Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Theories and Planning Theories

Ann Forsyth

To cite this article: Ann Forsyth (2021) Theories and Planning Theories, Journal of the
American Planning Association, 87:2, 155-158, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1885267
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1885267

Published online: 12 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6320

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20
Journal of the American Planning Association 155 2021 | Volume 87 Number 2

Theories and Planning Theories

Ann Forsyth

T
his editorial is about a conundrum.
The Journal of the American
Planning Association (JAPA) has long
been an important location for pub- As the journal of a profes-
lishing work on planning theory, but my sional association, JAPA
conversations as editor indicate that many seeks to be relevant to
academics do not see it as such. This is in practice. However, that
part because the kind of planning theory does not preclude articles
published in JAPA tends to be theory that in JAPA from engaging
can be useful in practice. As I outline below, theory. JAPA is a home for
JAPA has a broad interest in a range of plan- work in planning theory
ABOUT THE EDITOR: Ann Forsyth
is the Ruth and Frank Stanton ning theory areas, including planning tradi- that is accessible and rele-
Professor of Urban Planning at tions and processes, planning ethics, the vant to planning
Harvard University. role of planning in the world, and planning’s
practitioners.
intellectual history.
JAPA’s planning theory work covers decades. When Klosterman (2011)
published his most recent account of planning theory course content, he
listed 42 readings in more than 10% of courses, 29 of which were originally
journal articles. Of these, 13 were from JAPA (Altshuler, 1965; Arnstein, 1969;
Campbell, 1996; Davidoff, 1965; Forester, 1982; Friedmann, 1993; Innes, 1996;
Kaiser & Godschalk, 1995; Krumholz, 1982; Levy, 1990; Lucy, 1988; Mier, 1994;
Sandercock & Forsyth, 1992). No other journal came close. JAPA’s promin-
ence is certainly helped by its long history, but it is still striking.
In a recent JAPA article, however, Fang and Ewing (2020) used full-article
text mining to analyze JAPA along with the Journal of Planning Education and
Research and the Journal of Planning Literature. They noted that there has been
a drop in planning theory across these generalist journals in recent years.
There are several reasons for this apparent drop-off. There are now sev-
eral specialist journals dealing with the topic, most notable Planning Theory,
started in 2002. There are certainly others depending on the flavor of theory.
JAPA has for a long time emphasized practice (Forsyth, 2019). Theory and
practice are not incompatible, of course: Theory informs practice, and prac-
tice tests and shapes theory. Indeed, the kinds of planning theory articles
used in basic courses such as those reviewed by Klosterman (2011) are likely
to be those that are accessible and relevant to students wishing to be prac-
ticing planners rather than mainly to other planning theorists. As I note
below, planning theory also covers a range of topics, and its definition is
contested, meaning that whether JAPA is considered as a forum for debates
about planning theory is in part an issue of definition.
Fang and Ewing’s (2020) own analysis provided some support for a
more complex understanding of JAPA’s planning theory content. In that
assessment, planning theory was the top-ranked subject across the three
journals they assessed from 1990 to 2004. After 2010, however, the top-
ranked topic was planning process (Fang & Ewing, 2020). Looking only at
JAPA from 2014 to 2018, the latest period they examined, planning ethics
was ranked number 1 (Fang & Ewing, 2020, Table A2). As I explain in the

