Journal of Planning and Education Research

Index for Volumes 16-20

Title Index

1996 Chester Rapkin Award for the best article in volume 15: Acceptance speech. Report. K. Temkin and W. Rohe. 16:229.

1997 Chester Rapkin Award for the best article in volume 16: Acceptance speech. Report. L. J. Vale. 17:276.

1998 Chester Rapkin Award for the best article in volume 17. Report. J. Byers. 18:271.

1999 Chester Rapkin Award for the best article in volume 18. Report. S. Guhathakurta. 19:321.

2000 Chester Rapkin Award for the best article in volume 19. Report. P. Healey. 20:490-491.

A ladder of empowerment. E. M. Rocha. 17:31-44.

A model for teaching environmental justice in a planning curriculum. Instruction. R. O. Washington and D. Strong. 16:280-290.

A well-wisher’s comments. Comment. E. R. Alexander. 17:274-275.

After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. E. Talen. 16:79-91.

An intertemporal efficiency test of a greenbelt: Assessing the economic impacts of Seoul’s greenbelt. C. M. Lee. 19:41-52.

Anchor points for planning’s identification. Comment. D. Myers and ACSP Strategic Marketing Committee. 16:223-224.

Anticipatory analysis in environmental planning: Managing argument in wellhead protection. G. Lindsey and C. Schoedel. 16:243-256.

Applications of spreadsheet optimization capabilities in teaching planning methods: Facility location and spatial interaction. Instruction. J. R. Ottensmann. 20:247-258.

Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. R. V. George and M. C. Campbell. 20:163-175.

Beirut/Berlin: Choices in planning for the suture of two divided cities. J. L. Nasr. 16:27-40.

Beyond confused noise: Ideas toward communicative procedural justice. J. Hillier. 18:14-24.

Building abusivism and condono: An estimate for a metropolitan area of Sardinia, Italy. C. Zoppi 20:215-233.

Chester Rapkin: Contributions to the profession of planning and the Rapkin Award in JPER. In Memoriam. R. Pushchak. 20:492-493.

Choosing a house: The relationship between dwelling type, perception of privacy, and residential satisfaction. L. L. Day. 19:265-275.

Ciudad. Guayana: From growth pole to metropolis, central planning to participation. T. Angotti. 20:329-338.

Collaborative planning broadens the local economic development policy debate. Comment. M. Warner. 19:201-206.

Comment on voluntary methods of land use control in planning. Comment. A. C. Nelson. 19:426.

Commentary on neighborhood planning. Comment. W. D. Keating and N. Krumholz. 20:111-114.

Commentary on the ACSP mini-symposium. M. B. Teitz. 20:443-444.

Comments on Anchor Points. Comment. P. Niebanck, M. Howland, S. J. Mandelbaum, J. E. Innes, A. Helling, and D. Sawicki. 16: 225-228.

Comments on Birch, Dalton and Hopkins papers. R. A. Yabes. 20:445-447.

Common ground for integrating planning theory and GIS topics. Instruction. A. Esnard and E. B. MacDougall. 17:55-62.

Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism? M. Neuman. 19:343-350.

Communicative planning theory: A Foucauldian assessment. R. Fischler. 19:358-368.

Community organizations recruiting community participation: Predicaments in planning. H. S. Baum. 18:187-199.

Community service learning in planning education: A framework for course development. Instruction. S. L. Roakes and D. Norris-Tirell. 20:100-110.

Comparing in-class and computer-mediated discussion using a communicative action framework. Instruction. R. Willson. 19:409-418.

Conservation, participation, and power: Protected-area planning in the coastal zone of Belize. R. Few. 19:401-408.

Constructing the future in planning: A survey of theories and tools. D. Myers and A. Kitsuse. 19:221-231.

Convergence trends in formal and informal housing markets: The case of Turkey. A. Pamuk. 16:103-113.

Deserving a wider audience: An interactive process for graduate student writing in landscape architecture and planning. D. L. Erickson. Instruction. 16:137-144.

