S P T

• Allmendinger, P. (2017) Planning Theory, Palgrave, Houndsmill (UK).

• De Roo, G. (2003) Environmental Planning in the Netherlands, Too Good to be
True, Ashgate, Aldershot (UK) (Chap 4).
• De Roo, G., G. Porter (2006) Fuzzy Planning Introducing actor-consulting as a
means to address fuzziness in planning and decision -making, Ashgate, Aldershot
(UK) (Chapters 6, 7 and 8).
• De Roo, G. (2010) Being or Becoming? That is the Question! Confronting
Complexity with Contemporary Planning Theory , in: G. de Roo & E.A. Silva, A
P E C A P F U K (Chapter 2).
• R H O P C S A F
S G B N -396.

1
Theory is:
• A xplanatory supposition which can be defined broadly or narrowly (McConnel 1981)
• T considerable period of
R
• The main concerns of social theory is the same as that of the social sciences in general: the
illumination of concrete processes of human life (Giddens 1984)
→ It abstracts a set of general of specific principles to be used as a basis for explaining and acting,
with the theory being tested and refined if necessary.
Shortages:
- What distinguishes theory from conjecture(vermoedens) or from ideas
- Can all theories be used in different situations?
- It ignores the social construction of knowledge
- Theory in the social sciences is not immune from the influence of power (political and temporal
elements to theories

Difference between natural and social sciences

Natural and Social sciences: society cannot be explained in the same way in which we can explain the
workings of gravity.

Social sciences
- No universal laws because of difficulties with empirical testing and validation
- Not only reflects upon society, but can also shape it in a way that natural sciences cannot
- Open system
- Has a habit of shifting values, meaning and actions

Natural Sciences
- Closes system (e.g. natural laws such as gravity)
- Induction: examines the available evidence and uses it as a basis for formulating laws and
theories. Uses past information as a basis for the future. The basis of most scientific research.
(like the swan example / patterns and regularities)
o G → its based on
conjuncture

Karl Popper: Fallibility

- Theories are speculative or provisional truths that stand for as long as they are not disproven. (All
S
o Criticism
▪ Observation: Theory rejection is based on observations, but observations
themselves are fallible. (Staircase or other images)
▪ Falsification is not enough: science will never abandon a theory unless there
is a better one to replace it. (Imre Lakatos).

Thomas Kuhn (1970): Science works with paradigms or views of reality

- New paradigms emerge when problems cannot be solved by the old paradigm
o Old paradigm is abandoned
o The different paradigms have different worldviews and are incomparable
- W s in both the natural and social sciences

2
 o Relativist views emphasize and highlight the social dimension of theories and
methodologies.

All theory is to greater and lesser degrees normative → There is no general theory of planning
A diversity of practices in planning, and different kinds of planners in different contexts should enact
different models or theories of planning
- Actor Network Theory (ANT): interaction between science and society (f.a. Pasteur and antrax).
Scientist also develop power through these networks (esp. in planning). They produce the
knowledge but also can decide what counts as knowledge (ch. 8,9 more)

U T
Theory Characteristics Example (in planning)
Normative theory Concerns how the world ought Marxist, liberal, communicative,
and to be achieved ( to be collaborative
Theories of planning)
Prescriptive theory Concerned with best means of Kosten-baten analyse, mixed
achieving a desired condition scanning
Theories in planning
Empirical theory Concerned with explaining reality, Impact of out-of-town retail upon
through causal relationships town centers
(dependent variables etc.)
Models Representations or stylized and Kristaller
simplified pictures of reality
Conceptual frameworks or Ways of looking at or conceiving Marxist perspective on class or
perspectives an object of study freedom
Theorizing Thinking/debating about some
aspect of a phenomenon to
ascertain their suitability and
applicability
All theory is to greater and lesser degrees normative

Theory as discourse
Theory and truth are socially constructed. Because truth varies within contexts and is relative to
language and culture. T A system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation,

- So Theory can be seen as a discourse, which consists of Language use, Communication of beliefs
and Interaction in social situations.
(E G B ) Also theory can then be a discourse and could be a mask for
power and politics. → Theory has 2 inputs: normative elements and discursive elements.
A A N

Theory, structure and agency

Agents of norms: To what extent are individuals (agents) autonomous in their thoughts and actions
and how much does society (structure) influence them? In planning: is the plan a reflection of local
desires or influenced by central government or powerful economic forces?

