PLANNING THEORY INSIGHT FROM THE PANANJUNG VILLAGE COMMUNITY SETTLEMENT PLAN

Mizan Bustanul Fuady Bisri 1) and Riskha Paulina 2)

1)

Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia mizan.bf.bisri@pl.itb.ac.id

2)

West Java Regional Office Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia riskha_maha@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This paper will provide an insight and critical description about planning theory discourse within process and product of Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan (Pananjung Village CSP). The Pananjung Village CSP was an effort of the community alongside with the community organizer as its planner in building back the village after the Pangandarans tsunami in 2006. The problems existed was about settlements rehabilitation and reconstruction due to disaster and its preparation for future disasters risk that acknowledge economic, pluralist, and Marxist arguments for undertaking planning in the public domain. From this plan and its process we may also see how a dominant advocacy planning process could work with addition from comprehensive rational and communicative actions manner, how the role of the planner, and also indepth about the planning problems. Lastly, the role of the planner is also another important point in this paper, which the planners act as an advocate planner for the community in order to shape their future. Keywords: community settlement plan, advocacy planning, advocate planner, tsunami

A. INTRODUCTION 1. Background
Pananjung village was one part of Pangandaran Tourism Area in Ciamis Regency. The village stretched more than 400 ha, and divided into 3 dusun; i.e. Bojong Jati, Karang Salam, and Karang Sari. Basically its topography consists of coastal zone and several hilly areas in the northern side, and its height varies from 0 to 7 m above sea level. The villages borders are Purbahayu Village in the north, Cikembulan Village in the west, Babakan Village in the east, and Pangandaran Village as well as Indian Ocean in the south. Therefore, once it was consisted of various tourism activities, accommodations, amenities, and also public settlement. But a destructive tsunami in 2006 impacted loss in a variety of ways. Not only Infrastructure and lifelines damages need to be responded immediately, but also traumatic-stress of the local community created another local burden.

Started in 2007, the issue was then shifts to rehabilitation and reconstruction; whether it was for tourism activities rehabilitations, housing reconstructions, settlement and infrastructures rehabilitation, so forth. One of the activities, which became this papers setting, was the Community-based Settlement Rehabilitation Reconstruction Project (CSRRP in Indonesia it called REKOMPAK). The CSRRP was implemented in 18 villages affected by the tsunami, in Ciamis Regency. The output of CSRRP is a document called Community Settlement Plan (CSP), thus in Pananjung was Pananjung Village CSP. The enactment of Pananjung Village CSP accomplished together by the community and Pangandaran Disaster Management Center (DMC Pangandaran). All of the process being funded by The Java Recovery Fund (JRF), a consortium which have agreement in this matter with Indonesian Ministry of Public Works. Based on the document, then The JRF will give further funding for the village to develop infrastructure. Therefore, the main idea CSP enactment was to deliver effective aid for Pananjung Village settlements rehabilitation based on community needs through adaptation of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach.

2. Objective and Methodology

The objective of this paper is to provide an insight and critical description about several key points in planning theorys discourse within process and product of The Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan (Pananjung Village CSP). This paper basically uses descriptive approach to analysis the insight of Pananjung Village CSP planning process and document; thus arrange it based on key points that usually used in planning theory discourses. The steps begin with collecting the secondary data, identify the features within the contains, analyzing the findings based on its relevancy with various literatures about planning theory, and wrap it up with conclusion that give in depth reflection from praxis within Pananjung Village CSP to planning theory discourse. Basically this follows the rule of qualitative analysis procedure as Miles and Huberman addressed (1994) that consists of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. Three key points about planning theorys discourse addressed here are the planning problems, planning approach, and role of planners. Planning problems point delivered to answer one of the points in planning theorys discourse which is the argument for and against planning (Klosterman, 1996). As for the last two basically tried to identify which paradigms being used in CSP enactment as it was a planning within the public domain. The basic classification used came from Brook (2002) which consists of centralized rationality planning paradigm, centralized non-rationality planning paradigm, decentralized rationality planning paradigm, and decentralized non-rationality planning paradigm.

