University of Nigeria Virtual Library

Serial No ISSN: 978-2702-04-8

Author 1

MBA, A.H.C

Author 2 Author 3

Title

Principles and Practice of Urban and Regional

Planning in Nigeria

Keywords

Description

Principles and Practice of Urban and Regional

Planning in Nigeria

Category

Environmental Science

Publisher Mekslink Publishers (Nig)

Publication Date 1992

Signature

PRINCIPLES AND PKAC~ICB UF

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

IN NIGERIA

PRINCIPLES m D PRACTICE OF

Eds H. Chike Mba :oy U. Ogbazi K. 0. Eibhi

@ -H. Chike Mba, Jdy U. Ogbazi, K. 0. Efobi ,1992

All r~ghts reserred: Except for the purcru~cn UI ruwjarcrl, r e v w or criticism, no part of t h ~ s publication may be reptaduced. stow in e retried system, or transmitted in anv tom M by m y ncens. electronic, mechanical photocopying. -?ding or othewse &th.~ut the'ptior written permission. of Mskslink Publishers (Nip,)

MEKSLINK PUBLISHERS (NIG.) P .B. 5039 Pvvka hambra State, Nipria.

Covsr Design: Chirnezie Chuta Dept of Fine and Applied Arts University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

PREFACE This text in principles and practice of urban and regional planning

in Nigeria i s intended for the following broad categories of people: stu- dents at the introductory stages of their studies in urban and regional planning, architecture, estate management, land surveying, quantity surveying, building technology, geography,and allied fields. It will also be useful to other students in the social sciences as well as members of the public who are interested in the problems of urban and rural commu- nities in Nigeria.

Although introductory courses in urban and regional planning have become mandatory for students of the faculty of environmental design and related disciplines in Nigeria, there are yet no books that focus adequately on the problems of the physical environment in Nigeria at that level. Most of the discussions on the urban and regional planning situation in the country are usually found in scholarly journals.

A text that not only deals with the basic principles of urban and regional planning but also focuses on the Nigerian situation is imperative at this time. The editors of this text have been motivated by the desire to respond to this identified need. It is hoped that the needs of the majority of would-be readers will be met.

H. Chike Mba Joy U. Ogbazi K.O. Efobi

INTRODWCTIOY This i s a book on the principles and practice of urban and regional

planning in Nigeria. As a t e x t on principles, it deals with basic pIanning issues. I t discusses the principles of urban and regional planning as derived from the developed countries, but as practised within the Nigerian context. The practice of the principles inevitably mirrors the cultural and particular circumstances of Nigeria as a lar-gcly rural nation that i s rapidly becoming urbanised. The urbanisation prscess has, more- over, proceeded without proportionate increases in hot+ infrastructural facilities and industrialisation process. This i s the point of difference and the cause of the divergent paths.

The text has been divided into nine sections each of which'deals with related issues. This i s with a view to enhancing coherence and ensuring ctarity in understanding. Each of the sections and chapters can indeed be read as desired by students.

Part I deals with the general urban planning perspectives and histo- rical developments. Chapter 1 gives a preview of urban planning perspec- tives and the various concepts that have emerged over time. tt i s from that reference point that historical development of urban planning in Nigeria i s discussed in chapter 2.

Part l I introduces the basic physical elements of urban planning and development. The techniques of site selection and analysis are presented in chapter 3. That provides the background for site planning practice which i s discussed in chapter 4.

Part 1 1 1 deals with housing development issues. The basic require- ment for good housing layout designs are first introduced in chapter 5. I t i s hoped that familiarity with these basic materials will facilitate appreciation of some of the issues raised in chapter 6 which deals with housing policies and programmes in Nigeria.

Part IV deals with urban transportation planning and mass transit issues. The basic principles of urban transportation planning are first presented in chapter 7. It thus provides the background for the mass transit issues discussed in chapter 8.

Part V discusses environmental improvement and urban design issues. The fundamental concepts in landscape planning are presented in chapter 9. Environmental considerations are then related to a specific project topic - schools - i n chapter 10. Chapter 11 concludes this w t i o n with a discussion on the general principles of urban design.

