THE END OF URBAN PLANNERS

Ayman M Ismail, Ph.D.1

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering
Cairo University – Fayoum Branch

Abstract:
The use of automation tecnology has been recognized and used to various
extents by planners since the mid seventies. However, with recent advances in
modeling, Celluar Automata, Decision-Support Systems, Artificial Intelligence
and Expert Systems, the potentials for full fledged automation of the process has
been contemplated. The extent of the role planners as patrons of a professional
discipline has been raised, especially with the obvious dependence on systems
and software engineers for most of the design of such technology. Will we
witness one day a complete plan-making kit? Can the integration of GIS with
other technologies reach a level of sophistication to make the role of planners
similar to the role of data-entry staff in DBMS? This paper contemplates these
issues in the context of the analysis of three components: the potenial of
automation with the process in theory, the historical progression of automation
in planning exercises, and finally a comparative study between the opinions of
planners themselves in both North America and Egypt. It concludes with a list of
deductions on the actual threats and challenges that planners face and project
some role changes expected for planners to survive an e-world.
Keywords: City and Regional Planning, GIS and Planning Technology

1
For correspondence: email: a_ismail@menanet.net

1
Introduction

Automation is usually defined as the system by which many or all of the

process are performed using the aid of computers. In industry, this concept has
been known to increase productivity, efficiency and reduce unit cost. It has also
been known to replace manual labor. In planning, automation has manifested
itself in part, initially by the use of computer aided drafting, database
management systems, GIS and more recently with Planning Support Systems
and Cellular Automata. As far as we know, no research has been done on the
employment impact of the introduction of these technologies to the planning
process. This may be partly because the market forces planners to master these
techniques or face unemployment, and partly because in less developed
countries the proliferation of these technologies is not yet full-fledged.

However, in a global competitive economy, this second reason is likely to

change. Given the times and contexts, it would be surprising if these stunning
reconfigurations of the physical world, or, as an anthropologist might say, "these
facts on the ground," did not inspire the entire overhaul of the way planning is
done. Contenders of our age believe that nothing was impossible, so long as
there were sufficient will, resources, imagination, and great technical leaders
who would not quail in the face of the greatest challenges. Most important, it
represented the most exquisite facility in futurism, or as we may call it: planning
(Kellog, 1997). Even for the slow-pace developing fields such as planning
which is known to employ methods that date back to at least 50 years and use
theories that go back to almost a century. The way planning is done definitely
will change, but will planners themselves change?

This paper contemplates the potential future of planners in general, and

the impact of that these technologies in particular. Bearing in mind the multitude
of the defininions of planners and the roles they play, it focuses primarily on the
physical aspects within the standard dogma of master players in the development
process (albeit they still officially deny so), and of professionals, as many
proclaim.

Roots of the Current Planning Process

One line in planning theory defines planning as a basic human activity that is
“distinguished from other activities by the introduction of rationality into the
decision and policy making process” [1]. This approach has its roots in the
principles of technical reason and social rationality brought about with the

2
introduction of the Scientific Method [8]. Building on that line of argument,
many planning scholars have challenged themselves with “ordering” the
planning process into a series of discrete steps and devising ways to
systematically model the way a planner should proceed in order to complete his
assigned task. As it cuts across many disciplines, planning has drawn expertise
from many fields. Particular advances in systems theory and cybernetic have
encouraged this modular approach to planning, which today has paved the way
for the full-scale modeling and integration of sophisticated software and
computerization into the process [5].

In the past, planners came from backgrounds in architecture or sociology.

Today, professionals working in the planning (and management) of cities are
drawn from more from hard sciences, namely software engineering and database
design, or at least require considerable training in those fields. They brought
with them an underlying process based on a systems model of the world under
study [9]. Having theoretically the ability to integrate all relevant data and
constraints to achieve a set of goals or objective could – in theory- generate a
feasible set of spatial alternatives with calculatable array of socio-economic and
environmental impacts. If it were possible to model such a system through the
ever-advancing technology and process automation, would that not alter the
market for planners? In many fields, these technologies have resulted in
automation and hence reduced the manpower needed to do the job to a bear
minimum. Is it possible then that the same could happen in planning?

