Plan-Process-Results (PPR) is a vision and a methodology of planning and evaluation. The main objects of PPR are the plan (particularly the main instrument of Portuguese planning practice, the Plano Director Municipal / PDM), the planning process and the results ‘on the ground’. It also focuses on a set of key elements in the spatial development process – the city users (residents and workers), the local politicians, the Portuguese planning system and other plans prepared for the city. The general dimensions and the criteria of planning and evaluation emerge from the main relationships between these elements. There are nine criteria: internal coherence of the plan, plan relevance to the city needs and ambitions, plan interpretation of the planning system, external coherence between the plan and other key documents, public participation in plan making and implementation, plan utilization in decision making, efficiency (human resources, financial resources and time), effectiveness (plan-results), and finally, direction for the urban development process. PPR was applied in the evaluation of the PDMs of Lisbon and Porto.

Research Team: Vítor Oliveira, Paulo Pinho



Oliveira V (2011) Avaliação em planeamento urbano, Edições UP, Porto. Pdf

Book Chapters

Oliveira V (2015) 'The Plan-Process-Results (PPR) methodology for evaluating planning' in Woltjer J, Hull A, Ruth M, Alexander E (eds.) Evaluation in integrated land-use management, Ashgate, Aldershot, 139-64.


Oliveira V, Perdicoulis A (2013) ‘Plan coherence through PPR – the case of Porto’, Efficiency, 2, 1-7. Pdf

Oliveira V, Pinho P (2011) ‘Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and programme evaluation’, Evaluation, 17(3), 293-308.

Oliveira V, Pinho P (2010) ‘Evaluation in urban planning: advances and prospects’, Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343-361.

Oliveira V, Pinho P (2010) ‘Measuring success in planning: developing and testing a methodology for planning-evaluation’, Town Planning Review, 81(3), 307-332.

Oliveira V, Pinho P (2009) ‘Evaluating plans, processes and results’, Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 35-63.