B. PLANNING PROBLEM
Pangandaran Tsunami struck after an earthquake in July 17th year 2006, at 15:19:22 local time. The magnitude of the earthquake was 6,8 Richter Scale and the epicenter located in

southern part of Java Island, approximately in Indian Ocean at 9,46o south 107,19o east. According to Ciamis Regency Government, it was noted that as the effect of Tsunami, 429 persons as dead, 621 injured, 32 missing, and 3.739 lost their shelters. Other source claimed that the earthquake actually was on 7,2 Richter (USGS, 2006) with the loss of life until 500 persons with total lifelines destruction and material loss until 70 billion rupiah (Pribadi in Abriansyah, 2006). At first, the planning problems lies in this case were about planning community infrastructure rehabilitation activities after the tsunami. However, then it also concerned about how to deliver better and more resilience community towards future disaster risk. That is why the planning problem is not merely about infrastructures and disaster management, but also covers education, health, and economic. This point is actually have to be praised because it instantly incorporate the advance disasters risk definition just like what Wisner et.al stated (2004, P.51) in their Pressure and Release Model. As follows, here are the planning problems that the CSP addressed: a) Education Problem. There is a minim willingness among parents to send their children to school. They tend to work, rather than to study because by working they can directly help their familys financial condition. This condition is then worsening since this awareness is not automatically translate into local governmental action, although facilities for education from pre-school up to secondary level are available. b) Health Problem. Similar to previous problem, despite the existence of many medical staffs, and also investors, Pananjung village is still far from livable place criteria, due to a minim concern from the community and local government. In addition, un-healthy daily activities also lead this village to suffer from many diseases. For instance, there were a poor sewerage system and sanitary service available, so people tend to throw things into the river, which in the end pollute the water, where that same river is also a resource for daily water consumption. c) Economic Problem. Basically, people in Pananjung are fisherman. However, due to the weather condition, its only allows them to sail only from May to September. Therefore, in the long run, the livelihoods of Pananjung people are vary, ranging from producing art material to producing brown sugar. The data shown in the analysis part of the Pananjung CSP also suggested that the weak of their economic structure basically came from the fact that people in general live by depending on a non-sustainable jobs, with 60% average of all dusun population categorized as prewelfare family. Lack of capacity and also financial shortage had limited these activities to achieve their optimum situation as source of livelihoods. d) Infrastructure & Disaster Management. This planning problems basically become relate one to another in this manner, at first. Rehabilitation and construction of infrastructures must benefits the role of disaster mitigation and future disaster preparedness for evacuation. Therefore the planning problems cover the issue to provide better road networks and drainage that also works during emergency response, land use, evacuation buildings (places), preservation areas, and so forth.

According to Klosterman (1996), there are four arguments for and against planning namely economic arguments, pluralist arguments, traditional arguments, and Marxist arguments. Those types of arguments provide relevancy whether some social setting would end up in necessity of planning or not. In this case, planning is needed in the form of, economic, pluralist, and Marxist approaches. From the economic arguments point of view, we see that theres an existence of market failure and prisoners dilemma condition in Pananjung Village, thus it support the existence of such planning in form of CSP. The market failure happened because current market and all its privates actors related dont provide adequate settlement and its infrastructures that would mitigate or enhance villages resilience towards disaster risk. As from prisoners dilemma point of view, before theres an introduction of CSP there are no collective efforts from the community to shape their village spatial arrangement and infrastructure development. Therefore, through CSP theres a public document that address development agenda and its provision of goods and services. On the other hand, parallel the Marxist arguments who said that the role of planning in contemporary society can be understood only by recognizing the structure of modern capitalisms it relates to the physical environment. Therefore, without planning intervention there would be no concern and awareness to enhance resilience of the village prior to the disasters risk. In addition from pluralist arguments point of view, we can also see that without this type of planning intervention there would be no institutions that raise amenity levels, increase efficiency in the performance of necessary functions, and promote health, safety and convenience.

C. OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PRODUCT: The Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan
Community Settlement Plan (CSP) is a community based program introduced by local NGO called DMC with main goals to rebuild the infrastructure and its surrounding, which is planned to be undertaken for 5 years. The absence of knowledge about tsunami resulted in total loss of life, property, and livelihood. In response to this, this program aimed to emphasize the need for coordination within organizations and segments of the community, rather than command and control. In the end this disaster planning was expected to be listed in the top of local government agenda, and be a reference for participatory development. After almost a year of participatory activities with the community, The Pananjung Village CSP Plan finally finished for year 2009 until 2013 period. In general, it covers the community vision, mission, program, and actions for settlement rehabilitation and reconstruction as well as village spatial plan with several disaster mitigation aspects. In addition, due to the lack of midterm development plan, it was believed by the planner (DMC Pangandaran) and the village leader that CSP may suits to fulfill that necessity.