The relationship between structure and agency:

→ Important because:
- The use of theory by planners is limited by the role of structure
- Some theories ignore these relationship, and thereby limit their usefulness
2 approaches:
1. Structuralism: a. Emphasizes the role of structure in dictating and shaping actions and events b.
Criticized for ignoring the role and influence of actors (seen as automatons)

3
2. Intentionalism: a. Focusing on individual action and the micro-politics for interaction. b. Criticized
for the illogical nature of human behavior and the importance of unintended consequences for
action.
Together: Structuration: replaces the dualisms with duality (two coins → two sides of one coin). One
influences the other.
- Duality of structure: structures enable behavior, but behavior can potentially influence and
reconstitute structure
- Duality of structure and agency: : transcend the dualism of structuralist views of structure and
internationalists views of agency
T
th structure and agency are
important since people make structures and structures influence
- Agents (e.g. planners) create and interpret theories in the light and knowledge of existing
theories.
- Planners do not operate in a vacuum. There are rules, existing processes and norms, that limit
what they can do.
So: planners are influenced by structure, as well as creating that structure.

Theory, time and space

- Theory is historically contingent and dependent upon cultural, social, and political circumstances.
- Theories sometimes built upon each other, but are dictated by changes in society and the grounds
upon which they can be tested often change
- Locality effect: different locations also interpret ideas and theories differently
o Geological metaphor: various layers influence a unique social geology in different
areas
- General theories like Marxism are more likely to be interpreted similarly in different areas than
more context-specific theories.
- Theories have a highly political role since they are part of the society.

The theory-practice gap

The gap: academic say that theory is ignored and practitioners say that theories have no meaning in

- Governments and planner are interdependent

- Parts of the professionalism of planners are neutrality and expert status.
- Planners are unlikely to take political stances or perspectives that are overtly anti-status quo.
- Planners are (almost) all member of an institute that binds you with codes and ethics.
- The professional status of planners limits the extent to which they can act as reflective individuals
and the extent to which they are subject to the normal influences of social sciences approaches.
So planner are not independent. In studying planning theory we should ask why this particular theory
was used, who is using it and for what purpose.

Conclusion: Theory is often used to legitimize planning and provide power to the planners: Planners
pick and choose theory, depending on the situation, so they can legitimize almost every decision. This
is partly caused by the conflicting pressures upon them.

Chapter 2: The Current Landscape of Planning Theory

Planning as a profession needs some form of theory or thinking to underpin its claim to have
specialist knowledge.

4
Every field of endeavor has its own history and traditions of debates and practices, which now acts as
a kind of store. This store provides advice, proverbs, recipes and techniques for understanding and
anting, and inspiration for ideas to play with and develop.

S positivism to Post-positivism: A shift from technocratic, reasoning plan-making to social

plan-making method. In the post-
discourses are involved in the process, and interpretations and application of theories differs per
S -making to
The shift was made because:
1. The failure of technocratic planning
2. A shift in paradigm from positivistic views to

Positivism:
- B
relationships between objects.
-> post-positivism:
- Contextualize theories and disciplines in larger social and historical contexts
- Normative criteria for deciding between competing theories
- An understanding of individuals as self-interpreting, autonomous subjects.
- Planners are fallible advisors who operate in a complex world where there are no answers

- T
→ Collaborative planning & postmodern planning are examples.

Planning has not developed as an intellectual discipline like economy or mathematics. It draws upon
certain foundation disciplines, and the balance between these disciplines is shifting all the times. The
basis of planning is therefore flexible and fluid. (eclectic, landscape of ideas)

Typologies of planning theory

T a common understanding of subject area, methodologies, language
and history of the development of ideas and practice beyond the random. Planning has no
endogenous body of theory because:
1. Planning as a state activity was legitimized by government before it developed any justification for
itself.
2. Planners themselves are not interested in theory.

Faludi: distinction procedural-substantive theory:

- Procedural theories: define and justify methods of decision making (process)
- Substantive theories: pertain to interdisciplinary knowledge relevant to the content of planning
(analysis)
➔ Both are needed for planning. This notion is criticized because of it portrays
planning as apolitical and technical.