Designing a “neighborhood deal” for urban sewers: A case study of Semarang, Indonesia. D. Whittington, J. Davis, H. Miarsono, and R. Pollard. 19:297-308.

Discretion, flexibility, and certainty in British planning: Emerging ideological conflicts and inherent political tensions. M. Tewdwr-Jones. 18:244-256.

Do plans matter? A game-theoretic model for examining the logic and effects of land use planning. G. J. Knaap, L. D. Hopkins, and K. P. Donaghy. 18:25-34.

Does growth management matter? The effect of growth management on economic performance. A. C. Nelson and D. R. Peterman. 19:277-285.

Doing democracy up-close: Culture, power, and communication in community building. X. S. Briggs. 18:1-13.

Dr. Pangloss finds his profession: Sustainability, transport, and land use planning in Britain. A. W. Evans. 18:137-144.

Editors’ note. M. Lauria and R. O. Washington. 17:371-372.

Editors’ note. M. Lauria and R. O. Washington. 18:370-371.

Editors’ notes. M. Lauria and R. O. Washington. 19:1, 19: 440-441.

Editors’ notes. M. Lauria and R. O. Washington. 16:314- 315.

Editors’ report. M. Hibbard and E. Weeks. 20:5-6.

Educating the educators: Global dimensions of collaborative fieldwork in an urban region of Southeast Asia. Instruction. C. Auffrey and M. Romanos. 20:353-364.

Embedding GIS applications into resource management and planning activities of local and indigenous communities: A desirable innovation or a destabilizing enterprise? P. A. Kwaku Kyem. 20:176-186.

Empathological places: Residents’ ambivalence toward remaining in public housing. L. J. Vale. 16:159-175.

Enhancing the capacity of community-based organizations in East St. Louis. K. M. Reardon. 17:323-333.

Environmental equity in central cities: Socioeconomic dimensions and planning strategies. K. D. Pijawka, J. Blair, S. Guhathakurta, S. Lebiednik, and S. Ashur. 18:113-123.

Environmental justice and the sustainable city. G. Haughton. 18:233-243.

Ethnicity, socio-cultural change, and housing needs. P. Ratcliffe. 19:135-143.

European planning doctrine: A bridge too far? A. Faludi. 16:41-50.

Faculty labor and intellectual capital: Furthering disciplinary development and institutional positioning in the urban planning academy. Report. B. Stiftel. 19:207-210.

Fair share or status quo? The Twin Cities livable communities act. E. G. Goetz. 20:37-51.

Fantasies and realities in university-community partnerships. H. S. Baum. 20:234-246.

Forgetting to plan. H. S. Baum. 19:2-14.

Formalizing the informal? The transformation of Cairo’s refuse collection system. R. Assaad. 16:115-126.

Forward to symposium on Community Outreach Partnership Centers: Forging new relationships between university and community. M. A. Stegman. 17:283-284.

Genesis of a Western European spatial policy? L. Albrechts. 17:158-167.

GIS in land use planning: Lessons from critical theory and the Gulf Islands. M. Holden. 19:287-296.

Goal achievement, relationship building, and incrementalism: The challenges of university-community partnerships. W. Wiewel and M. Lieber. 17:291-301.

Guest editor’s introduction: Integrating globalization and planning. F. Afshar and K. Pezzoli. 20:277-280.

Habitat II and the globalization of ideas. Comment. M. Leaf and A. Pamuk. 17:71-78.

Heavy industry, people, and planners: New insights on an old issue. R. J. Burby. 19:15-25.

How much for housing? Cautionary indications on the state of shelter concerns in planning education. Comment. D. Garr. 17:178-181.

How the others plan: Exploring the shape and forms of informal planning. H. Briassoulis. 17:105-117.

HyperSpace: Communicating ideas about the quality of urban spaces. Instruction. R. V. George. 17:63-70.

Identifying gainers and losers from transit service change: A method applied to Sacramento. G. L. Thompson. 18:125-136.

Implementing change in locally unwanted land use: The case of GSX. S. Kaufman and J. L. Smith. 16:188-200.