In order to answer these question, one needs to decide if planning

activities have become procedural enough to be automated. For that purpose, the
paper looks at three axes of analysis, the first is theoretical –looking at the
stanardizing capabilities of the process, the second is futuristic – examining the
future of technology by extrapolating from past experiments in automating the
process, and the third is judgmental – soliciting the opinions of planners
themselves. In doing so we take into consideration the variations between
developed and developing countries, based on an assumption that less developed
countries are technology consumers and not producers. Hence, regrettably,
within the foreseeable future at least, an implicit lead-follow rule is likely to
occur.

3
1. The Potential for Standardizing Planning in Theory

Most planners continue to rely on Procedural Planning theory to derive their

process and methods. This derives in general from a systems model that ascribes
planning to a set of structured tasks. These tasks are to be pursued through a
problem-solving technology based on rational procedures and methods for
decision-making [10]. Typical applications to the physical planning tradition
include the master plan process and its derivatives (the structure, general and
detailed plans). The process used in preparing any plan is usually based on a
series of logical and standard planning steps including (Fig. 1):
1. Identification of citizens’ goals,
2. Investigating constraints and opportunities,
3. Generating alternatives and
4. Evaluating the alternatives according to certain constraints and so on.

Figure 1. Conceptualization of the Planning Process

after Pettit and Pular (1999)

The essence of the planning approach is its clear emphasis on the mechanics
of the process. This type of conceptualization rests on the assumption that
planning thought and action occurs without reference to a particular object or
societal context. Procedural planning is thus not only “contentless” and
“contextless”, but proposes that it can be scientifically modeled. These features
constitute the basic elements of the rational comprehensive approach as
conceptualized by Altshuler (1965); and Faludi (1973) and modeled by Thomas
(1982) as shown in Fig. 2.

4
 SELECTOR

RECEP TOR EFFECTOR

survey unit= RECEPTOR: surveys, researches the environment

development plan section=TECHNOLOGY IMAGE: holds/develops knowledge,
goals,alternatives
planning committee=SELECTOR: political element, makes decisions on course of
action
development control=EFFECTOR: implementation, permits.

Figure 2. Faludi’s Controlled Feedback System

source:Thomas, 1982

In this model, Faludi identifies three basic units in the planning process.
The receptor, the selector and the effector. The purposeful individual/agency
surveys the environment as an area of action and as a set of constraints to action,
draws from his memory of strategies and images to create a comprehensive list
of possible courses of action. The selector then sets-out to select the best one
that fits his goals and in the process receives continuous feed back on the results
of his action.
The systematic way in which the planning process is viewed lends itself
easily to standardization and of computerized modeling. Most of the tasks of the
survey unit can today be accomplished by Remote Sensing and networking links
to census and other data gathering agencies. Information Technology and the
Internet allow incredible public participation in the setting of societal objectives,
particularly using open platform GIS and the like. Multiautomation, Cellular
Automata and Expert Systems simulate the decision-making environment or the
selector. Considerable research and work has already been done in that regard,
see for instance Kellog (1997), Cecchini and Rizzi (2001), and Wanatabe et al
(2001). Volumes of statistical data about the past and the present can be
regressed into future trends and numbers. Quantitative linear or non-linear
models may provide and have provided the framework for a number of pareto-

5
optimal alternatives. Finally, Real-Time GIS and Remote Sensing again assist
the issuing of permits and other development control functions of the effector.
The process is not only modelable and feasible, but is implicitly objective. By
separating the political content of planning from the technical one, planners have
elevated themselves above accusations of subjectivity and bias.