A post positivistic stance: Planning is a non-linear process: a more eclectic pick and mix basis to
theory development and planning practice that relates issues, time and space in a linear and non-
linear manner. Also:
- Time and space must be taken in to account, it provides the context

So the principles of post-positivism consist of:

- All theory is normative (suffused with values and embedded within social and historical context
- Theory is mediated through space and time (different formulations, interpretations and
applications)

5
- A complex iterative relationship between ideas and action (there is no real distinction between
substance and procedure.)

Allmendinger proposes five categories that provide a typological framework for theory in planning:
• Exogenous theory: Theories that are not specifically concerned with planning, but have a
relevance for space, policy processes or governance. Focus on a particular element of society
(e.g. relationship between car-usage and the decline of town centers), and are generally
more empirically based and testable than social theories.
• Framing theory: Seeks to frame our understanding of planning. (Paradigms)
• Social theory: Theories developed from sociology which reflect upon the society. The
topdown (structuring forces upon individuals) and bottom-up (emphasize the reflective
nature of individuals and their ability to choose) are categorized in this. (Marxism)
• Social scientific philosophical understandings: Positivism, falsification, idealism, etc. These
theories can reveal the foundations of social theory.
• Indigenous planning theory: The planning-specific theories. Include space, time and
institutional contexts. → these will be explored in the rest of the book

6
Chapter 3: Systems and rational theories of planning

PPT: Procedural Planning Theory, systems and rational planning theories fall into this category

The Systems Approach is concerned with the generation and evaluation of alternatives prior to making
a choice. According to Faludi, Rational Planning makes the crucial distinction between formal
rationality (the means) and substantive rationality (the ends), systems planning
distinction. Both the systems and rational approach rose to prominence in the

Systems theory still has a stranglehold on the way contemporary planning is approached through its

techniques in current planning are based on the systems approach.

Rational planning has an equally strong influence on current planning, as it claims to underpin planning

Andreas Faludi (one of the foremost advocates of the rational process view of planning) followed Max
W concern S
this!). Faludi saw planning as a generic activity that could be applied to any situation where rational
procedures for decision-making were appropriate. → Thinking in planning theory and practice (such
as collaborative planning) nowadays largely reverses this and instead sees both ends and means as
being much more closely linked

Systems Theory (Mc Loughlin & Chadwick)

The heart of the systems approach to
planning is an acceptance that cities and
regions are complex sets of connected parts,
which are in constant flux. Planning must
therefore be dynamic itself, and be
concerned with change. → in a systems
view, plans should not be seen as static
documents but rather as dynamic and
changing as the systems itself.

Link between human and ecological systems

seen in 3 (ecological) facets:
1. The successive diversification and
increasing complexity of rules and
functions
2. Adaptation to physical space and the
adaptation of physical space
3. The evolution of a rich variety of
communications that connect locations

In a systems view, there is an emphasis on the complexity of the world. It searches of predictability in
a complex world that is full of constraints. According to the systems approach, the combination of
constraints and rationality means that systems can be theorized, modeled and predicted. Attempt to
model cities and regions: C But it is impossible to model a city.

The form of planning that is related to the systems approach is highly centralized and regulated. The
plan → The systems view has implications for the organization of

7
planning functions within public bodies, and planners skills; it requires a very centralized organization
of planning in public bodies, to manage the incoming information and the system as a whole. And the
planners themselves should represent a variety of specialisms, such as engineers, transport experts,
architects, landscape architects, demographers, economists.

A I
cities, towns and regions are seen as comprised of different but related components Employment is
different to housing but there is a relationship between the two as they affect each other (supply and
demand).

So McLoughlin proposed a methodology for planning proposals: very system based (assessments etc.)

Of course there was and is critique:

Rittel and Webber saw systems planning as a failed attempt at self-aggrandizement on the part of
planners, with arrogant confidence.

Faludi was critical on the rationality behind systems approach. He said systems theory was already
outdated, inappropriate and impossible, because planning was too complicated and too politicalized
with many actors involved. Also, he rose the question if planners should determine the means and
ends, or if other actors should to that.

But the problem with systems theory might not be that this theory was doomed to failure, but that it
gave planners the illusion that they would someday be able to fully understand and control the
complex systems of a city. (so very positivistic) +: Where us the role of public participation in systems
planning? S - n
professional opinion.

But Complex adaptive systems came (complex theory), which consists of:
- A great many independent agents interacting with each other in many ways
- Spontaneous self-organization
- Adaptation and co-evolution
- Dynamism

T M L
(based on linear and predictable behavior). The post-positivist complexity theory instead emphasizes
a great deal more irregular behavior.