In lieu of required parking. D. C. Shoup. 18:307-320.

Informal settlement upgrading: Bridging the gap between the de facto and the de jure. B. van Horen. 19:389-400.

Information and attitudes toward mental health care facilities: Implications for addressing the NIMBY syndrome. L. M. Takahashi. 17:119-130.

Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. P. Healey. 19:111-121.

Institutionalizing university-community partnerships. R. T. LeGates and G. Robinson. 17:312-322.

Into the unknown or into planning? Managing the transition to work in the U.K. Instruction. N. Bailey. 18:73-77.

Introducing diversity into the planning curriculum: A method for department-wide implementation. Instruction. J. W. Looye and A. Sesay. 18:161-170.

Introduction to ACSP symposium on the state of the planning academy: Art, science, and education. B. Stiftel 20:397-398.

Introduction to special issue on globalization and planning. F. Afshar and K. Pezzoli. 20:277-280.

Introduction to symposium on Community Outreach Partnership Centers: Forging new relationships between university and community. M. M. Feld. 17:285-290.

Introduction to symposium: The limits to communicative planning theory. M. Lauria. 19:331-332.

Ironists under the skin. Comment. S. J. Mandelbaum. 18:78-81.

Is Thatcherism dead? The impact of political ideology on British planning. A. Thornley. 19:183-191.

Land use and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and quality of life. L. D. Frank. 20:6-22.

Land use planning and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and quality of life. L. Frank. 20:6-22.

Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain west: Evidence from Arizona. A. X. Esparza and J. I. Carruthers. 20:23-36.

Learning at a distance: Technology impacts on planning education. D. R. Godschalk and L. Lacey. Instruction. 20:476-489.

Learning from difference: The potentially transforming experience of community-university collaboration. M. E. Dewar and C. B. Isaac. 17:334-347.

Learning processes in development planning: A theoretical overview and case study. A. Ebrahim and L. Ortolano. 20:448-463.

Learning through conflict at Oxford. Comment. J. A. Throgmorton. 18:269-270.

Liberalism, neoliberalism, and capability generation: Toward a normative basis for planning in developing nations. S. Chakravorty. 19:77-85.

Linking planning theory and history: The case of development control. R. Fischler. 19:233-241.

Local government land use policy responses to the Century Freeway/Transitway. J. F. DiMento, S. Ryan, and D. van Hengel. 17:145-157.

Local planning and economic restructuring: A synthetic interpretation of urban redevelopment. J. Hackworth. 18:293-306.

Loyalty and the impossibility of Paretian advocacy planning. T. Sager. 18:103-112.

Managing growth in a climate of urban diversity: South Florida’s Eastward Ho! initiative. R. Turner and M. Murray. 20:308-328.

Manipulation in planning: The social choice perspective. T. Sager. 19:123-134.

Marginal spaces in the urban landscape: Regulated margins or incidental open spaces? A. M. Garde. 18:200-210.

Mission statement of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Report. ACSP Executive Committee. 16:303.

Mobile capital and economic development planning. D. C. Ranney. 20:281-292

Neighborhood planning. Commentary. W. D. Keating and N. Krumholz. 2000. 20:111-114.

Neighborhood regeneration: The state of the art. N. Carmon. 17:131-144.

New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. M. Huxley and O. Yiftachel. 19:333-342.

No more dreams of America: Citizen initiative, American transfer, and global exclusion in Poland. A. Graham 20:293-307.

On writing and tenure. Comment. A. Forsyth. 19:98-103.

Organic regionalism, corporate liberalism, and federal land management: Creating Pacific Northwest timber towns. M. Hibbard. 19:144-150.

Ours is not to question why, ours is just to quantify: A response. Comment. M. K. Heiman. 16:301-303.

Participating the public: Group process, politics, and planning. K. Lowry, P. Adler, and N. Milner. 16:177-187.

Patterns of doctrinal development. A. Faludi. 18:333-344.

Planning and design as the manufacture of transcendence. M. H. Krieger. 19:257-264.

Planning and urban rivalry in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1930s. J. Rodriguez. 20:66-76.

