Monitoring of indicators in local and regional planning practice: concepts and issues

Selection of sustainability indicators for planning: combining stakeholders' participation and data reduction techniques

“…Although planning practices and outcomes can be monitored and evaluated in many different ways (Hoernig and Seasons, 2004), indicators are generally pointed out as suitable for such tasks, as well as for aiding the delivery of the sustainable agenda through planning (Bockstaller and Girardin, 2003;Dalal-Clayton and Krikhaar, 2007;Donnelly et al, 2007). For example, Keiner (2006) asserts that indicator based controlling of spatial development could allow planning authorities more flexibility in achieving sustainability targets.…”

“…The need to develop plans that assist communities in moving towards sustainability is prevalent in contemporary planning debate, research and practice . In its turn, monitoring has been widely identified as beneficial to improve planning practice, as stressed by Keiner (2006) and Hoernig and Seasons (2004), among others. In Europe for example, the development of a knowledge base to make available comparable data and indicators is one of the three spheres of action that should be addressed by spatial planning, according to the European Spatial Development Perspective (EC, 1999).…”

Monitoring urban development for environmental sustainability in Portugal

“…The case study suggests the absence of a conceptual framework referred to by Hoering & Seasons [10] during the monitoring exercise of Aveiro. It is true that an institutional requirement for monitoring has been created, (reinforced three years later by national legislation) but a clearer notion of other relevant requirements was missing.…”

“…As obstacles to effective monitoring Hoering & Seasons [10] mentions the unwillingness of local managers to risk, admit or report failure and the differing interpretations of monitoring and conflicting perspectives on what action to take. A local planning monitoring exercise must be understood as an institutional learning process whereby, and in spite of the risks of data manipulation, the organization strongly benefits when evaluation reports are prepared by internal teams [11].…”

“…The promotion of a valuable monitoring process, seen as an adaptive management process [9], depends upon a strong conceptual framework which enables the structuring and organization of ideas that underlie the development and interpretation of monitoring. Hoering & Seasons [10] point out several key issues in monitoring: (i) clear definition of objectives, to be used as references against which evolution is assessed; (ii) use of suitable data, evaluation methodologies and appropriate spatial and temporal scales; (iii) institutionalization of monitoring, assuring that it becomes mandatory and is undertaken systematically; and (iv) public recognition of the importance of monitoring. On the one hand, the public needs to understand the importance of monitoring in determining how the planning activity actually impacts common environmental assets.…”