2. The Future of Automation Technology in Planning

Planning Support Systems (PSS) integrated with GIS and other related
technologies have been around in the planning profession for some time now.
Hopkins (1999) has described that tools of a planning support system for urban
development are categorized by major tasks: sketch planning, model building,
scenario building, evaluation, process and/or lineage and plan-based action. A
complete system based on his concept does not yet exist, but many researchers
have worked on related ideas since the late eighties, such as Orpheus
Development Project (1988), the City of Concord, N.C Urban Plan-Making
System (1993), Klosterman’s (1999) "What if" PSS and Evaluation System,
Edamura &Tsuchida’s (1999) system for an urban environment improvement
project in Japan and Watanabe’s for an environmental based planning support
system in 2001. The question raised is whether a clear trend to increase the level
of automation in the planning process by the increased potentials that
technology allows?

In 1988, an impressive “high-tech” research project called Orpheus (the

code name for the project) was used to locate a hypothetical research facility in
Illinois together with a 15 other land use assignment. The search initially
covered the whole state of Illinois, but was later narrowed down to a 36 square
mile study area, which had a total population of 157,000 persons. The resources
used for that planning exercise were phenomenal. An all-encompassing research
team was gathered. The team was made up of site planners among general
modelers, economists, GIS, CAD, AEC, RS experts, architects, and many
graduate students. Equipped with 9955 II super minicomputer (used specially
for this project) and numerous support devices, they developed the "ultimate
land use planning model" [19].
For Orpheus, planning was completely done from within the computer.
GIS was a submodel at the second phase integrated with most of the 13-phase
planning model (figure 3). It involved specifying potential sites on two different
rounds of allocation for every level of accuracy (coarse, intermediate and fine).
LSA was linked with multiple objective optimization models and other types of
descriptive and prescriptive models [19]. An interesting feature of their model
was the use of two runs and two sets of criteria for the land suitability. First

6
established at a "coarse" level, and then redone at a more refined (fine) scale,
after land uses were allocated. The novelty of the approach was the use of
situation criteria. These were inter-land use relationships, an impressive attempt
to include interdependence. However, observe that this was done outside of the
formal model, since land uses needed to be first allocated using the economic
optimization model.

DEFINE THE PROBLEM

INVENTORY THE SITE

ECONOMIC MODEL ESTABLISH LAND USE LSA MODEL

SITING CRITERIA

DETERMINE MINIMUM REFINE CRITERIA

DEVELOP DATABASE
SIZE REQUIREMENTS

CREATE SUIT. MAPS

SITE L.U. AT
OPTIMIZATION MODEL FINE SCALE
ALLOCATE LAND USES

ANALYZE LU-LU RELATIONS

ADJUST SUIT. WEIGHTS

CREATE SCHEMATIC

DESIGNS
REFINE DESIGNS

Figure 3 . The Orpheus Land Use Planning Model

source base: Tomlin and Johnston, 1988

In 1992, Scultink proposed another complex, national level development

planning model in which planning has been completely done using computer
modeling. GIS was integrated in a theoretical four-phase process called a” Land
Evaluation Framework". The objective of the model Scultink develops is to
estimates a Comparative Site Index for agricultural suitability that can be
applied to build a national resource inventory. The proposed resources include
multidisciplinary integration with remote sensing, spatial information systems,
applied economic models and policy analysis [17].

7
 The GIS model for Land Capability Analysis was the first in a four-phase
process. It used data complied in "national resource database" from integrated
surveys, high resolution satellite data (thematic maps) and derived indicators
(such as indicator species) to assess the "unrealized production potential by land
use alternative and location" [17]. This output was then used as the input for the
next phases: Land Evaluation, National and Regional Feasibility Assessment
and finally the Development Planning and Policy Analysis. In the final phase a
GIS simulation was done of the impacts, benefit/cost of the policies and
repeating the LSA using these as new variables (Fig. 4).
Physical Resource Production Attributes

LAND CAPABILITY ANALYSIS

LAND EVALUATION

IMPLEMENT-
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ATION
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
AND
POLICY MAKING

Figure 4. The Integrated Development Planning Model

after: Gerhardus Scultink, 1992

In 1993, a practical comprehensive plan project for the City of Concord,

N.C. was designed. The objective was to prepare a comprehensive land use plan
for Concord, a city of 25,000 persons. The team, a master's candidate, an
assistant professor, and the director of planning with the city developed a land
suitability model for that purpose. The model (Fig. 5), designed in a GIS,
environment, combines a database with a knowledge base to "evaluate land
suitability". The verified output (using expert opinion) was "used to generate
alternative general land use plans. " [21].