Planning as science: Engaging disagreement. L. D. Hopkins. 20:399-406.

Planning for metropolitan sustainability. S. M. Wheeler. 20:133-145.

Planning for recreation in rural England. N. Ravenscroft and J. Reeves 18:345-352.

Planning, governing, and the image of the city. Michael Neuman. 18:61-71.

Planning in the wake of Florida land scams. H. B. Stroud and W. M. Spikowski. 19:27-39.

Planning pedagogy and globalization: A content analysis of syllabi. Instruction. K. Pezzoli and D. Howe. 20:365-375.

Planning, representation, and the production of space in Lexington, Kentucky. K. Jones. 19:379-388.

Planning responses to global restructuring: Implications for major Korean cities. C. Cho. 16:269-279.

Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning. R. E. Klosterman. 17:45-54.

Planning the global countryside: Comparing approaches to teaching rural planning. Instruction. M. Hibbard and C. Römer. 19:86-92.

Planning the new urban university: The role of planning departments. W. Wiewel, V. Carlson, and S. Friedman. 16: 127-135.

Planning the public: Some comments on empirical problems for planning theory. S. A. Abram. 19:351-357.

Planning theory at a crossroad: The third Oxford conference. Comment. O. Yiftachel. 18:267-269.

Plans, planners, and aggregates mining: Constructing an understanding. K. Wernstedt. 20:77-87.

Political ecology and planning theory. R. Harrill. 19:67-75.

Political ideology, social change, and planning practice in Namibia. B. Frayne. 20:52-65.

Practice through a lens: A metaphor for planning theory. Instruction. N. Harris. 19:309-315.

Practitioners and the art of planning. E. L. Birch. 20:407- 422.

Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. N. Verma. 16:5-14.

Preferences for state and regional planning efforts among California mayors and city planning directors. A. Kanarek and M. Baldassare. 16:93-102.

Preparing planners for a globalizing world: The planning school at the University of Guelph. F. Afshar. Instruction. 20:339-352.

Private property in Africa: Creation stories of economy, state, and culture. D. A. Krueckeberg. 19:176-182.

Problem-based learning: A bridge between planning education and planning practice. Instruction. A. Shepherd and B. Cosgriff. 17:348-357.

Professionally related public service as applied scholarship: Guidelines for the evaluation of planning faculty. Report. B. Checkoway. 17:358-360.

Property for everyone and how to achieve it: The resident’s property tax. Comment. D. A. Krueckeberg. 18:171-175.

Public finance and transit-oriented planning: New evidence from southern California. M. G. Boarnet and R. Crane. 17:206-219.

Public support for remedial action planning: Willingness to pay in Brown County, Wisconsin. G. Knaap, L. Smith, and P. Johnsen. 16:257-268.

Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. E. R. Alexander. 19:242-256.

Reflections on the spatial mismatch debate. Comment. H. Bauder. 19:316-321.

Report from the editors. M. Hibbard and E. Weeks. 20:5.

Report from the editors. M. Lauria and R. O Washington. 16: 3-4.

Report from the editors. M. Lauria and R. O. Washington. 17:1-2.

Response to E. R. Alexander, “What do planners need to know?” Commentary. C. P. Ozawa and E. P. Seltzer. 20:381-382.

Response to Birch, Hopkins, and Dalton. M. Howland. 20:440-442.

Rethinking fiscal impacts. E. J. Heikkila and W. Davis. 16:201-211.

Review editors’ report. J. Gaber and S. Gaber. 20:115.

Revitalizing cities: Attitudes towards city-center living in the United Kingdom. T. Heath. 20:464-475.

Russian city planning, democratic reform, and privatization: Emerging trends. C. Shove and R. Anderson. 16:212-221.

San Francisco Bay Area edge cities: New roles for planners and the general plan. P. S. McGovern. 17:246-258.

Saving land but losing ground: Challenges to community planning in the era of participation. M. Hibbard and S. Lurie. 20: 187-195.

Science and the people: A response to “Science by the people.” Comment. M. W. Garcia. 16:299-300.