Par t IV focuses on the planning process, comprehensive planning and master plan making. Issues related to the planning process are

preszn:cd in chaptsr 12. Chapter 13 cor;cluc!es this section with a dis- cussion on comprehensive planning and master plan making processes.

Part VII discusses planning administration and planning implemen- t a t i o n in Nigeria. A detailed description of the planning administration issues i s presented in chapter 14 while the problems encountered in planning implementation in Nigeria are discussed in chapter 15. Examples on plan irnplcmentation process are drawn from the new Federal capital, Abuja as well as from the twin city of Owerri, Imo State.

Part Vl ll introduce5 the basic principles of regional planning. Thts is briefly presented in chapter 16 which i s intended to serve es an intro- duction to the rapidly developing subject area.

Part IX discusses the more recent topical issue of rural development and planning. The role of urban and regional planners in rural develop- ment programmes in Nigeria i s presented in chapter 17. In chapter 18, which i s the concluding chapter, a detailed discussion of the methodolo- gies for development of rural areas i s presented.

The 18-chapter text deals with issues which are quite topical in Nigeria today. Issues related to data collection and analysis, as well as evaluation have not been included. They are general techniques which can be found in many of the existing texts on the subject. They have been excluded for want of space.

H. Chike Mba, Ph.D. Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning University o f Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

Fig 4. I Fig 4.2 Fig 4.3

Fig 4.4 Fig 7.1 Fig 7.2 Fig 9.1 -3

9.4-5 9.6 -8 9.9-1 1

Fig 11 .I Fig 11.2

1 1.3 11.4 1 1.5

LIST 01 Site Plan of a four Site Plan of two fo Site Plan of a six beuruur~~ swrt.y lrlaln DWKJ~~KJ vvlth the guest house and boys quarters. Typical Subdivision size plan Retationship between land use and Transportation Needs The Transporation Planning Process Plants in the Urban Landscape Plants in the Urban Landscape contitwed. Drab and bare Urban Landscape Landscape features in the Urban Area Problems of Spatial Relationships The three visual components of the Public domain Urban Design Procedure Major Path along Ogui Road in Enugu A Nodal Centre a t Oconnor/Ogui Road Intersection in Enugu. The Planning Process The Process for Preparing a Community Facilities Plan The Process of Comprehensive Planning and Master Plan Making Model of Policy Implementation Organisational Chart for Rural Development

LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES Map of Nigeria showing Anambra State Map of Anambra State showing Enugu Map of Enugu showing Emene Map of Emene showing the site The Site Topography, slope and natural drainage Selected lntra-Urban Bus Transit Services in Nigeria Selected lnter- Urban Bus Transit Services in Nigeria Strategic Themes of the Master Plan for Abuja Housing Provision 1980-1988 Manpower Strength of the Ministries Population Projection by Area and Age Average Household Monthly lncome by State in Rural Nigeria, Average Household Monthly Income by State in Urban Nigeria 1983-1984 National Development Plan: Capital Programme and Target Growth Rate Gross Domestic Product a t Current Factor Cost Selected General Features by States Nigerian Roads Road Densities 1978-1 980 Sources of Rural Water Supply Percentage distribution of Households by Sources of water supply by State in Rural Nigeria Percentage Distribution of Households by Sources of Water Supply by State in Urban Nigeria Percentage Distribution of households by Electricity Supply By State in Rural Nigeria Percentage Distribution of Households by Electricity Supply By State in Urban Nigeria. lndicatorsof Agricultural Development lndicators of Educational Development lndicators of Educational Development. lndicators of Health Development lndicators of Health Care Development AclSievements so far. made under the Anambra State Rural Development Programme Roads,May ,1987

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Dr. H.C. Mba -

Arc. K.O. Efobi -

hllrc 1 I I nnhz17i -

Senior Lecturer Department of Urban & Regional Plann- ing, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus Lecturer, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, University o t Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

1 p r t l l r ~ Department of Urban & Regio- 1, University of Nigeria, Enugu

.a. & " # I 0. d.". " y u u L , LII L". V. , 1

nal Planning Campus

4. Mr. K.E.O. lloabuchi - Senior Lecti

University of Nigeria, Enugu C 5. Dr. E.I. Agwu - Senior Lecturer, Urban 2

Planning Programme, Irno S1 sity, Okigwe

6. Dr.1.C. Ugwu - Senior Lecturer, Departmer

Dr. N.N. Elekwa -

Arc. N.M. Obinegbo -

Arc. C.A. Udeh -

t t of Urban & Hegio~al PI anning, Anambra State University. of Technology, Enugu Campus Senior Lecturer in Planning & Community Development, Sub-Department of Public Administration and Local Government, University of Nigeria, Nsukka R Senior Lecturer & Ag. Head, Department of Architecture, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus Lecturer in Urban Design & Architecture, Department of Architecture, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Preface i Introduction . .