8
 1. LSA MODEL (inside a GIS)

GIS DATABASE KNOWLEDGE

DEVELOPMENT BASE DEVLOP.

LAND USE SUITABILITY

ASSESSMENT

VALIDATION

2. PLAN EVALUATION MODEL

GENERATE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Figure 5. GIS in the Planning Model of City of Concord

after Whitley, Xian, and Young, 1993

Here, the automation has encompassed a considerable portion of the

planning process. The complexity of the model (the number of variables in that
context) was constrained only by "limitations of the researcher, accessible data,
and the GIS capacity" [21]. It is worth noting that using a GIS there as the
operating medium (a "melting pot" as called by the authors) did not -on its own-
form the backbone of the automation process. The exercise was a one-time
research “shot” that was not replicated as an ongoing tool for planning for the
City. No installation of the system or training for planning officers has taken
place.

Anjomani (1993) recognized the need to integrate land use assignment

models with both subjective human values and objective decision-making tools.
In what he terms as the Interactive Model-Designer approach, the main goal is to
allow some new information (mainly subjective) to enter into the assignment
model, while preserving some overriding objective (say cost-minimization).
This way, some community objectives, say preserving a certain region, may be
included into the model by deleting it from the active data set.

9
 Figure 6 - Wanatabe et al (2001) GIS-based PSS for Makassar, Indonesia

In 2001, Wanatabe et al develop a GIS-based planning support system to

aid environment-considered urban development in Makassar in Indonesia, by
using an expert system for environmental zoning and a cellular automata model
of predicting urban form. The integration makes it possible for decision-makers
to reflect the value judgment for the magnitude for each zoning district and to
perform various scenario-based simulations (Fig. 6). Moreover, by overlaying
simulation results and zoning maps, a tool is proposed to provide different kinds
of information to evaluate development suitability. This tool can detect the
future deforestation area, the area eligible for future development, and the future
hazard area.
It is clear that all of these systems are similar in the purpose of aiding
urban development by the integration of a GIS and other modeling or analyzing
tools, rather than replacing him. The majority of cases studied constitute lab
experiments in utilizing the technological tools. None of their obejctives
included one that refers to reducing planners intervention in the process, in fact
some (such as Anjomani’s) indicated that they allow more flexibility by
introducing room for value-judgement to influence the outcomes. Therefore, it
may be deduced that historically, there is no evidence of a clear progression or
tendency to increase the automation of the process.

The Case in Egypt

In Egypt, the effort of GIS and process automation has been limited to
data query, planning support, and AM/FM urban management. For examle, in
1996, staff of the ITI (Information Technology Institute) launched a pioneering
project of designing Egypt’s first Giza Investment Atlas. The system provides
investors with decisio-making guidance to where what to invest. The system
models data using a GIS and a Decision Support Tool developed using Arc/Info
on a Unix platform. Decisions satisfied by the system include consultations on

10
investment opportunities and locations, with respect to a specified budget. The
system also produces thematic maps, which reveal correlations between
population and various economic facilities or economic indicators, including
populations served by different facilities. Such an attempt does not include the
necssary elements of automation of a plan preparation process. It merely helps
public servants respond to investor’s queries.
In 2000, a GIS model to support the preparation of the Master Plan for
Kharga City by defining the main direction growths. Theme maps describing
different land-uses for 7322 land parcels, each of them joined with its attribute
record in the database. The process was designed using the model shown in
figure 7[14].

