{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017167381974248927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002861230329041488, 'mean_word_length': 5.0344827586206895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Use of Contemporary Planning Labels in Professional Practice – A Michigan Example

ABSTRACT Trendy labels frequently appear in planning literature. How do planning practitioners relate to this terminology? Do practitioners feel the need to rebrand their work to stay relevant? This article summarizes results of a survey of professional planners in Michigan. The aim was twofold: 1) to see how practitioners valued and used a set of principles in their work and 2) the extent to which they were branding their work using trendy terms. The results suggest that practitioners do not ?nd the need to express their work through trendy concepts, suggesting a gap between planning theory and practice.