I 1

List of figures iv List of Maps and Tables v Notes on Contributors vi

Part I : URBAN PLANNING PERSPECTIVES AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS.

1 . Urban Planning :Perspectives and Emerging Concept 2 . Historical Development of Urban Planning in Nigeria

PART I I . PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 3. Site Selection and Analysis 4. Site Planning

PART I I I HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 5. Housing and Layout Designs 6. The Dilemmas of Housing Programmes in Nigeria

PART IV TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND MASS TRANSSIT ISSUES

7 . Urban Transportation Planning 8. Inter and Intra Urban Bus Transit Services in Nigeria :

A critical Evaluation

PART V : ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AND UR3AN DESIGN ISSUES

9. Landscape Planning and Design 10. Environmental Protection and Beautification of Schools

1 1 . Urban Design and City Appearance

PART VI

12. 13.

PART Vi1

14.

15.

PLANNING PROCESS, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND MASTER PLAN MAKING The planning process 127 Comprehensive Planning and Master P(an Makinq 138 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMEN- TATION Planning Administration in a Local Planning Agency Planning Impiernentation in Nigeria

PART V I I I : REGIONAL PLANNING 16. Regional Planning :Basic Theory and Practice i88

PART I X RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

17. Rural Develophen-t Programmes in Nigeria :The Potential Role of the Urban and Regional Planner 210

18. Planning Metttodologies for the Development of Rural Settlements 220

PART I

URBAN PLANNING PERSPECTIVES AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS

URBAN PLANNING . PERSPECTIVES CONCEPTS H Chike Afhn

IMTRODUCTIQN Although the $ope of urban planning in

AND EMERGING

Nigeria, a n d indeed in many other developing countries, i s still-mainly monolithic and techrlica- Ily-oriented, the professicn has become largely mult~disciplinary in nature. This has been due to more recent interest in the profession, of n people from diverse disciplines. Most spectacular among these were people from social science backgrounds. This situation arose when the problems of urban areas became too complex for the highly specialised approaches of planning technocrats. This was more so when it was realised that for planners to be able to achieve their planning objectives, they need to understand the urban areas, their components and their. occupants as well as the decision makers for whom they work.

Historically, however, urban planning had been a physical develop- ment-oriented activity right from the early periods of human settlements (Morris, 1979). In fact, the current enlarged scope of urban planning i s a recent phenomenon. It was only within the later part of the 20th century, that the practice of urban planning in Europe, North America and the other more developed parts of the world has been immensely expanded and modernised to incorporate socioeconomic issues. Even ammg these more developed countries, the scope of urban and regional planning has been expanded xcording to their stages of development, historical and ideological backgrounds

The consequence has been variations in definition. For ~xarnple, Keeble (1969) defined town planning asa"the art and science of ordering

2

the use of land and siting of buildings and communication routes so as to secure the maximum practicable degree of economy, convenience, and beauty'! This i s obviously the perspective of a physical planner and i s the popular perspective currently in the less developed countries. It i s no longer the case in developed countries. Faludi (1973a) in Great Britain, defined urban planning as "application of scientific methods to policy making" with a view to increasing the validity of policies concerned with "the present and anticipated future of the environment". He, however, cautioned that planning i s not necessarily supposed to displace politics as a collective activity of people. In the context of the definition given by Faludi, planning i s viewed as a profession that uses the research methods of the social sciences for information gathering, analysis and plan preparation. Moreover, planning i s not an end in itself but a means to an end, which is the eventual decision-making. Additionally, the validity of the processes employed in planning enhances the ability of planners not only to understand the past and present situations, but also to predict desired future situations in the environment.

