城市规划外文翻译---决定性的补救办法——城市规划无效现象探源

Fatal Remedies——The Sources of Ineffectiveness in

Planning

That we learn by our mistakes is an axiom of the rational model of urban and regional planning·Feedback procedures should , in theory ,result in the prompt amendment or abandonment of policies that prove to be ineffective .In the longer term ,at the national level ,widespread and rigorous appraisal should permit the codification of sources of planning failure and generate a more sensitive and informed understanding ,by professionals ,governments and the community at large ,of the possibilities of planning and the limits of government·Both individual plans and planning systems can be subject to this kind of monitoring .In neither case does practice live up to theory .

As far as individual plans ae concerned , the review process is usually moe casual than formal , if it occurs at all . Planning agencies tend to review and revise their work irregularly , in accordance with political priorities, or in response to a cacophony of complaints by vested interests including other government instrumentalities . The latter occasions often represent a kind of planning epilogue which has the merit of resolving politically contentious questions avoided earlier in plan preparation . Few planning organisations have the resources, time , or inclination for systematic or continuous performance evaluation . Whether by intention or by default ,planning is typically carried on as a 'disjointed incremental; process . Third party appraisal , often comprising academic analyses of policy effectiveness , is sometimes more wide ranging ,though ,and impartial . However , few local plans are subject to detailed independent appraisal Even where policy appraisal is conducted with considerable analytical rigour , as was the case with 'Moore and Rhodes' 1977 evaluation of British regional policy ,the outcome is moe ingenious than convincing .In the case cited , difficulties in defining policy ,policy conflicts and shifts ,the openness of the economic system ,questionable indicators, heroic assumptions ,and doubtful statistical techniques all tend to vitiate the findings.

Performance evaluation ,then ,is a difficult task . To start with , it is not often easy to identify what is being evaluated . Policy , strategy and individual measures may be covert , implied or specific and there is the problem of null policy . Moreover , if particular objectives are the subject of overlapping measures implemented by several agencies , it may be difficult to isllate the set of policies concerned with a given problem, . For that matter , even within a single planning document , a single objective may be addressed by several policies . Secondly , the necessary data are rarely available and , at best , unsatisfactory surrogate indicators must be used . Finally , the measurement of cause and effect can pose insurmountable difficulties in open and complex societies——especially where various policy measures are mutually reinforcing or antithetical , or where lagged responses are marked .

Performance monitoring of planning systems , or of planning as such , appears to have attracted more consistent attention ..Business , community groups , governments , bureaucracies and academics all have an abiding interest in criticising the procedures by which plans are prepared and planning decisions are made , and in making suggestions for improvement . A modest , and reasonably practical approach to system evaluation is commonly adopted by governments . The emphasis is on collecting data about such matters as the time taken to approve development applications , and the aim is to make gradual improvements to existing mechanisms.