Rational process theories of planning

→ Faludi built rational process theory on the foundations Max W K M
Weber tried to analyze and prescribe a form of bureaucracy and rational decision making that
separated facts and values. He stated that the proper concern of rational decision-making should be
with facts. Values, ends, goals etc. were the realm of politics. Dualism between substantive and formal
rationality. Formal rationality is concerned with means and efficiency; a formally rational approach will
seek to meet the ends in the most efficient and effective way.

According W he

R cal generation of
policy alternatives, systematic evaluation of these alternatives and

8
Karl Mannheim: P L W M
planning to be objective and unbiased in the face of inevitable social and personal influences.
Mannheim stated that a small number of people could be enlighted form these influences and would
F I

A F ational planning is both a clear interpretation of rational process

planning and a heuristic that provides a benchmark against which other forms of planning now seem
to be judged. Planning, according to Faludi, is about the best way of producing results. In order to
achieve this, planners should act the same way as research scientists searching for the best
methodology Like Weber and Mannheim, Faludi views the planner as taking a non-ideological and
objective stance.

Rational theory (Faludi) differs from Systems Theory (McLoughlin&Chadwick) on the inclusion of
substansive theory; Faludi tries to make a clear distinction between means and ends critique on the
rational plann M
separated.

Faludi introduces 3 rational decision making approaches that can tackle decision making in complex
planning situations:
1. Routinazation: Short cuts emerge that speed up decision making and allow attention to be focused
on important rather than trivial issues. This happens trough automated rule based systems.
2. Sequential decision making: Using sequential matrix-based scoring systems to properly evaluate
different programs/alternatives.
3. Mixed Scanning (Etzioni, 1967): Sensible compromise between routinaziation and sequential
decision making; A broad scanning of the problem is complemented with a detailed examination of
aspects that arise from the larger scan. We are predisposed through experience to recognize more or
less important aspects. Mixed scanning highlights that we do not approach an issue or problem without

Critiques on the rational planning approach:

Lawrence (1998): There is a need to balance the rational with the intuit R
infused with narrow, technical views and misses out on the more spontaneous aspects of humanity

H T nical and administrative machineries advocated and created to pursue goals are
based on narrow and dominatory scientific rationalism.

Flyvberg (1998): The rational planning approach is used as a front to hide the political side of planning;
powerful relat .

9
The essence of crucial theory is to change society rather than simply analyze and understand it. On this
perspective planning often aids capital interest.

Critical theory and Marxism

Marxist theory: Urban areas and planning cannot be treated as objects of study separated from
society. They are produced by that society, and more fundamentally, have and internal logic and
function that is primarily derived from the economic structuring forces within that society (in most
cases; capitalism). Cities, planning theory and planning are reflections of society (capitalism) and at the
same time help to constitute it.
Marxism on public interest: Planners often justify planning by reference to the
A M
capital that projects or creates a state meganism to help continue and give the impression of public
control.
Karl Marx: Made a distinction between necessary labor and surplus labor the result of surplus labor is
profit for the employers (capitalism) creates a division in society between laborers and employers.
Capital & Labor | Bourgeoisie and Proletarian. Workers are seen as mean in production thereby causing
alienation. In this perspective, urban planning is one of the elements that keeps up this inequity and
class difference. Also Marx predicted that capitalism goes with crisis → which in modern times are
combatted with Keynes economic measures in the same way urban planning is instated to manage
crises. Marx developed the idea of a false consciousness to help explain why workers wouldn t
protest agai t system
is fair.
Gramsci: rule of bourgeoisie
Marx called the hegemony the superstructure of state and capital.

The link to planning

Hay (1999) developed 4 broad Marxist concepts of state:
- The state as the repressive arm of the bourgeoisie (state = expression of might of ruling class)
- The state as an instrument of the ruling class (guarantees structure of classes)
- The state as an ideal collective capitalist (also known as structuralism) (interventions and
conditions for capitalism to reproduce itself)
- The state as a factor of cohesion (unity and cohesion through sanctioning class domination)

So through spatiality the state provides the following for capitalism to thrive according to Hay:
- General infrastructure that cannot be provided profitable by private businesses
- The capacity to defend militarily national economic space
- The provision of a legal system that establishes and protects private property
- systems for regulating and ameliorating class struggle and conflict between capital and labor

Gramsci saw state as persuasive force that there is no alternative to status quo (without violence)
Scott and Roweis made a connection between this and planning: The specific interventionist sphere
ly
determinate conflict and problems embedded in the social and property relations of capitalist society
generally, and out of capitalist urbanization in particular (1977).