Again, in Great Britain, Roberts (1974) defined planning as "making choices among the options that appear open for the future, m d then securing the implementation, which depends on the allocation of the necessary resources". I t i s observable from this definition that Roberts relates planning to making of choices from alternative future options as well as execution of the selected alternative. This definition appears more specific on procedure. Moreover, it adds the issue of resource allocation as a condition'for successful planning implementa- tion. Planning i s regarded as both a decision making and a resource allocation tool. In this context, urban planning embraces management of the physical space and the environment within a framework of macro- economic resource allocation and political decision making.

Davidoff and Reiner (1962) i n the United States of America, de- fined planning as a "process of determining appropriate future action through a sequence of choices". Like Roberts, they related planning to the issue of choice making. They added that 'planning i s a set of proce- dures"adopted in making choices among alternatives and implementing the preferred option. They emphasized that the same procedures are adopted in planning irrespective of the substantive forms of the planning activity. Areas of substantive focus could be urban land use planning or national economic planning.

A close look at the different definitions of planning will readity show that a common Feature exists among them. Each 'has as its prime objective, making preparations for the future. The focus has been antici- pation, prediction, and preemption of the future with a view to.prepa-

3

ring for it. In effect, any plan aimed a t solving o l ~ l y current problems will be out-ofdate soon after i t s completion.

THE PERSPECTIVES OF PLANNING Although a commonality has been identified among the different

definitions of planning, spme salient differences still exist. These diffe- rences have given rise to divergent perspectives which can be broadly categorised as physical and socioeconomic. While the first is mainly design-oriented, the second involves considerable input from the social, economic, political, and psychological viewpoints within the society in which planning-is being undertaken. While the former gave rise to what was referred to as 'comprehensive' or 'traditional' planning, the later gave rise to 'structure planning', 'systems approach planning' and 'advocacy planning'.

THE PHYSICAL PLANNING PERSPECTIVE As has been earlier stated, the.greater part of the history of town

planning as an activity has been largely physical in scope. This was in spite of the archeological evidence that towns and other urban centres owe their origin to agricultural production activity which i s indeed economic in nature (op cit.). Until the late 1960's, even the British Town Planning Institute's statement of objectives still portrayed urban planning as a technical vocation. It was intended to serve the purpose of subdividing land and controlling i t s use. The situation was also about the sa-me in the United States of America before the 1960's. In fact during the earlier period of the century, planning was not only regarded as an activity for beautification of cities but was also an extension of architectural designs. This i s about the stage in which Nigeria and other developing countries currently are.

The dominance of the physical perspective of planning in the early stages of planning history i s caused by two factors. First, most of the pioneer urban planners came from much techni~al backgrounds as architecture, engineering, and surveying. These included the Milesan architect, Hippodamus who was often referred to as 'father of town planningf and who was reputed for preparation of the master plan for the reconstruction of Miletus.from 479 BC. They also included some ancient Greek and Roman planners, Medieval, Renaissance and post lhdustrial Revolution physical planners. In fact, Ebenezer Howard's visionary ideas that were published in 1898 were an indirect reaction to thti shortcomings of physical planning. Ebenezer Howard, himself a court reporter, was not a planner. But his ideas were correct. His work immensely influenced such 20th century architectdesigners as Le

4

Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius and M. Wagner, Le Justement, Constantine Doxiadis and other utopians in the model cities they proposed. These Utopians did not receive any formal training in the theory and practice of modern urban and regional planning. They also did not have exposure to the social science theories. However. urban and regional planning as an interdisciplinary subject requires appreciable exposure to both the theories and techniques of the physicatlyariented disciplines as well as those of the social sciences.

Second, the massive drift of population to the urban areas resulting from the Industrial Revolution contributed in no small measure to over- congestion in urban areas. Overxongested urban facilities such as housing and the associated infrastructure led to incidence of plagues. Efforts towards combating those plagues and prevention of future occurrence led to establishment of hea!th codes. In nearly every case in Europe, North America and most other developed parts of the world, the health codes usually specified minimum standards for housing and other facilities. These standards were supplied by the architects and engineers, a t times on the basis of recornmendations of health officers, and a t times on the basis of intuition alone. That approach differed significantly from the much more modern practice of basing design standards on evidence derived from socioeconomic and environmental research.