Science by the people: Grassroots environmental monitoring and the debate over scientific expertise. Comment. M. K. Heiman. 16:291-299.

Simplicity and complexity in design for transportation systems and urban forms. J.E.D. Richmond. 17:220-230.

Stated preference for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of new urbanist sense of community. I. Audirac. 19:53-66.

Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education. Instruction. C. P. Ozawa and E. P. Seltzer. 18:257-266.

Teaching about property rights and the environment. Instruction. W. C. Baer. 17:168-177.

Teaching planning methods through modules. R. G. Mahayni, T. W. Sanchez, and E. D. Kelly. 18:353-360.

Teaching practice. H. S. Baum. 17:21-29.

The ambiguous role of private voluntary methods in public land use policy: A comment. Comment. H. M. Jacobs. 19:425-426.

The city of cinema: Interpreting urban images on film. Instruction. N. G. Leigh and J. Kenny. 16:51-55.

The experience of new planning faculty. Instruction. E. M. Hamin, D. J. Marcucci, and M. V. Wenning. 20:88-99.

The future of the future in planning: Appropriating cyberpunk visions of the city. R. Warren, S. Warren, S. Nunn, and C. Warren. 18:49-60.

The high cost of free parking. D. C. Shoup. 17:3-20.

The limits to communicative planning. M. Huxley. 19:369-377.

The multiplicities of planning. R. A. Beauregard. 20: 437-439.

The outsiders: Planning and transport disadvantage. D. Denmark. 17:231-245.

The planning profession and pedestrian safety: Lessons from Orlando. R. Miles-Doan and G. Thompson. 18:211-220.

The privatization of downtown public space: The emerging grade-separated city in North America. J. Byers. 17:189-205.

The psychology of sustainability: What planners can learn from attitude research. Comment. A. Jones. 16:56-65.

The rising importance of voluntary methods of land use control in planning. J. B. Wright and R. J. Czerniak. 19:419-424.

The roles of universities in community-building initiatives. V. Rubin. 17:302-311.

The utopianism of children: An empirical study of children’s neighborhood design preferences. E. Talen and M. Coffindaffer. 18:321-331.

Threshold effects and neighborhood change. R. G. Quercia and G. C. Galster. 20:146-162.

To the readers of Journal of Planning Education and Research. A. Cuomo. 17:283.

Towards a dynamic theory of the state and civil society in the development process. H. Amirahmadi and D. Gladstone. 16:15-25.

Transatlantic lessons: Developing planning degree programs in provincial Russia. Instruction. A. Forsyth and M. Gross. 17:259-273.

Undergraduate education with a purpose: A planning program at the University of Washington. Instruction. P. Niebanck. 18:154-160.

Uniqueness in globalization: Physical development of traditional settlements in southwestern Saudi Arabia. M. A. Eben Saleh. 19:165-175.

Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? S. Guhathakurta. 18:281-292.

Urban patterns and environmental performance: What do we know? M. Alberti. 19:151-163.

Urban planning and urban reality under Chinese economic reforms. M. Leaf. 18:145-153.

Utilizing mixed-method research designs in planning: The case of 14th Street, New York City. J. Gaber and S. L. Gaber. 17:95-103.

Victims no longer: Participatory planning with a diversity of women at risk of abuse. B. L. Rahder. 18:221-232.

Weaving the fabric of planning as education. L. C. Dalton. 20:423-436.

What do planners need to know? Commentary. E. R. Alexander. 20:376-380.

What’s under the bed? City, pasta, or commie: Reflections on teaching American students in Italy. Instruction. W. W. Goldsmith. 19:193-200.

When finance leads planning: Urban planning, highway planning, and metropolitan freeways in California. B. D. Taylor 20:196-214.

Who are the suburban homeless and what do they want? An empirical study of the demand for public services. R. Crane and L. M. Takahashi. 18:35-48.

Working away from home: Philosophical understanding in the development of planning theory. Comment. N. Harris. 19:93-97.

Writing the planner. R. A. Beauregard. 18:93-101.