Harvey (1973) also stated that the urban environment is a reflection of capitalism (factories nears
sources and production near place of demand). Also annihilation of space and time for transport. -->
transport nodes (cities + markets) then edge of town malls, because of cars --> expansion of cities.
So it creates a Rational landscape. According to Braudel (1984) cities also played a big role by

10
concentration and accumulation of different production factors, infrastructure and control to aid
capitalism. Harvey added that city provided education, healthcare and environment to maintain
labor (so spatial interventions were needed).

In summary Marxist analysis looks at cities a being both constituent and reflective of capitalism.
Urban areas:
- Reflect dynamics of the capital accumulation
- Are under constant pressure to reduce spatial differences
- Provide the conditions for the concentration of capital
- Are an arena for state regulation and control over labor

This symbiotic Marxist relationship between the urban and capital will have given some strong clues
as to why some form of state intervention in land an property is required.
1. Capitalism cannot provide all of the conditions that it needs to continue. In particular,
infrastructure such as roads and bridges are not commodities like land or labor that can be bought
and sold because they involve a great deal of capital investment with little or no return.
2. The dynamic of capitalism will mean that land uses will change and conflict between land uses will
emerge (a polluting factory next to a school, a garbage plant next to a house)

This understanding of why planning exists is similar to the neo-liberal perspective on planning.
However, there are important differences:
- According to neo-liberalists, supply and demand will reach equilibrium eventually. Marxists argue
that capitalism is inherently unstable and prone to crisis.
- Neo-liberalists accept a minimal role for state intervention to help the market work more
efficiently, Marxists perceive of a much more fundamental role for the state.

A Marxist view on (planning) theory: The overall Marxist view is that planning theory, like planning,
is subject to the dynamics and manifestations of the foundations of society, that is, the capitalist
mode of production and its various social corollaries such as the class system There is no
autonomous planning theory. All planning theory arises and evolves in response to the needs of
capitalism. And planning is often use the façade of public interest to come to interventions.

Planning takes problems caused by capitalism on themselves to solve it.

From Marxism to critical theory

Marxists began to rethink Marxism when it became clear from the experience of Soviet style
communism that socialism did not lead to freedom and democracy, and capitalism was much more
resilient in surviving crises than Marxist had assumed. Consequently, a new understanding of political
economy was required → Critical theory.

Critical theory was developed by the Frankfurt School, which was anti-capitalism but also anti-
Sovietstyle-communism. They were instead struggling for total freedom. → Critical theory has a
critique against closed systems, in order to sustain capacities for criticism.

Pickvance (1982): Planning has no positive powers to enforce change to happen, only negative
powers to stop development from happening. Therefore, it has to plan with the market, not against
M ons. → Intervention planning such as
greenbelts and new towns are untypical of planning. → We should not expect outcomes of planning
that are radically different to that of the market. This is a classic Marxist interpretation of planning;
land use regulation is only a shop-
logic of market meganisms.

11
Are planners part of or a solution to the problem? According to Marxists and Critical Theorists they
can be both. There are two broad perspectives on the contra dictionary role of planners:
- Planners cannot achieve much, even working with the market, and there for the solution is a
stronger, more positive planning.
- Planners need to work with the market and capitalists in a more pragmatic way.

Quote Allmendinger: The impact of out-of-town supermarket is assessed through a technical and
largely professionally determined retail impact study that examines technical issues such as yields,
footfall and trade diversion rather than, for example, questioning whether large supermarkets are
actually good for society through their monopolistic control.

12
Pragmatism and neo-liberal pragmatism are highly practical approaches to planning. Pragmatism
emphasizes direct action regarding specific problems that works best in a given situation or
circumstance. This has led some to accuse pragmatism of being conservative and blind to deeper forces
structuring influences in society. ( USA UK

P I
an intractable problems based around the role of the planner and the use of language. In this aspect it
has some close parallels with the collaborative approach. But it also has some links with postmodern
thinking.