The Comprehensive Planning Concept Although che physical plarlners' approaches to urban planning were

considerably narrow in scope, they were often aimed a t producing long range plans that covered all types of developments which use land. I t was claimed that such plans would maximise the overall benefit of such land (Roberts, 1974). The physical planners in fact, over the years, referred to their long-range plans as comprehensive plans. In fact, the concept of comprehensive planning was popular in the United Kingdom up to 1965, and in the IJnited States of America up to 1967, after whi ch. fieriods ttiey became de-emphasized.

The change in attitude towards the concept in the United Kingdom was as a result of the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) Report on the future of development plans in that country. Before that, there had been criticisms of the claims of comprehensiveness by planners.

In the United States of America, the de-emphasis on comprehensive planning was sequel to the debates on the issue a t conferences of the American Institute of Planners during the late 1950's and early 1960's. Meyerson (1965) had strongly advocated for building the middle-range of the planning process to fil l the gap between the short-range design- oriented plans and the long-I-ange plans of physical planners in the

5

United States of America before the 1960's. Eanfield (1959) had also called for a rational planning process

which would in eflect'better promote the idea of comprehensiveness in planning. He had maintained tk3t if the objectives of planning were to be achieved, they must be pursued in a rational manner.

Li ndbl om (1959) highlighted the difficulties inherent in attfmpts to achieve real comprehcnsivencss in the planning process. He stressed that comprehensive planning could only be appliceble to solutions of simple problems. Even in such situatiohs, it has to-be practised in a modified form. He preferred that planners adopt the incremental plann- ing approach which would imply dealing with issue as and when they . a r i ~ .

Altshuler (1965) arguing along the same line as Lindblorn, stated that however ideal the real comprehensive planning could be, planners were grossly inequipped to achieve comprehensiveness in their work. Attainment of comprehensivess would require considerable depth in knowledge in al l subjects that deal with urban issues. That implies appreciable level of knowledge not only in the physical design subject areas but also in the social sciences. However, that would be an unrealis- tic expectation.

In general, the comprehensive planning approach has been reputed for i t s rigidity. I t i s for this reason that it i s often referred to as blue- print planning. Moreover, i t i s illequipped to deal with the inevitable t ~cioeconornic issues that arise in the urban system. Additionally, it is prone to adoption of partial solutions to problems, and does not have adequate considerations for human side of urban issues.

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PLANNING PERSPECTIVE The socio-economic perspective of planning is a more recent input

to the planning profession. I t addresses urban issues from the behavioural points of view which are usually based on the theories and models of the social sciences. This planning perspective became popular with the interest shown by people from social science background in the planning profession. These included sociologists, economists, geographers, politi- cal scientists and psychologists.

Among these social scientists , the sociologists were the pioneers in seeking explanations and solutions to urban problems mainly from the. point of view of behavioural models and theories. Burgess (1925, 1929) provided some explanations for urban growth in the United States of America on the basis of concentric circle theory. Homer Hoyt (1939) explained the 'structure and growth of residential neighbourhoods in Ametican cities' on the basis of the sector theory. Harris and Ullman 6

(1945) accounted for the development of differentiated sections of urban areas on the basis of multi-nuclei theory. Louis Wirth {!938) provided explanations for urbanisation, and urbanism 'as a way of life.' This was an extension of the explanation of the change in the family way of life from traditional kin-group (gcmcinshafre) relationship to social group (~cscllshnlrc) and contractual relationship as a society moves from a rural to an urban environment.

Social psychologists and environmental psychologists have also made considerable contributions towards development of urban planning and design. Their contributions have however been mostly in thearea of urban design. Wingo (1963) gave some interesting account of the contri- butions of social and environmental psychologists towards the under- $anding of the important issue of the relationship between cities and spaces.

Economic geographers such as Christaller (1933) and Losch ( I 939) had provided scme explanation for development of systems of urbar! settlements in Western Germany on the basis of the central place theory. Similar studies carried out in the United States of America showed that the central place theory was confirmed i-n the Iowa region. Moreover, the theory applied faiily well to distribution of urban commercial activities.

