The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal
Abstract
This article takes up Alan Altschuler’s challenge regarding the legitimacy of comprehensive planning and argues that it is not only possible to realize, but is also intellectually defensible. Innes argues that consensus building with stakeholders offers a model for planning that responds to each of Altschuler’s critiques of comprehensive planning. The article concludes with a discussion of how consensus building may be used for local comprehensive planning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
What to do when Stakeholders matter: Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques
Bryson, J. M. (2004) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719030410001675722 · Cited by 1,426
Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement
CONLEY, A., & MOOTE, M. A. (2003) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920309181 · Cited by 505
Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan Making:Six Strategic Planning Choices
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003) · Journal of the American Planning Association · doi:10.1080/01944360308978018 · Cited by 313
Urban Gardening and Green Space Governance: Towards New Collaborative Planning Practices
Nikolaidou, S., Klöti, T., Tappert, S., & Drilling, M. (2016) · Urban Planning · doi:10.17645/up.v1i1.520 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Innes, J.
- Venue
- Classic Readings in Urban Planning
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2018-02-06
- Pages
- 147-161
- OpenAlex
- W4245253815
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 251.70
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781351179522-13
- The paper
- Innes, J. (2018). Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. Classic Readings in Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351179522-13
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
