A previous issue of this journal included a paper called “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: an Australian approach to land-use planning”. The approach is described here in more conventional plan-making and plan-evaluation terms and is observed to be inappropriate for the types of problems it is intended to solve, to incorporate a politically unacceptable design and selection procedure, to be oriented to plan-making rather than to decisionmaking, and to be unacceptably aloof from the community client. An approach to planning linking strategic problem solving to tactical zoning controls is advanced as an alternative.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnasAHopkinsL D, 1984, “Guest editorial. Britton Harris: Retrospect and prospect”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design11255–261
2.
BateyP W JBrehenyM J, 1982, “The history of planning methodology” Reading Geographical Paper 79, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
3.
BattyM, 1974, “Plan generation” Reading Geographical Paper 25, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
4.
BattyM, 1979, “On planning processes” in Resources in Planning Eds GoodallBKirbyA (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 17–50
5.
BeerS, 1968, “The aborting corporate plan” in Perspectives of Planning Ed. JantschE (OECD, Paris) pp 397–422
6.
BrillE DJr, 1979, “The use of optimization models in public-planning”Management Science25413–422
7.
ChangS-YLiawS-L, 1984, “Evaluation of methods for generating alternatives to regional wastewater treatment systems”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design11325–338
8.
CocksK DIveJ RDavisJ RBairdI A, 1983, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian approach to land-use planning. 1. The SIRO-PLAN land-use planning method”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10331–345
9.
CohonJ LMarksD H, 1975, “A review and evaluaion of multiobjective programming techniques”Water Resources Research11208–220
10.
DavidoffPReinerT A, 1962, “A choice theory of planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners28103–115
11.
DavisJ RCocksK DIveJ R, 1985, “SIRO-PLAN: Improving the acceptability of a practical planning method” submitted to Planning Outlook28(1) 36–39
12.
DoEP, 1983, “Section 71 of the EPA Act, 1979—local environmental plans” circular 47, Department of Environment and Planning, Liverpool St, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
13.
EPAA, 1979, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, No. 203The Statutes of New South Walesvolume 2, (New South Wales Government Printer, Sydney)
14.
FriendJ KJessopW N, 1969Local Government and Strategic Choice2nd edition1977 (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
15.
HillM, 1968, “A goals-achievement matrix for evaluating alternative plans”Journal of the American Institute of Planners3419–29
16.
HopkinsL D, 1984, “Evaluation of methods for exploring ill-defined problems”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design11339–348
17.
IveJ RCocksK D, 1983, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian approach to land use planning” 2. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10347–355
18.
IveJ RCocksK D, 1984a, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: notes for local government clients” Technical Memorandum 84/6, CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources, Canberra
19.
IveJ RCocksK D, 1984b, “SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: notes for resource agency clients” Technical Memorandum 84/7, CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources, Canberra
20.
IveJ RCocksK D, 1985, “Adding a localized adjustment capability to the LUPLAN land-use planning package”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design12455–462
21.
LiebmanJ C, 1976, “Some simple minded observations on the role of optimization in public systems decision making”Interfaces6102–108
22.
National Times, 1983, “Judge speaks out on conflict of court and government” 20–26 February, page 22
23.
Sherwood Forest Study Group, 1974, “Sherwood Forest study”Nottinghamshire County Council, Nottingham