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1885267 | # 2021 American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Journal of the American Planning Association
next section, topics such as ethics and process are cen-
tral to planning theory, and so the story of theory’s
decline in JAPA, outlined in that article, may perhaps be
more about a shift in the areas of planning theory sub-
mitted to and accepted in JAPA.
Theories and Planning Theories
All articles in JAPA use, explore, or contribute to theories.
Theories explain what factors are important, how they
are related, and why this might be so in those circum-
stances (Whetten, 1989, p. 492; see also Dubin, 1978).
Although some are more explicit about these theories
or conceptual framings than others, all articles have
them. Some JAPA articles also address what might be
called planning theory even if they do not use that term.
Fainstein and DeFilippis (2016), in their introduction to
Readings in Planning Theory, explained that planning
theories, although quite varied, define what planning is,
can be normative or explanatory, foster self-reflection,
and place planning within a political and economic con-
text. This is quite a mixture from political–economic cri-
tiques to normative models of the good city.
Two recent empirical studies, both published in the
Journal of Planning Education and Research, examined
what this means in education and practice. Klosterman
(2011, p. 320), mentioned previously, summarized major
topics in dozens of planning theory syllabi over a 30-year
period, examining syllabi every 10 years from 1979. Topics
in a third or more of syllabi over three decades included
“(1) the history of the profession, (2) advocacy/equity
planning, (3) professional ethics, (4) political/social rela-
tions, and (5) the rational model and alternative
approaches.” Syllabi in 2009 contained several further
topics as major themes: (6) “justifications for planning,” (7)
“communications/collaboration,” and (8) “issues of gen-
der,” (9) the public interest, (10) strategic planning, and
(11) race/diversity (Klosterman, 2011, p. 321).
Whittemore (2015) examined a more focused sub-
set of work, which could be called conceptual models
or traditions, identifying eight bridging the academy
and practice from the 1950s to the 1980s. These
included the rational comprehensive, incremental, trans-
active, communicative, advocacy, equity, radical, and
humanist intellectual models. This echoed earlier work
published in JAPA, including Hudson’s (1979) SITAR
rubric of synoptic (or rational comprehensive), incre-
mental, transactive, advocacy, and radical schools.
Planning Theory in JAPA
Building on Klosterman’s terminology, planning theory
deals with several main areas:
 Conceptual models and processes: Advocacy,
equity, rational, strategic, communicative,
156 2021 | Volume 87 Number 2
collaborative, radical, and so on, along with plan-
ning processes.
 Planning ethics: Professional ethics; the public inter-
est; some aspects of gender, race, diversity, equity,
and justice; and the good city or region
more generally.
 Planning in the world: Political, economic, and social
contexts of planning; justifications for planning.
 Planning’s intellectual history: History of ideas
in planning.
Looked at in this way, JAPA still publishes quite a
bit of planning theory and has a niche in terms of plan-
ning theory that is accessible and relevant to planning
practitioners. Some examples from recent years provide
support for this claim, though they represent only a
selection of relevant articles and often bridge mul-
tiple categories.
Conceptual models and processes are a core com-
ponent of planning theory as taught in graduate pro-
grams. Davidoff (1965) proposed the advocacy planning
model. More recently Avin and Goodspeed (2020)
reviewed the fast-growing area of exploratory scenario
planning using case examples. Although practically ori-
ented, the article delved into an emerging model or
process related to how to engage the future in plan-
ning. Quite a few JAPA articles assess plans and ask
larger questions about existing models and processes.
For example, Loh and Kim (2021/this issue) examine
equity content in local comprehensive plans proposing
strategies for improving practice.
Planning ethics is both a core part of planning the-
ory and a major theme in JAPA. An early piece by
Marcuse (1976) explicitly linked planning ethics and
planning theories. More recent articles approach this
topic in diverse ways. Lauria and Long (2019) used inter-
views to examine ethical dilemmas raised by tensions
between the AICP Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct, workplace norms and cultures, and personal
ethical principles used by practicing planners. Solis
(2020) proposed how to address racial inequity within
planning organizations by changing internal rules and
norms. Lyles and White (2019) drew on neuroscience to
suggest how planners could better engage emotional
dimensions in their work. Goetz et al. (2020) critiqued
the role of White affluence in shaping U.S. cities, propos-
ing an approach for ethical and just planning. Agrawal
(2021) unpacked the intersections between planning
practice and human rights. Blue et al. (2019) used the
work of Nancy Fraser to propose how to improve the
justice of participatory processes.
Planning in the world looks at planning in its wider
context. One of the most cited articles in JAPA by Roy
(2005) critiqued planning practice from the perspective
of informality but also unpacked the role of planning
 157
more generally in political and economic terms. In this
issue, Davy (2021/this issue), in an article about social
distancing and COVID-19 but with wide relevance for
many aspects of planning, uses the work of Mary
Douglas to outline four cultural biases that explain dif-
fering public responses to COVID-19 regulations. It is
easy to see how such insights can help understand
public reactions to planning activities more generally.
Goh (2020) compared the Green New Deal with the
1930s New Deal, highlighting the political and ethical
tensions between planners focusing on local place-
based struggles and making changes through large-
scale programs at higher levels of governments.
Planning’s intellectual history covers a broad range of
topics. JAPA has had its share of retrospective pieces
examining how normative ideas about a specific type of
planning have changed over time. Klosterman’s list, for
example, included Kaiser and Godschalk’s (1995) article
on land use. Rohe’s (2009) “From Local to Global: One
Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning” proposed and
analyzed six main approaches to such planning. In this
issue, Whittemore (2021/this issue) reviews a century of
exclusionary zoning practices and scholarship about such
practices, including the important Open Suburbs move-
ment. Gaber (2019) drew on extensive archival work to
unpack the genesis of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of partici-
pation, exploring its institutional and political context.
Reitan and Banerjee (2018) assessed Kevin Lynch’s work
in Los Angeles, focusing on citizen engagement to under-
stand how people experienced the city.
JAPA continues to welcome work in planning the-
ory that can bridge to contemporary practice. These
include standard articles but also longer Review Essays
and shorter Viewpoints. JAPA offers a venue for theorists
to reach out to practitioners and for practitioners to
engage larger questions about planning processes, eth-
ics, planning’s place in the world, and its intellectual his-