Political scientists on their part have been qgite effective in influen- cing urban policies in many developed countries, especially in the United States of America, It was, in fact, the political scientists that were most prominent in challenging th'e claims of comprehensive planning. Among these were Lindblom (op cit.), Altshuler (op cit.), and Etzioni (1967).

In general, the input$ of social scientists have immensely affected modern urban planning theory and practice. Such inputs have not only highlighted the weakness of the physical perspective of planning with i t s claim on comprehensiveness, but have also resulted in development of later planning concepts which are both physically and socioeconomic- cally oriented.

MORE RECENT PLANNING CONCEPTS More recent planning concepts which imorporate both physical and

socioeconomic planning perspectives are now available. These include: structure planning, systems approach planning and advocacy planning.

Structure Planning Concept Structure planning (a t times referred to as strateqic plahning) i s a

flexible, activity planning approach geared -towards translation of 'national and regional, economic and social policies' into a realisable form a t the local comrrwnity level (Ratcliffe, 1974). It provides a deci-

7

sion-making framework for implementation of less flexible local plans. The structure planning concept uses updated methods of survey and analysis as well as the techniques of goal formulation and evaluation. In effect, it i s a process plar .~ ing approach unlike the comprehensive planning which i s a blueprint planning approach.

Since different elements of a structure plan require different com- leti ion times, structure plans are not targeted to a specific time-frame. However, they will indicate the aspects that demand short-term action before those that demand long-term action. Three distinct stages in the structure planning process are discernible. These include: (a) Formulation of objectives incorporating such issues as determina-

tion of problems and planning potentials and opportunities. (b) Formulation and testing of alternative strategies. These are based

on the output from the survey- and analysis derived above. (c) lniplementation of the selected alternative as well as monitoring

and scheduling of development. The structure planning concept was considered to be an improve-

ment over the comprehensive planning concept in the sense that i t i s not a static approach. Moreover, i t integrates both physical and socio- economic factors in plan preparation.

Systems Planning Concept The systems planning concept i s an approach that incorporates all t

factors in the planning process. These factors are physical, ecological and social. In order to achieve this objective, the systems planning concept requires considerable technical expertise for forecasting future

1969) expressed the uiew ornprises human activities

al l" l l lall IIILCI I E I C I L I U I I W I I ~ V V I L ~ I I I U V V ~ UI p~uple, materials and energy.' While t he physical framework comprises buildings and adapted spaces, the flows are represented by communication channels.

The systems planning concept was popularised in the United Sta tes of America by Chapin towards the close of the 1960 decade. In Grcat Britain , however, Chadwick was the most "prominent propo- nent of t h e concept. The systems planning concept was quite popular in both countries up to the middle of the 1970 decade.

Perhaps the greatest problem with the systems planning concept i s the difficulty in i t s general applicability. Moreover, it is often not well understood by planners. Many practising planners will need to acquire the high-level technical skills required by the approach.

Advocacy Planning Concept Advocacy planning which was initiated by Davidoff (1965) puts

forward the view that the planner should understand the problems of his clients and should therefore be in a position to plead on their behalf with regard to the solution of those problems.

In his presentation of advocqcy planning (or pluralistic planning), Paul Davidoff stated that planners should act 'as advocates of the interests of government and other groups'. Moreover, urban plans were better produced from a synthesis of political, social and economic interests. In effect, 'plural plans rather 'than a single agency plan shogld be presented to the public.' The planner's role would be to present the plans of many interest groups in a community.

Davidoff stated that none of the existing planning concepts was capable of representing pluralistic views and interests. He maintained that since city planning.was a means of determining policy, such policy should be determined by political process and debate in a democratic system.

The advocacy planning concept indicates in clear terms that since no single plans are ideal, i t would be better to allow as many alternative plans as possible from as many different interest groups as possible. However, the approach appears to put the planner in the position of mainly a collator and promoter of other people's plans.

CONCLUSION From the discussions in this chapter, i t is obvious that both the

physical planning perspective and the socioeconomic planning perspec- tive are very essential for effective planning of the urban system. While t t ~ e pl~ysiiai ~lanning perspective has the un ique merit c f frorroting orderly urban development, and visual urban form, the socio-economic planning perspective .has the merit of appreciably taking social and human factors into consideration in the planning pt-ocess. Consequently, there i s need to integrate the merits of both perspectives.