Neo-pragmatism accepts that and incremental approach that focuses upon action misses inequality
and powerful relations in society. What is now called for is a more critical perspective that still focuses
upon action but seeks to do so in a way that is inclusive rather than perpetuating inequality.

What is pragmatism?
Pragmatists emphasize cultural or social influence upon thought. Such influences provide us with what
of idea that help structure our thought.

The central role given to language in pragmatism has some parallels to the collaborative approach. But
the big difference is the rejection of absolutes, consensus or transcendental truths in pragmatism.
Collaborative theorists advocate certain absolute truths, while pragmatists believe in examination of
d open discourse.

Dewey: best way for pragmatism is a liberal society(equality, tolerance etc.) and scientific approach.

Rorty: Pragmatists planner as ironist later after criticism prophet who points out the opposite view to
rigid views of others. (this in case of abnormal situations opposite to normal discourse situations)

Like postmodernism, pragmatism had an emphasis on incommensurability, though pragmatists

introduce foundational principles such as liberalism. Like collaborative planning, there is the emphasis
on language, though pragmatists reject the ideas of consensus.

Planning and pragmatism

Lindblom > Incrementalism: C L
L -democratic societies
bargaining and mutual adjustment are democratic and open. There is no great goal or vision, as much
as a focus on day-to-day issues and problems. The methods employed are based on trial and error.
There is an emphasis on agreement and consensus, much like the current collaborative approach.
However, Forester and other collaborative planners L
thin Lindblom lacks a critical awareness of unequal political power relations. Overlap with
pragmatism: Focus upon action and implementation, embedded in liberal democracy

Planners analyze problems such as traffic congestion, evaluate options and choose and implement
solutions. The individual has a marginal role in this and is categorized, anticipated and processed by a
T ording to Hoch).
Pragmatism provides a way forward based on shared inquiry and common purpose. Hoch sees this
achieved through individual communities coming together and sharing experiences and values, as
well as developing trust.

13
John Forester introduces . Planning is a highly practical activity that is based
upon solving problems and making things happen. But rather than a purely pragmatic approach,
Forester also recognizes that there are powerful forces at work that could mean planning practice
would merely reproduces inequality. Thus, a normative dimension is added to pragmatic planning
that argues for a more open, democratic approach that is concerned with opening planning to a
greater plurality of voices and opinions.

There has also been a broad interpretation of pragmatism for planning that seeks to integrate some
of the ideas of postmodernism. Two central themes are an emphasis upon difference and an
T of the concepts
of modernity such as society and progress no longer have the significance they once did. There is
now significant

Harrison has provided a summary of the characteristics of pragmatism in relation to planning:

- Pragmatism can provide planners with an ironic perspective on themselves and their actions.
- Pragmatism sees planning as an evolving activity whose purpose will change over time.
- Pragmatic planning does not seek to uncover reality but to serve a practical purpose in our
understandings of reality.
- The role of planning is to engage, encourage and arbitrate between competing theories and
perspectives.
- Pragmatism is concerned with the practice of planning and this has led to a renewed interest in
the micro-politics of planning (what planners do rather than what theories say they should do)
- Pragmatism focusses on choice and contingency rather than ethical deliberation.
- Pragmatism has an emphasis on human action as opposed to the abstract thinking that is found
in idealism, realism Marxism, etc.

A general critique on pragmatism is that it is power blind, but maybe it is not power blind, just power
accepting. Overall, pragmatism has been part of a practical approach to real problems. Its eschewal
of grand theorizing has also been the foundation of another school of planning theory: advocacy
planning.

Discussion of pragmatism and planning

Forester: open communication will lead to agreement. Pragmatism through experience has a
homogenous and inadequacy in identification of problems. Hoch: use and misuse of power can
distort social learning process. Read this part again! (pg 142-144)

Dewey has been criticized for providing basis

political and social realm.

14
Advocacy planning, as a more personal a political approach, can been seen as opposite to technical
rational planning. Davidoff

The politics of planning

The technical planning approach was seen as apolitical but the results of this approach are often
political as is shown in the cases of Dennis (1972) in Millfield Sunderland and of Davies (1972) in Rye
Hill Newcastle. Planner here were seen as arrogant with their own vision justified by technical
though often not rigid. (People who opposed were seen as irrational in face of the public good).
Planners with a rigid own vision were praised among pears but seen as arrogant by the people. → in
Newcastle in 2000 still similar plans for redevelopment were presented.

