Since its recent overhaul, the British planning system has placed a strong emphasis on the development of ‘spatial’ rather than purely ‘land-use’ plans, and on the importance of adopting a systematic approach towards strategy monitoring. Such an evidence-based approach to spatial planning is already in use at the pan-European level and in Northern America. The authors aim to discuss the latest methodological developments in the monitoring of complex spatial strategies by examining the monitoring framework for local development documents in England. They examine the concept of spatial planning, issues and challenges surrounding spatial policy monitoring, and some emerging views over policy monitoring and evaluation. They then discuss the relevance of these latest ideas and different design principles of indicator frameworks to underpin the development of a monitoring framework for local development documents. Six core design components are discussed: the structure – performance model; the objectives – targets – indicators approach; a nested hierarchy of indicators; a framework of indicators; the use of analytical indicator bundles; and analytical principles. The authors identify the gaps and challenges in the developing monitoring framework for spatial planning in England and the wider, transferable, lessons to be learnt for complex policy monitoring.
AtwoodM., 2005, “Developing the regional monitoring infrastructure”, presented to the North West Regional Monitoring Seminar, 21 June 2005; copy available from the North West Regional Assembly, Wigan Investment Centre, Wigan.
3.
BattyM., 1989, “Urban modelling and planning: Reflections, retrodictions and prescriptions”, in Remodelling Geography Ed. MacMillanB. (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) pp147–169.
4.
BertugliaC SRabinoG A, 1994, “Performance indicators and evaluation in contemporary urban modelling”, in Modelling the City: Performance, Policy and Planning Eds BertugliaC SClarkeG PWilsonA G, (Routledge, London) pp37–54.
5.
BertugliaC SClarkeG PWilsonA G, (Eds), 1994Modelling the City: Performance, Policy and Planning (Routledge, London).
6.
BlackmanT., 1995Urban Policy in Practice (Routledge, London).
7.
BriggsD.KerrellE.StansfieldM.TantrumD., 1995State of the Countryside Environment Indicators final report to the Countryside Commission, Nene Centre for Research, University College Northampton, Northampton.
8.
BrindleyT.RydinY.StokerG., 1989Remaking Planning: The Politics of Urban Change in the Thatcher Years (Unwin Hyman, London).
9.
BurtonP.BoddyM., 1995, “The changing context for British urban policy”, in Urban Policy Evaluation: Challenge and Change Eds HambletonR.ThomasH. (Paul Chapman, London) pp23–36.
10.
ByrneD S, 1998Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences (Routledge, London).
11.
CannellM G RPalutikofJ PSparksT H, 1999Indicators of Climate Change in the UKDepartment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
12.
CarleyM., 1981Social Measurement and Social Indicators (George Allen and Unwin, London).
13.
CarlisleE., 1972, “The conceptual structure of social indicators”, in Social Indicators and Social Policy Eds ShonfieldA.ShawS. (Heinemann Educational Books, London) pp23–32.
14.
ChenH., 1990Theory-driven Evaluations (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
15.
ConnellJ PKubischA CSchorrL BWeissC H, (Eds), 1995New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts (Aspen Institute, Washington, DC).
16.
ConnollyC.ChisholmM., 1999, “The use of indicators for targeting public expenditure: The Index of Local Deprivation”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy17463–482.
17.
CrossD TBristowM R, (Eds), 1983English Structure Planning: A Commentary on Procedure and Practice in the Seventies (Pion, London).
18.
DETR, 2000Our Towns and Cities: The Future—Delivering an Urban RenaissanceDepartment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
19.
DoE, 1996Indicators of Sustainable Development for the UKDepartment of the Environment, London.
20.
DTLR, 2002Urban Policy Evaluation Strategy Consultation DocumentDepartment for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London.
21.
DunnJ.HodgeI.MonkS.KiddleC., 1998Developing Indicators of Rural Disadvantage final report to the Rural Development Commission from the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
22.
EC, 2000aEuropean Spatial Development PerspectiveEuropean Commission, Strasbourg.
23.
EC, 2000b, “Indicators for monitoring and evaluation: An indicative methodology”, The New Programming Period 2000–2006 Methodological Working Papers 3, European Commission, Brussels.
24.
FaludiA., 2000, “The performance of spatial planning”Planning Practice and Research15299–318.
25.
Fulbright-AndersonK.KushischA CConnellJ P, (Eds), 1998New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives Volume 2: Theory, Measurement, and Analysis (Aspen Institute, Washington, DC).
HM Government, 1999Modernising Government Cm4310 (The Stationery Office, London).
28.
HM Government, 2004, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 5 (The Stationery Office, London).