At first, it was stated at the early part of Pananjung Village CSP that the vision shaped by community was to shape comprehensive development based on potential natural resources as a resilient tourism village, participated by competent human resources (Pananjung Village CSP, 2008). From the vision, we may infer that such disaster awareness has been arising within community. This also supported with related community mission as follows: 1) Developing a tourism destination; 2) Developing a resilient tourism village; 3) Conserving coastal areas; 4) Improving economic, agriculture, education, health, and environment development; and 5) Developing competent human resources.In order to have proper actions in the future, after the vision mission statement then Pananjung Village CSP also have the list of development strategy as follows: 1) Social Strategy: mainly to cope the condition of high cost education, therefore the BKM with Village Government designated to propose possible assistance for children who had to leave school earlier, propose assistance to encourage awareness among parents, and also to propose assistance for school buildings and facilities. 2) Health Strategy : mainly to cope the lack of community awareness to healthy behavior, therefore the BKM alongside Village Government will propose assistance from medical staff to help the improvement of health service, propose for continuous campaign due to healthy behavior, and improvement on poor local health facilities 3) Economic Strategy: mainly to cope with the condition that fisherman lack of capital and knowledge, therefore the BKM alongside Village Government will propose grant for the fishermen, continuous capacity building for fishermen, propose grant for better technology, and propose grant for fishermens cooperation development. 4) Environmental Strategy: mainly to cope with the condition that the village lacks of quality in clean water, sanitary, and pollutant, therefore basically the strategy was designated to develop adequate infrastructures for all that necessity as well as to change the behavior of the community. Following that general part of Pananjung Village CSP which covered the vision, mission, principal, and strategy; then the rest of CSP substance covers the main part which contains the village infrastructure development plan and village mitigation plan and emergency response. It should be noted that all of those three parts, prefaced by adequate reporting part of analysis which came from the participatory activities covers all of the village aspects include the built and natural environmental aspect, social, and economy. The infrastructure development plan which included in The CSP is as follows: land use plan, road system, drainage system, electricity, clean water, sanitation, and waste. Through a participatory manner, the community only can resulting land use plan which only divide into simple division: preserve and utility area. The preserve area then covers the designation for areas which are local preserve functions such as the land arrangement for local river banks, conserving coastal biodiversity, building disaster area center in Pananjung Village hall, and initializing early warning system. As the utilization area, it divided by the community to be five functions as follows; agriculture area,

plantation area, industrial area, and tourism area. Even though the land use plan was not a detail one, like it should be in zoning plan or so, the land use plan quite endorse the community to be more aware in looking after land use in their village. The CSP, as it stated earlier, provide the community plan to develop their road as well as the drainage. Community then improves twenty four evacuation roads. The improvement of the roads system also underwent in a togetherness manner known as gotong royong. The decisions to use concrete rather than asphalt for the roads also have a meaning so that community was able to work on it together. For drainage, community planned to improve ten drainage ways in the main roads and four drainages in the evacuation roads. The construction financial support for roads and drainage improvement came from The JRF as it was purposed to do so. On the other hand, plans for electricity, sewerage, waste, and clean water development basically were an addition so that the CSP may became a baseline for the community to raise their voice in other or larger scale of planning process (such as Ciamis Regency Spatial/Development Plan) or for their aspiration at related development initiative.

