Urban planning and multiple preference schedules: On R.M. Hare's 'Contrasting Methods in Environmental Planning'

This essay present a critical analysis of Hare's article 'Contrasting Metho ds in Environmental Planning'. It argues that Hare has drawn an important d istinction between two 'methods' used in both urban and environmental plann ing, and that Hare is correct in the conclusion of his argument that one of these methods, 'the trial-design method', is superior to the other, 'the m eans-end method'. However, this paper presents a new argument in support of that conclusion. This new argument is important for two reasons. First, it points to the existence of at least two different kinds of preference sche dule. Second, it supports a type of decision making procedure to be used in 'multiple-client situations' different from the one envisioned by Hare. Th is procedure, oddly enough, resembles the procedures outlined by both Haber mas and Rawls. However, it can be defended on recognisably utilitarian grou nds.