Figure 7 – GIS model for Kharga Master Plan Preparation

There are only three known exceptions to this limited application of

automation. The first has been the Information Decision Support Center GIS
unit, which in 1997 designed a liscencing support GIS model that automates the
process of issueing building permits to Nasr City district. The model used by
local government planners and officers relies on a model that compares the
compatibility of submitted plans to the building codes and zonning. The City of
Ismailia followed suit in 1999 with a similar project to automate the process of
land records development and upgrading of squatter settlements. Finally, the
General Organization for Physiscal Planning (GOPP), which through technical
cooperation with Swedish firms designed a prototype of structure plan
preparation model for the city of Nuweibah in South Sinai. The model is based
on a GIS which combines databases on landuse, population, natural and physical
constraints to indentify directions of growth and anaylze potential landuse
suitability. The model however has not been adopted for other places, but the
automation of the plan preparation process has been impressive.

11
What the Planners Think

The third and final axis of analysis was of planner’s own perception of their
professional future. A questionnaire form designed to solicit the opinions was
distributed to planners primarily in Egypt and North America. While the focus
was to test the perception of the threat posed by increased automation injection
in the planning process, other factors were also added in order to neutralize bias.
The intention was to be able to analyze responses both by subject matter and
then by country (Egypt vis-a-vis the US). Under the assumptions of the
Procedural Planning theory, would planners using technical rationality and
methodological tools be affected by their context? Egypt is good example of
how western theories dominated the planning
practice under the influence of returning 1) How do you view the future of city
planners as a profession (over the
Egyptian planners who studies in the US and next 10-15 years)?
a) Promising
Europe at the time when Procedural Planning b) Unchanged
became the dominant theory in the sixties. c) Challenged/Threatened
d) Do not know
Since then, the profession became legitimized
by the Physical Planning law of 1973 which 2) What, in your view is the biggest
challenge to the future of the
established that all cities must have a master profession?
plan and that a national planning agency a) Globalization
b) Technology/ Automation of the
(called GOPP) would supervise and organize process (e.g. GIS)
c) Budget cuts to local government
the procedure by which the plan is made. The d) Transfer to Market
major change that happened was the e) Other .........
introduction of technologies such as GIS and 3) I am a:
RS in the nineties. However, whereas the a) Planner working with local/central
government
theory and methods remained unquestioned, b) Planner working with private
the tools (and society) changed. consulting
c) Planning educator
The questionnaire was distributed both by d) private citizen with interest in
planning
hand and by email. Planners were asked to e) Other .........
respond to three questions only as shown in Box 1. The Questionnaire Sheet
box 1. The survey resulted in 59 completed
forms, 20 from North America, 35 from Egypt
and 4 from Indonesia, Australia, and South Africa (which were discarded). Over
half the respondents were planners working with local government while 25%
were academics. Of the total 25% were using GIS in their work.

12
Perceptions of the Future

The largest majority of planners were not optimistic about the future of their
profession. In fact, 43% felts it was either threatened or challenged (Fig. 8).
Prospects for jobs in the local/central government may be constantly threatened
by budget cuts and the lack of confidence in planning, as some comments
indicate:
“. [I also believe that], at least in the USA, planners will be working more and
more as consultants. They will be getting "work" not "jobs" anymore, as government
resources become scarce”
Joseli Macedo, US

“[The future of city planners as a profession will be] increasing parasitism,

more whining for relevance. [The biggest challenge to the future of the profession] is
the nearly complete absence of substance in planning curricula, i.e., fear of
mathematics, fear of economics. The literature is a self-referencing ball of social
science rejects. [I am] a former planning researcher/educator who used to consider
himself a planner/engineer hybrid. I still have an interest in policy, but I am done
with the planning profession.”