(1a) (1b) Figure 1 Land Use Plan (1a) and Road Network Plan (1b) According to CSP Source: Pananjung Village CSP Document The last fundamental aspect in Pananjung Village CSP Document was the mitigation aspect prior to future disaster risk. In order to develop an appropriate disaster mitigation plan, the community organizer alongside with the community members tried to absorb aspiration related to disaster. The mapping covers the community response experience in 2006 tsunami, expected community early warning system, expected services for future emergency response, expected future evacuation facilities, and expected institutions for delivering disaster management services. From the mapping activities related to community response prior to an earthquake or tsunami, it was known that basically they have basic knowledge; for instance the community already knew that they should avoid buildings and ran to higher ground in a tsunami event. However, they do not have detailed knowledge in responding to earthquake and tsunami event. On the other hand, for community early warning system they expected an improvement on siren system and local tool (known as kentongan

which made from bamboo). The siren system then already installed which provided by the government and ran by the local community. As for future emergency response service, the communities expect a better clean water and sanitation in the refugee camp. In addition they also hope for better emergency support such as foods, temporary shelter, medicines, health services, and so on. In order to improve institutional base for disaster management, the community expects two institutions to hold this main role which are the existed Badan Permasyarakatan Desa (BPD / Village Council) and Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LPM / Community Empowerment Institutions). The community expect BPD to attain institutional matters as well as coordination with higher level of government in disaster management; as for LPM, the community expect them develop community based disaster management and actions. In addition, the community expects the Karang Taruna (Youth Group) for involving more in disaster issues and also hoping for establishing a local emergency volunteer. Lastly, in the Pananjung Village CSP Document, community developed plan for improving their evacuation route, evacuation area, and evacuation signing. The community then agreed to improve twenty-four evacuation routes in Karang Sari hamlet area. All of the routes have had construction improvement, include pavement and lighting equipment for night time evacuation. The evacuation signing was able to be found in form of evacuation maps and direction signing (twenty-three points) which also easy to understand during night time evacuation. On the other hand, community have agreed criterias for evacuation building which were a place that able to contain 1000 people, height above 25 meters above sea level, and located 1 km from the shoreline. However, since there were no suitable areas for evacuation in Pananjung, thus the community agreed to improve the utilization of high-raise building (such as hotels), mosque, and other villages.

Figure 3 Pananjung Village Evacuation Route, Escape Buildings Map, and Evacuation Signage Distribution Map Source: Pananjung Village CSP Document

D. PLANNING PROCESS
In order to analyze the planning paradigm, herewith the brief steps of the Pananjung Village CSP enactment: 1) Socialization, introduction, as well as legal administrative preparation of the CSRRP to the local government; 2) Socialization of the CSP enactment at sub village (dusun) level, this was meant to be a introduction as well as preparation for the community; 3) Community meeting (called rembug desa) to assure that everyone will accept the enactment process of CSP; 4) Three paralel Focus Group Discussion (FGD) which joint by the community member. Those are FGD on disaster theme which aim to identify Pangandaran Village disaster risk, FGD on institutions theme which aim to discuss whether the existing institutions can be functioned for future institutions whom will enact the CSP as well coordinate the CSRPP project, and FGD on leadership theme which focus to identify the criteria of leadership aspect for the election of Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat (BKM / community representative) whom will lead the enactment of CSP; 5) The election and selection of Tim Inti Perencana (TIP / Core Planner Team) which will lead the village planning include the transect activity and so on. The TIP member joint by 17 persons and they have been gave adequate training from the DMC Pangandaran; 6) The election for BKM member started from Rukun Tetangga (RT / neighborhood) level, Rukun Warga (RW / groups of neighborhood) level, and village level. In each level the community will elect 3 (three) members; 7) Transect activity (participatory mapping) which leads by The TIP and questionnaire distribution with 5 samples in each RT. The transect activity include social matter (health and education), economy matter (livelihood and so on), environmental matter, and so on; 8) Socialization and discourse due to the result of transect activity. This also includes female groups discussion to overcome the limitation of female involvement in general discussion; 9) Discussion for transect result which resulted the vision, mission, programs, and actions will be conducted in Pananjung Village; 10) the socialization of vision, mission, programs, and actions reviewed on two Village Discussions (Musyawarah Desa). This also include the decision making process for those substance mentioned earlier; 11) Result from the 1st and 2nd Village Discussions then being published through printed materials (poster) which spread out across village with adequate space for the people to comment directly on that poster; 12) Public consultation with all the people, other villages that enacted similar CSP, and local government of Ciamis Regency. This part basically for legitimated the CSP; and 13) the last step was the Village Meeting for deciding the community participation and community resource allocation in executing the CSP substance.

