Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Planning Theory
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoch, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Making Plans: Representation and Intention

Charles Hoch

University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

Conceiving planning theory as a kind of practical reason shifts attention from making rational arguments justifying planning beliefs to the study of plan-making as a feature of practical reasoning. Adopting this viewpoint allows for the comparison of what rational planning theory keeps apart: theories about plan-making that focus on the representation of urban development (e.g. Lew Hopkins) and theories that study the intentional features of deliberative planning processes (e.g. Judith Innes). Analysis demonstrates that the seemingly incompatible viewpoints can offer complementary insights about plan-making without diminishing or distorting important differences. There need be no epistemic or theoretical gap separating the representation and intention of plan-making; no big difference between substance and process. The differences are practical.

Key Words: adaptability • complexity • intentionality • practical judgment • representation

Planning Theory, Vol. 6, No. 1, 16-35 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1473095207075148
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Planning TheoryHome page
C. Hoch
Planning Craft: How Planners Compose Plans
Planning Theory, August 1, 2009; 8(3): 219 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
N. Kaza and L. Hopkins
In What Circumstances Should Plans Be Public?
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2009; 28(4): 491 - 502.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
P. Healey
The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2009; 28(3): 277 - 292.
[Abstract] [PDF]