All rights reservedYu-Wen, ChenTzu-Yuan, Chao2023-08-242023-08-242017978-989-99801-3-6 (E-Book)https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/571Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Spaces of Dialog for Places of Dignity, Lisbon, 11-14th July, 2017Urban planning is the result of political decision-making, but planning methods or tools cannot act as a panacea for problems in the city of globalisation and urbanisation. In general spatial planning theory, there is two type of planning, conformance-based planning, and performance-based planning. According to Umberto (2008), these two planning models relate to respective cultural assumptions and technical procedures finally producing, in virtue of their juridical effects, different operational consequences on spatial development and on territorial governance. In conforming planning, a normative prescription or standard will be established, end up generating project plans that focus on the adoption of the project. Although material effects of the plan easily to be evaluated, the initial plans may be misread or interpreted in unexpected ways and result in otherwise outcomes. In performing planning, the planner will propose a vision of future spatial development and make future open, then strategic plans produced in the dynamic negotiation of decision making. That make the objectives of the plans remain flexibility but the effects hard to be evaluated (Faludi, 2000; Umberto, 2008). The former was widespread in almost all European countries and the United States, and the latter can be seen in Dutch and United Kingdom, now being increasingly practised across EuropeEnglishopenAccessConference paper105-113