Figure 6 Stages in the Enactment of CSP Source: DMC Pangandaran Using the classification from Brooks (2002), we found that the planning process of CSP basically didnt follow only one type of planning paradigm; hence it showed several character namely advocacy planning, comprehensive rational planning, and communicative action. The most significant signature came from rational decentralized planning approach or in other word an advocacy planning. Basically, almost every Davidoffs key points (according to Ceckoway, 1994) of advocacy planning can be easily seen in the process; namely planning as process to address a wide range of societal problems, to improve conditions for all people while emphasizing resources and opportunities for those lacking, and also expand representation and participation of traditionally excluded group for decision making. Table 1 Relevancy between Advocacy Planning Paradigm and Pananjung Village CSP Relevance with Advocacy Planning Paradigm Technical assistance & representation (Davidoff) Existence of pragmatic rationality manner Findings on Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan

Technical assistance in planning process, document enrichment, decision making. Representation / advocative actions towards other actors (local government, INGO, etc.) Usage of rational technique and output as a baseline and to enrich community understanding about their current conditions.

The output still being driven to fulfill the basic requirement of the project. Decision Making Enhance particular interest group Major decision in the hands of the citizen through series of community meetings (with facilitation from the planner) Vulnerable group mapping (woman, senior citizen, child), FGD for woman, etc.

Advocacy planners and Community propose for using CSP as their village spatial plan, its activities still within the CSP relations with CSRPP and JRF system, ad vocation for CSP system substance to larger developmental system in Ciamis Regency (Musrenbang, enactment of RTRW, etc). Orientation towards value Voluntary based, criteria development for BKM and TIP election within community and its democratic manner, gotong royong value within implementation, etc. Source: Analysis, 2010 As for the main signature of comprehensive rational manner is the usage of several technocratic tools, like maps for base map, questionnaire, statistic data, so forth. This approach was not solely the dominant approach because the CSP tried to recognize current conditions and future necessity through other ways. In addition, the manner of communicative action emphasizing that planning are not just exchanges of words but reflect a variety of institutional, political, and power relation (Mandlebaum, 1996, p.368 369). Involvement of stakeholder to turns out to be shareholder and communication between CSP process and substance to various institutions and towards larger scale of planning actually shows this characteristic. However the limitation that made this approach not the primary paradigm are as follows: 1) Limitation on cultivating community networks liaisons to address community empowerment and reducing representations demand; 2) lack of education for citizen on planning process area, advance technical knowledge (construction, economy, etc); political information; and 3) lack of verification of symmetrical access to planning information for all the people within community. Table 2 Relevancy between Comprehensive Rational and Communicative Action Paradigm and Pananjung Village CSP Relevance with Comprehensive Rational Paradigm Pragmatic rationality Findings on Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan

Optimization of available knowledge, scientific method, and technique to enrich the CSP planning process and product (i.e. mapping technique, budgeting, questionnaires, etc). Goals alternatives consequences implementation evaluation choice

Prescribed steps Nature of strategic planning

Vision mission statement SWOT (or similar) analysis) analysis on specific issues to be addressed (Community strategys part) courses of actions to obtain vision.

Relevance with Communicative Actions Paradigm Role of planner Efforts on nurturing communication

Findings on Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan Enhancement from facilitator of decision making (advocacy) to consensus builder

good Prevent false promises, correct misleading expectations, nurture hopes, policy and development design, address dialogue on values and interest. Source: Analysis, 2010

E. THE ROLE OF PLANNER

Firstly, it should be clear that the planner in this context was the entire member of DMC Pangandaran. Through the process, it is clearly seen that this program cannot possibly be conducted by planners alone. Besides that, one of the main purposes of this program is to encourage the participation of local community. It aims to allow community as a subjectinstead of object as it used to- in planning process.

Due to the output about the planning paradigm, so basically the role of planner in this context tends to be an advocate planner. Basically Davidoff (1965) addressed that advocate planner do two main elopements: technical assistance and representation. The expansion of two elements stretch towards several things as follows: 1) Responsible to a particular interest group in community; 2) Attempt to express groups values and objectives in the plans that he/she (the advocate planner) produce; 3) Assist the group in clarifying their values and objectives; 4) Engaged in expanding the size and scope of the organizations/beneficiaries; and 5) Carry out the planning process for the organization/beneficiaries and argue persuasively in favor of its planning proposal. Therefore, it can be understood that in this case, the role of planners is not only to serve public interest in the village but also to facilitate stakeholders, including local community in the recovery process. Table 3 Relevancy between Advocate Planner Role and DMC Pangandarans Action in Pananjung Village CSPs Enactment DMC Pangandarans Action in Pananjung Village CSPs Relevance with the role as Enactment advocate planner Conduct and provide basic information of the village (i.e. monograph, maps, natural hazards records, etc.) Preparation for rational analysis