tory. JAPA has a long and distinguished history of
publishing important articles with planning theory,
broadly defined, and I am confident that tradition will
continue far into the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Joseph Heathcott and Richard Klosterman for helpful
comments on this editorial.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, S. (2021). Human rights and the city: A view from
Canada. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(1),
3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1775680
Altshuler, A. (1965). The goals of comprehensive planning.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(3), 186–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978165
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A; adder of citizen participation. Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Editorial
Avin, U., & Goodspeed, R. (2020). Using exploratory scenarios
in planning practice. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 86(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.
2020.1746688
Blue, G., Rosol, M., & Fast, V. (2019). Justice as parity of partici-
pation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3),
363–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1619476
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities?
Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable develop-
ment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3),
296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187
Davy, B. (2021/this issue). Social distancing and cultural bias.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(2), 159–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1824617
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Revised ed.). The Free Press.
Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (2016). Introduction: The struc-
ture and debates of planning theory. In S. S. Fainstein & J.
DeFilippis (Eds.), Readings in planning theory (4th ed., pp.
1–18). Wiley.
Fang, L., & Ewing, R. (2020). Tracking our footsteps. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 86(4), 470–480. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1766994
Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the face of power. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 48(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944368208976167
Forsyth, A. (2019). Linking research and practice in planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(2), 81–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1601958
Friedmann, J. (1993). Toward a non-Euclidian mode of plan-
ning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(4),
482–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369308975902
Gaber, J. (2019). Building “a ladder of citizen participation.”
Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3), 188–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1612267
Goetz, E. G., Williams, R. A., & Damiano, A. (2020). Whiteness
and urban planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 86(2), 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.
2019.1693907
Goh, K. (2020). Planning the Green New Deal: Climate justice
and the politics of sites and scales. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 86(2), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944363.2019.1688671
Hudson, B. M., Galloway, T. D., & Kaufman, J. L. (1979).
Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and
contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association,
45(4), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976980
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new
view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944369608975712
Kaiser, E. J., & Godschalk, D. R. (1995). Twentieth century land
use planning: A stalwart family tree. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 61(3), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944369508975648
Klosterman, R. (2011). Planning theory education: A thirty-year
review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3),
319–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X11413601
Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning:
Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning
Journal of the American Planning Association
Association, 48(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944368208976535
Lauria, M., & Long, M. F. (2019). Ethical dilemmas in profes-
sional planning practice in the United States. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 85(4), 393–404. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944363.2019.1627238
Levy, J. M. (1990). What local economic developers actually do:
Location quotients versus press releases. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 56(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01944369008975756
Loh, C. G., & Kim, R. (2021/this issue). Are we planning for
equity? Equity goals and recommendations in local comprehen-
sive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(2),
181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1829498
Lucy, W. H. (1988). APA’s ethical principles include simplistic
planning theories. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 54(2), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944368808976465
Lyles, W., & White, S. S. (2019). Who cares? Arnstein’s ladder,
the emotional paradox of public engagement, and (re)imagin-
ing planning as caring. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 85(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.
2019.1612268
Marcuse, P. (1976). Professional ethics and beyond: Values in
planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(3),
264–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367608977729
Mier, R. (1994). Some observations on race in planning. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 235–240. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975576
158 2021 | Volume 87 Number 2
Reitan, M. D., & Banerjee, T. (2018). Kevin Lynch in Los
Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(3–4),
217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1524307
Rohe, W. M. (2009). From local to global: One hundred years
of neighborhood planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 75(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944360902751077
Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of
planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2),
147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976689
Sandercock, L., & Forsyth, A. (1992). A gender agenda: New
directions for planning theory. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 58(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944369208975534
Solis, M. (2020). Racial equity in planning organizations. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 86(3), 297–303. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1742189
Whetten, D. D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribu-
tion. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Whittemore, A. H. (2015). Practitioners theorize, too:
Reaffirming planning theory in a survey of practitioners’ theo-
ries. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14563144
Whittemore, A. H. (2021/this issue). Exclusionary zoning:
Origins, open suburbs, and contemporary debates. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 87(2), 167–180. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1828146