers of theInstitute of Planning and Demography (Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam).

Priemus, H. (1999) Four ministries, four spatial planning perspectives? Dutch evidence on the persistentproblem of horizontal coordination, European Planning Studies, 5, pp. 563–585.

Rein, M. & Schon, D. (1986) Frame-re� ective policy discourse, Beleidsanalyse, 15(4), pp. 4–18.Schon, D. A. & Rein, M. (1994) Frame Re� ection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies

(New York, Basic Books).Selznik, P. (1953, 1st edn 1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organizations

(Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).Van der Heiden, N., Kok, J., Postuma, R. & Wallagh, G. J. (1991) Consensus-building as an essential element

of the Dutch planning system. Paper given at the joint ACSP/AESOP conference Planning Transatlantic,Oxford, 8–12 July.

Van der Valk, A. J. (1989) Amsterdam in aanleg: Planvorming en dagelijks handelen 1850–1900. Planologis-che Studies 8 (Amsterdam, Institute of Planning and Demography, University of Amsterdam).

Van der Valk, A. J. & Faludi, A. (1992) Growth regions and the future of Dutch planning doctrine, in: M. J.Breheny (Ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form (London, Pion).

Van der Valk, A. J. & Faludi, A. (1997) The Green Heart and the dynamics of doctrine, Netherlands Journalof Housing and the Built Environment, 12, pp. 57–75.

Van Eeten, M. (1999) Dialogues of the Deaf: De� ning New Agendas for Environmental Deadlocks (Delft,Eburon Publishers).

Van Eeten, M. & Roe, E. (2000) When � ction conveys truth and authority: The Netherlands Green Heartplanning controversy, American Planning Association Journal, 66, pp. 58–67.

Van Rossum, V. (1994) Randstad Holland: Variaties op het them stad (Rotterdam, NAI Uitgevers).Wallagh, G. (1988) Tussen wens en werking. Master thesis (Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam).Wallagh, G. (1994) Oog voor het onzichtbare: 50 jaar structuurplanning Amsterdam 1955–2005 (Assen, Van

Gorcum).

318

Downloaded At: 23:05 15 February 2011