Jim Moore, US
Many surveyed planners felt that the profession is challenged by three major
factors namely budget constraints, technology and transfer to market (Fig. 9).
“[The] Transfer to Market [is a major threat]- especially the idea of having
consultants able to assess applications who also submit planning applications. It will
be 'scratch my back' time”
Others believed that the future will be either promising or both challenged
and promising at the same time. Sometimes, the same reasons that were cited for
the profession being challenged were also used to explain why it was promising.
For example, market competitiveness and technology. It was noted that many of
the factors cited fall under one category that was called adaptation. Planners
were increasingly referring to current hot-issues such as the environment, smart
growth, and new methods and tools to indicate that it all depended on the
successful internalizing of these issues.
“The contribution of urban planning to urban competitiveness will make it
more important in the private sector. But the legitimacy of planning as government
control of private action and as an instrument of redistribution will continue to be
challenged; this will weaken the profession. [The biggest challenge to the future of the
profession is the] planners' past contributions to environmental/economic problems
and the need to reverse our directions -- the planners that do [so] will thrive.”
Peter B. Meyer, US

13
 “Planning will become both more specialized and more focused. The future
will force planners to become experts rather than generalists, thus their role will
eventually change”
Shawki Shabaan, Egypt

Figure 8. Responses to Q1.

Figure 9. Response to Q. 2

14
 Fig. 10. Responses to Q.1 by Country

Fig. 11. Response to Q. 2 by Country

NA Planners Egyptian
Planners

Challenged Promising
40% 45% Challenged Promising As is
43% 31% 20 %

Transfer to Other Budget

Market Reasons Cuts Budget Cuts Budget
Automation
33% Cuts
60% 40 37% 60%
27%

Technology Technology
13% 36%

Various Transfer to
Reasons Market
50% 27%%

Fig. 12. Tree Mapping of NA Responses Fig. 13. Tree Mapping of Egypt Responses

15
The Impact of Context

Location
How does variations in place affect the planners’ perception of their future?
Sample answers from both North America (the US and Canada) and Egypt were
isolated and compared. The results shown indicate that there are in fact
differences. Whereas 45% of NA planners felt the future was promising, only
31% of Egyptian planners believed so (Fig 10). The biggest challenges differ
significantly between them too. Whereas NA planners felt it was the adaptation
and budget that pose the greatest challenge, Egyptians felt it was automation
(Fig 11). Even when respondents from both NA and Egypt agreed that it was
challenged, the majority of NA felt it was the transfer to market that posed the
biggest challenge (60%), whereas it was Automation and technology in the
Egyptian case (Fig. 12&13).

Familiarity with IT

The perceived fear from automation could be explained by the lack of

knowledge with IT and how it could support the planning process. Many
unskilled workers are against factory automation because they perceive it
replaces their job. Thus, to test this hypothesis, the opinions of planners who are
working using GIS with backgrounds in programming and IT were important,
particularly among Egyptian planners. Analysis of the responses reveal that in
fact 58% of them feel the future of the professions is threatened, much higher
than the average sample. In fact the biggest majority ever shown that automation
and technology is the biggest challenge their profession faces (Fig. 14&15).

16
Figure 14 - Responses to Q.1 by IT Planners

Figure 15 - Responses to Q. 2 by IT Planners

17
Conclusion

The future of planners as a profession could both be promising and challenged

depending on the attitudes of planners more than the threats of replacement by
technology. In theory, it were no impedements to virtual complete automation of
the process, at least based on the doctrines of the Procedural Planning Theory. In
practice, however, technology has mostly aided rather than threatened their
existence. In fact, the visual and electronic appeal of their plans may have
supported their claims of objectivity and technical competence, and added this
needed aurora of validity. Strangely enough, their is that perceived threat from
technology by those who master it. This could indicate that the issue is not of
technology, but that of substance.

Planners indeed face challenges represented by the advancement of technology,

but these advances should neither be considered “gizmos” for presentation
purposes nor “gozillas” that will eat-up e-illitrate planners. The future of city
planners has been challenged for many years, even before the advent of such
tools, and even if it were possible to design the ultimate “planning-box” that
systems developers dream of, a brighter future for planners would still be
doubtfull. It will continue to be so, and perhaps even more in developing
countries, if the planning outcomes (vs. outputs) are not materialized. How can
planners prove more relevance in easing-away the growing urban pains?