Preliminary introduction of CSRRP and CSP. Communicate with JRF representatives, Ministry of Public Works, local governments, other NGOS, etc. Training for TIP, BKM, assist the Transect, assist the community analysis on transect findings, etc. Reporting and budgeting documentation Assist the community meetings and decision making

Delivering planning process to the target groups Representing the community Technical assistance for the community Rational analysis manner Facilitate decision making by citizen and build consensus Source: Analysis, 2010

F. CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the paper it can be inferred that Pananjung Village CSP has gave us many interesting points to be addressed within key points of planning theorys discourse. In short, related to the arguments for and against planning, we can really learn that dealing between spatial arrangement and disaster management indeed demanding for intervention from planning within public domain. Following, the approach used in CSP enactment is indeed interesting which consist of mix identity of advocacy planning, comprehensive rational and communicative action. Some highly appreciated point that we have to acknowledge is the fact that through the approach theres a significant objectives improvement, from only as baseline for accessing funding into baseline for general villages spatial plan. Lastly, we also can learn several praxises about the role of advocate planner in undertaking their capabilities. To enrich the long run discourse about planning theory, here are several interesting conclusions gained from CSP experiences which indeed still demanding for further discourse : 1) Concerns of planners existence. The existence of planner in the role of advocate planner gave several added values like their will to represent particular, handicapped, and neglected groups. However, the issue then shift into the future position of those groups after the service time of the planner, whether during short time of planning process then it then give appropriate power for them to stand alone. 2) Final objective of advocacy planning. We found that final objective of advocacy planning can be attained. This then back by Bolan (1967) said that advocacy foster conflict, where seas planners would do better to focus on building consensus. However, in Pananjung case, people realized that the planner and their idea was the way for the community to gain funding to build their settlement, so maybe they were simply only

after the aid. In short, the planner has previously equipped themselves with knowledge and resources, which gave them power and bargaining position. 3) Advocacy planning and the larger scale. One of the critics we can find from many literature that criticizing advocacy planning is that their position which still within the larger status quo system; and it stated as politically naive because theres no additional enforcement for the planning product to be empowered within the political arena. However CSP experience showed that basically product of advocacy planning can also empower community to have better bargain position at larger level. 4) Sustainability concern and the role of local government/existed institutions. Question of sustainability instantly emerged due to the fact that advocacy planning was a project based. Thus, it also tends to become only as community organizing and social protest (Brooks, 2002). To overcome this issue, basically we suggest enrichment of the community organizing as a capacity building of local government their mindset, value due to advocacy planning, leaderships, knowledge, and so forth. Therefore, the value and spirit resulted from advocacy planning manner will still existed and then assure that administrative system can acknowledge outputs from this planning activity.

G. REFERENCES
---------- . 2008. Pananjung Village Community Settlement Plan. Pangandaran: DMC Pangandaran Office [Ref. type: public document] Abriansyah, T. Sind, E. S. 2007. Tsunami Pangandaran. Bandung: Penerbit Semenanjung [Ref. type: book] Bolan, R. S . 1967. Emerging Views of Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Volume 33 [Ref. type: journal] Brook, M. P. 2002. Planning Theory for Practicioners. Chicago : The American Planning Association [Ref. type: book] Ceckoway, B. 1994. Paul Davidoff and Advocacy Planning in Retrospect. Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring [Ref. type: journal] Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners Volume 31 [Ref. type: journal] Klosterman, R. E. 1996. Arguments For and Against Planning. [Available online : http://www.wou.edu/~khes/geog425/klosterman.pdf]

Mandlebaum, Seymour J . Mazza, Luigi . Burchell, Robert W . 1996 . Practicing Planning Theory in a Political World . Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University [Ref. type: book] Miles, Mathew B. Huberman, A. Michael. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, California: Sage Publications [Ref. type: book] Wisner, Ben. et al. 2004. At Risk: Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge [Ref. type: book]