000			01917nab a2200241 4500
003			OSt
005			20220801194554.0
007			cr aa aaaaa
008			220719b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aKaza, Nikhil _949151
245			_aVain foresight: Against the idea of implementation in planning /
260			_bSage, _c2019.
300			_aVol 18, Issue 4, 2019 : (410-428 p.).
520			_aWhy are many plans not implemented? Common explanations are planners have little power, they fail to account for political or environmental uncertainty in the plans or they failed to include enough voices during the planning process. The theoretical frameworks on which we base our understanding of plans focus on implementation as a key evaluative mechanism. I challenge the premise that plans realise their potential only when they are implemented. Monitoring implementation of plans presupposes that we know what plans there are to monitor. Such monitoring privileges published plans and ignores all the other plans that guide urban development. It assumes that the decision situations in which plans are used are observable. By jettisoning implementation as a key criterion by which to evaluate the effectiveness of plans, we can begin to focus on the myriad ways in which plan makers and others use plans. We can instead ask, ‘How are these plans used? Who uses them? When are they useful? How to make useful plans?’ With these questions, we can create different evaluative frameworks for different types of plans. Some unimplementable plans are worth making.
650			_aconformance, _949152
650			_a evaluation, _949153
650			_aimplementation _949154
650			_aperformance, _949155
650			_aplan use _949156
773	0		_08831 _916470 _dLondon Sage Publications Ltd. 2002 _tPlanning theory _x1473-0952
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218815201
942			_2ddc _cART
999			_c12411 _d12411