Over the years, the two broad planning perspectives have given rise to some operational planning concepts. The physical planning perspec- tive led to the comprehensive planning approach, the popularity of which later diminished as a result of its extreme unrealistic rigidity. Integrated socio-economic and physical planning perspectives gave rise to the structure planning concept, the systems planning concept and the advocacy planning concept. Each of these three concepts has i t s merits and demerits. However, they all have some important characteristics in common. They are not rigid in nature. Moreover, they are attempts to integrate both physical, socio-economic and human factors in urban

planning. The extent to which these concepts will continue to be valid will determine the extent to which they will be acceptable to interested planners and decis ;ion makers.

HtFtdENC; tS

Altshuler, A., 'The Goals of Comprehensive Planning", Jozrrnal o f the American Jnstitutc o f Plnnners, Vol .31, No. 3, August 1965.

Banfield, E.C., "Ends and Means in Plahning". Inr~~maiional Social Science Joun~nl , Vol . 1 I , pp. 361 -368,1959.

Burgess, E.W., 'The Growth of the City", Proceedings of /he American Sociologic~rl Society, No. 18, pp .85-89, 1923.

Chadwick, G .F., A Systems View ofPlarzning, Oxford: Pergamon, 1971. chapin, F.S., "Activity Systems and Urban Structure: A Working

-

Scheme," Jotma1 of the American Institute of PIanncrs, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1968.

Childe, V. Gordon; 'The Urban Revolution", in Walter, J., and Cairns, D.S. (eds.), Cities and (knige, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973, 588p.

Christal ler, W., Central Places in Sou therri Germany, translated by C.W . Baskin, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Davidoff , P., Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning', Journal of American Institute of Pinrlners, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1965.

Davidoff, P., and Reiner, Thomas A., "A Choice 'Theory of Planning", Journal o f the Arnericarr Institrlte of Plarzners, Vol. 28, May 1962.

Dechiara, Joseph, and Koppelman, Lee, Urban Planning and Design Criteria, New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1975,646~.

Etzioni, Amitai, "MixedScanning: A 'Third' Approach to Decision Making", Priblir Adrninistrntion R ~ v i e w ; December 1967.

Faludi A., A Reader in Plnrzning Theory, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1973a, 402p.

Harris, C.D., and Ullman, E.L., "The Nature of Cities", Arrnals of the American Society o f Political Science, No. 242, pp. 7--17.

Howard, E benezer, Garden Cities o f Tomorrow, Massachusetts: M. I .T. Press, 1965.

~ o ~ t , Homer, The S t r u r t ~ m and Growth o f Residerltiul Neighbourhoods in American Cities, Washington D.C. : Federal Housing Administra tion, 1939.

Keeble, L., "Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning" Estate Gazette, 1969.

Lindblom,,C.E., 'The Science of Muddling Through", Public Adnzinistra- tion Review, Vol. 1959.

Losch, A., The Economics o f Locution, translated by W.H. Woglom, 10

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954. McLoughlin, J. El ., Ilrhtrn and Regional Plaming: A Systemc Appmarh ,

London: Faber and Faher, 1969. Meyerson, M. "Building the Middle Range for Comprehensive

Planning", Jozrrizal of the American Irzsfitut~ of Plarznurs, Vol, 22, No. 2,1956.

Morris, A.E.J., Histor1 o f ' Urharz f i rm, London: George Gordon Ltd., 1979,117~.

Planning Advisory Group, The Future of Development Plans, H .M .S.O .. London, 1965.

Watcliffe, J ., Arl Ijztroductiorz t a Town and Country Planr~itrg, London: Hutchinson, 1974,37833.

Roberts, ~a rgar i t , An Introduction to Urban Planning Techrziqz~~, London: Hutchinson Press, 1974.

Wingo, L. (ed.) Citic.s urzd Spuce, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1963.

Wirth, Louis, "Urbanism as a Way of Life", Aine~icarz Journal of Socio- logy, No. 44, pp. 1-24, 1938.