29.
HodgeI.DunnJ.MonkS.KiddleC., 2000, “An exploration of bundles' as indicators of rural disadvantage”Environment and Planning A321869–1887.
30.
HoernigH.SeasonsM., 2004, “Monitoring of indicators in local and regional planning practice: Concepts and issues”Planning Practice and Research1981–99.
31.
InnesJ E, 1990Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ).
32.
InnesJ., 2002, “Improving policy making with information”Planning Theory and Practice3102–104.
33.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 2000, “Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy for building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence”Planning Theory and Practice1173–186.
34.
JacksonP.PalmerB., 1989First Steps in Measuring Performance in the Public Sector: A Manager's GuidePublic Finance Foundation with Price Waterhouse, London).
35.
JeffreyP.WongC.KiddS.BakerM.RobertsP., 2004Monitoring Local Development Frameworks technical report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by the Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
KearnsA.ForrestR., 2000, “Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance”Urban Studies37995–1017.
38.
KempP., 1979, “Planning and development statistics 1978/79”District Councils Review862–64.
39.
McLoughlinJ B, 1969Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach (Faber and Faber, London).
40.
MorrisonN.PearceB., 2000, “Developing indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of the UK land use planning system”Town Planning Review71191–211.
41.
National Audit Office, 1990Regenerating the Inner Cities HC 169 (HMSO, London).
42.
NobleM.SmithG.PenhaleB.WrightG.DibbenC.OwenT.LloydM., 2000Measuring Multiple Deprivation at the Small Area Level: The Indices of Deprivation 2000Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
43.
NobleM.WrightG.DibbenC.SmithG.McLennanD.AnttilaC.BarnesH.MokhtarC.NobelS.AvenellD.GardnerJ.CovizziI.LloydM., 2004The English Indices of Deprivation 2004 (revised)Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
44.
ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, 2002 Monitoring Regional Planning Guidance: Good Practice Guidance on Targets and Indicators.
45.
2004aPlanning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Development Frameworks.
46.
2004bConsultation Paper on Planning Policy Statement 1: Creating Sustainable Communities.
2005bLocal Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide.
49.
PawsonR., 2001, “Evidence based policy: I. in search of a method” WP 3, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary, University of London, London.
50.
Pieda, 1990, “Effectives of land use planning literature review”, progress report to the Department of the Environment by Pieda, 28 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh EH3 7RN.
51.
Pieda, 1992Evaluating the Effectiveness of Land Use PlanningDepartment of the Environment, London.
52.
PinderJ., 1980, “Policy and research II”Policy Studies18–13.
53.
PollittC., 1990, “Performance indicators, roots and branch”, in Output and Performance Measurement in Government: The State of the Arts Eds CaveM.KoganM.SmithR. (Jessica Kingsley, London) pp39–58.
54.
RittelH.WebberM., 1973, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”Policy Sciences4155–169.
55.
RobsonB.BradfordM.TyeR., 1995The 1991 Deprivation Index: A Matrix of Results (HMSO, London).
56.
RTPI, 2003Royal Town Planning Institute Education Commission Final ReportRoyal Town Planning Institute, 26 Portland Place, London W1N 4BE.
57.
SayerA., 2000Realism and Social Science (Sage, London).
58.
SEU, 2000Better Information, Social Exclusion Unit Policy Action Team Report 18Social Exclusion Unit, London.
59.
UnsworthR.StillwellJ. (Eds), 2004Twenty-first Century Leeds: Geographies of a Regional City (University of Leeds, Leeds).
60.
Van GestelT.FaludiA., 2005, “Towards a European Territorial Cohesion Assessment Network: A bright future for ESPON?”Town Planning Review7681–92.
61.
WallaghG., 1988, “Tussenwens en werking” [Between ideal and practice], master's thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
62.
WeissC H, 1997, “Theory-based evaluation: Past, present and future”New Directions for Evaluation7641–55.
63.
WongC., 2000, “Indicators in use: Challenges to urban and environmental planning in Britain”Town Planning Review71213–239.
64.
WongC., 2002Development of Town and City Indicators: Review, Intepretation and Analysis final report to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, from the Policy Evaluation and Analysis Research Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
65.
WongC., 2003, “Indicators at the crossroads: Ideas, methods and applications”Town Planning Review74253–279.
66.
WongC.JeffreyP.GreenA.OwenD.CoombesM.RaybouldS., 2004Developing a Town and City Indicators Database final report to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, from the University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
67.
WSA, 1999Review of the Local Government Research Programme final report to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, from William Solesbury and Associates Research Management Consultancy, London, http://www/local.dtlr.gov.uk/research/finall∼1.doc.
