Theory is important in planning because it provides a framework for understanding planning phenomena. It provides description and explanation as well as guides the development of strategies in order to address problems in actuality. The use of theory in planning also gives the planner the authority and the legitimacy of providing different alternatives or courses of action without being accused of misconduct.
This may be exemplified, for instance, in the comprehensive-rational model which is so far considered the best theoretical framework for the study of planning. The said model allows the planner to clarify goals, analyze the past and existing situation, develop strategies or alternatives, choose the best alternative, implement it and monitor the results. The process is scientific in nature. As the term implies, it is comprehensive because it covers all aspects such as social, economic, environmental, physical and institutional. The model requires adequate information on said aspects. As such, it may provide a clearer picture of what is happening in a locality for instance. Said information may be useful, if properly organized, in coming up with appropriate strategies to solve a wide range of issues. Such practice also enhances the technical expertise of the planner, as well as its legitimacy. The model also gives the planner, particularly if he/she is just a beginner in the field, with a sense of identity.
However, the comprehensive-rational approach is not without disadvantages. Critics of the model say that some problems faced by the society do not require comprehensive study. Others say that the model is too idealistic because in reality, comprehensiveness is difficult to achieve if not impossible. Besides, since the model necessarily involves several sectors, these sectors may have “conflicting” priorities which are difficult to consolidate.
Showing posts with label comprehensive planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comprehensive planning. Show all posts
16 July 2009
13 July 2009
On Comprehensive Planning: A Personal Viewpoint
After my studies at the School of Urban and Regional Planning, I envision myself to be involved in comprehensive planning. With a background in public administration and urban and regional planning, as well as work experience in a national government agency providing supervision to local government units in the country, I believe I can aptly apply my knowledge and skills in the said kind of planning.
I see comprehensive planning as both interesting and challenging. Based on a rational and systematic approach, this kind of planning would allow me to take part in the generation of a lot of data and information which may be useful for a variety of requirements. Since it covers a wide range of aspects relating to people and the environment, whether natural or man-made, I would be able to learn more (for instance, not just about a particular sector, but also about other interrelated sectors) and understand further the dynamics in planning as I apply the different tools and methods, particularly in analyzing planning-related problems, evaluating alternatives against planning goals and relating these to a set of collective values of the community, and providing recommendations to multiple issues. With these, it would be possible for me to gain identity in the said field, as well as a sort of social recognition and prestige.
On the other hand, comprehensive planning poses challenges as well as criticisms. For one, since it involves different stakeholders, including the community in general, conflicting interests may sometimes be unavoidable. As a comprehensive planner, I must be able to fully develop my negotiation skills so that relatively good plans (those that would ultimately advance the general welfare and not the interest of only few) will get implemented. Another challenge would be to start planning for a particular area where pertinent data and information are not available. The solution to such situation is not impossible though. Again, as a comprehensive planner, I must be able to maximize the data gathering methods so that available resources will not be wasted.
Some critics would say that a number of planning problems do not require comprehensive technical solutions. In response to this, I would like to be known as a flexible comprehensive planner. As such, I must be able to provide recommendations to problems, whether comprehensive or otherwise, based on careful analysis. Other critics would comment that comprehensive planning has little impact. I would like to stress that the impact of planning does not come from the planner alone, but from various stakeholders. In other words, comprehensive planning would succeed in situations where different stakeholders arrive at a consensus and consolidate their efforts to implement the good plan in the most efficient and effective manner.
Despite the challenges and criticisms linked to comprehensive planning, I would still prefer to be involved in this type of planning. This, however, does not stop me from getting involved in activities which resemble those in other types of planning. As previously mentioned, I would like to be known for being a flexible comprehensive planner.
I see comprehensive planning as both interesting and challenging. Based on a rational and systematic approach, this kind of planning would allow me to take part in the generation of a lot of data and information which may be useful for a variety of requirements. Since it covers a wide range of aspects relating to people and the environment, whether natural or man-made, I would be able to learn more (for instance, not just about a particular sector, but also about other interrelated sectors) and understand further the dynamics in planning as I apply the different tools and methods, particularly in analyzing planning-related problems, evaluating alternatives against planning goals and relating these to a set of collective values of the community, and providing recommendations to multiple issues. With these, it would be possible for me to gain identity in the said field, as well as a sort of social recognition and prestige.
On the other hand, comprehensive planning poses challenges as well as criticisms. For one, since it involves different stakeholders, including the community in general, conflicting interests may sometimes be unavoidable. As a comprehensive planner, I must be able to fully develop my negotiation skills so that relatively good plans (those that would ultimately advance the general welfare and not the interest of only few) will get implemented. Another challenge would be to start planning for a particular area where pertinent data and information are not available. The solution to such situation is not impossible though. Again, as a comprehensive planner, I must be able to maximize the data gathering methods so that available resources will not be wasted.
Some critics would say that a number of planning problems do not require comprehensive technical solutions. In response to this, I would like to be known as a flexible comprehensive planner. As such, I must be able to provide recommendations to problems, whether comprehensive or otherwise, based on careful analysis. Other critics would comment that comprehensive planning has little impact. I would like to stress that the impact of planning does not come from the planner alone, but from various stakeholders. In other words, comprehensive planning would succeed in situations where different stakeholders arrive at a consensus and consolidate their efforts to implement the good plan in the most efficient and effective manner.
Despite the challenges and criticisms linked to comprehensive planning, I would still prefer to be involved in this type of planning. This, however, does not stop me from getting involved in activities which resemble those in other types of planning. As previously mentioned, I would like to be known for being a flexible comprehensive planner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
