سمیه رودکی

This article provides an overview of the ongoing debate on evaluation within the field of urban planning. It begins with a state-of-the-art review that is organized into three interrelated parts. The first examines the historical evolution of evaluation theories and methods, highlighting how approaches have shifted from traditional cost–benefit analysis and rational models toward more complex, participatory, and context-sensitive frameworks. The second part addresses the contemporary planning debate, which is shaped by diverse paradigms such as communicative planning, collaborative governance, and sustainability-oriented strategies. Special emphasis is placed on the practice of evaluation in planning, with particular reference to Public Participation in Planning (PPIP) and Participatory Planning Review (PPR) as mechanisms that attempt to bridge technical expertise with local knowledge and community priorities. the second section of the article turns to the application of these methods across different planning systems, with a particular focus on the Iranian context. Here, the discussion critically evaluates the reliance on positivist theories in the preparation of detailed plans, questioning both their relevance and their limitations in addressing contemporary urban challenges. Through an extensive review of literature and case-based evidence, the study identifies the key strengths and weaknesses associated with the preparation and implementation of detailed plans in Iran. finally, the article suggests that establishing a set of general principles for evaluating the implementation of urban plans can strengthen the legitimacy, effectiveness, and inclusiveness of planning practice. The findings underscore the importance of enhancing citizen participation and integrating evaluation more systematically into the theory and practice of planning.