Conclusion

Abstract

Historically, the urban planning profession has not been without controversies (Pinson, 2004) and is currently experiencing a dual-identity crisis. Internally, there has been controversy about whether the urban planning profession is rational, pluralistic, advocative, or incremental and whether its emphasis should be on the planning process or planning goals. Additionally, an external professional-identity challenge has often made it difficult to communicate effectively to the wider public what the urban planning profession is. Many a planner continues to find it difficult to explain to people the simple meaning of urban planning. Even when explanations are proffered, follow-up questions such as, “Is it related to engineering?” or “Is it related to architecture?” leave planners searching for the right way to position the saliency of the profession among the public. As the introduction to this book has illustrated, the challenge is not only about a lack of awareness about the urban planning profession but also that many children and youth, their relatives, teachers, school counselors, and mentors, often have no exposure to, and worse, have misconceptions about, the profession.