The fact that planners feel more challenged by market forces, budget cuts and
adaptation to environmental, political and social needs of their society indicate
that planning cannot not be an exercise in techniques, but should become a
living and pulsing part of its society, internalizing its needs and adapting its
techniques to the problem at hand. Planners in the US have been in part more
successful because they were more ready to evaluate, adapt , and improve their
profession. It is true that many of the vogues of every decade end up somewhat
rehtorical, but changes have in fact been observed in the educational and
professional conduct of planners.

There is no end for planning as a human activity so long as humans continue to

exist. But if planners do not adapt more rapidly to the challenges they face, it
may well be the end of planners as we know it them…

18
REFERENCES:

1. Alexander, E (1986). Rationality and Decision, in Gordon and Breach,

Approaches to Planning.
2. Altshuler , A. (1965) The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
3. Anjomani, A (1993) "A Planning Decision-Support System For
Urban Planning" in Proceedings of the 1993 URISA Conference, Atlanta,
GA, 1993
4. Cecchini, A and Rizzi, P (2001) “The reasons why Cellular Automata are
a useful tool in the working-kit for the new millennium urban planner in
governing the territory.” in Proceedings of the 2001 CUPUM, USA
5. Chadwick, G. A. (1978). Systems view of planning. Sydney: Pergamon
Press.
6. Edamura T.&Tsuchida T.(1999). “Planning support system for an urban
environment improvement project”, in Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 26,381-391
7. Faludi, A (1973) "What is Planning Theory?" in a Reader in Planning
Theory, Andres Faludi (editor), Pergamon Press. pp. 1-10
8. Freidmann, J (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to
Action; Princeton University Press. pp. 19-48
9. Guy, B. (1989) “Six Theories of Planning: Myths and Realities” in
Mastering the Politics of Planning. Jossey-Bass. San Fransisco.
10. Healey, P. et al. (1982) Theoretical Ddebates in Planning. Conference
Position Paper in "Planning Theory, Prospects for the 1980’s” Healey P
ed. 1982.
11. Hudson, B. (1979) “Comparison of Current Planning Theories:
Counterparts and Contradictions.” in Journal of American Planning
Association. v. 45 No. 4.
12. Kellogg, Nelson R. (1997) “The Internet, Conversational Communities,
and the Future of Planning” in APA Conference Proceedings, San Diego
USA 1997.
13. Klosterman R.E.(1999).The What if?collaborative planning support
system, in Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,26 (3),
393-408
14. Mahrous A, Kyselka M, Spica P. (2000) “Application of GIS to describe
historical urban development of Kharga city, Egypt”

19
15. Pettit C and Pullar D (1999) “An integrated planning tool based upon
multiple criteria evaluation of spatial information” in Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems v. 23 Pergamon Press(1999)
16. Scott, A.J and Roweis, S.T. (1977) “Urban Planning in Theory and
Practice: A Reappraisal” in Environment and Planning, vol. 9
17. Shutlink, G., 1992."Integrated Remote Sensing, Spatial Information
Systems, And Applied Models In Resource Assessment, Economic
Development And Policy Analysis" In PE&RS, Vol. 58, No. 8, August
1992.
18. Thomas, M. J. (1982) “The Procedural Planning Theory of A. Faludi”
in Critical Readings in Planning Theory, Chris Paris (editor). New York.
Pergamon Press
19. Tomiln, D & Johnston, K "An Experiment in Land Use Allocation with
GIS" in Proceedings of a National Meeting of the American Congress on
Surveying and Mapping, Vol. 5, 1988
20. Watanabe, K, Ohgai, A, Yudono, A and Igarashi, M (2001) “ A Planning
Support System for Environment-Considered Urban Development in
Developing Countries” in Proceedings of 2001CUPUM, USA
21. Whitley, D, Xiang, W & Young, J (1993)" Using a GIS as a Melting Pot
to Assess Land Use Suitability" in GIS WORLD, Vol. 6 no. 7 pp. 48-52,
CO, 1993

20