Paul Davidoff and the planner as advocate

T US IN ause of social justice movement etc. + blacks migrating
toward cities and whites moving to the suburbs. Davidoff wanted planning to become more than a
technical exercise. He wanted planning to embrace social justice. He started from a deeply pluralist
position, underpinne
I we start
from a position where values and facts cannot be separated. From this position, Davidoff goes on to
argue that planners should be open about how their values led them to make a particular decision.
Also, the should work for organizations with which their values coincide.

Davidoff thinks all groups in society should be able to submit their own competing plan to represent
their interests, and planners can help certain groups in doing so. So, rather than simply objecting to
the municipality plans, groups could come up with a plan of their own. The advantages of such an
approach are, according to Davidoff:
- It would serve to better inform the public on alternatives choices open to them
- It would force councils to compete with other groups (political parties, special interest groups, ad
hoc organizations) to win political support
- It would force those who have been critical of council plans to prepare their own better alternative

• But: For Davidoff, the main problem will

arise in how to choose between competing
plans. Another issue; who would pay the
advocacy planners? From a Marxist
perspective there is also critique: To what
extent do planner who act on behalf of the
poor merely provide a form of co-option
that proved an illusion of influence? Even if
planners act on behalf of the poor or
dispossessed, how likely is it that their
alternative plan will succeed or that their
lives will be changed for the better?

Is planning than a prof

certainly acts this way (royal institute) but
Reade (1987) says that it is not. But what does
make a profession like law/medicine:
- Claim to control a particular area of knowledge
of expertise.

15
- Claim that problems the occupa seek to solve are ultimately resolvable within
the existing social and economic structures of society
- The claim to altruism: acting in public interest/common good
Why want the subject to be a profession: power, status, job certainty. The State will provide this
power. This causes a vicious circle of planning:

Pluralism
D g services to underrepresented groups,
contribute more to an inclusive pluralism.

Jordan (1990) mains characteristics of pluralism:

- Power is fragmented and decentralized in society
- There are dispersed inequalities in that all groups have access to some resources to make their case
- That power dispersal in society is desirable
- That such dispe T
beyond elections and formal arenas
- That in an ideal pluralist world the interaction of interests would provide a competition of ideas and
legitimacy for any outcomes
- That participants in the pluralist system will be bound to it by uncertainty of the bargaining process

→ As cities grow the policy making becomes more plural, but this creates chaos. So coalitions are
made to combat chaos of plurality. This makes that interest groups emerge (like economic
development groups) that can have more power than others.

Pluralists have never argued that power in society was equally shared. In response to a number of
critics who pointed to the more structural inequalities in society, pluralist did begin to pay more
attention to the inequalities of power within an increasingly pluralist political landscape.

Advocacy in action? Planning Aid and equity planning

Are just examples of sort of advocacy in practice but is shows that is it difficult the bring into practice
because of conflicting interests of planners themselves and accusations of being to
. And there is also you have to deal with.

Conclusion

For any planner working in practice there are a number of key issues raised by advocacy planning
that are worth remembering:
- planning is essentially a political activity, rife with value judgments
- The simple notion that planners advise and politicians decide is a myth that has never reflected
practical experience
- A planner who undermines or embarrasses a powerful politician is skating on thin ice
- Neither planners nor politicians should decide issues based on their own pecuniary or nonpecuniary
interests
- Those who own the most property generally also have the most influence in the law and in planning
decisions (Krumholz 2001).

16
A central theme in contemporary theorizing around planning is fragmentation. Not only are the places
in which people live and work characterized by diversity, but also the ways in which planners and other
understand and think about places and spaces has begun to reflect an underlying uneasiness with the
ways in which planning and planners seek to unify such diversity into a plan.

As the world has seemingly become more diverse, theory had to account for and reflect such
multiplicity. The gap between theory and practice is growing and the issues are becoming more
P

What are the modern and the postmodern?

Modernism: Linked to the enlightment, liberty through knowledge reason, progress, individualism,
empiricism, science Instrumental rationality → R

Essential to the idea of modernism is the belief that everything is destined to be speeded up, dissolved
or transformed. In this process, values or politics are seen as merely details. The modern view, based
instrumental rationality on instrumental rationality, is that there are absolute truths and that it is
possible to plan rationally for ideal social orders.

Postmodernism: According to post-modernists, current planning is anti-democratic, race- and

gender-blind and culturally homogeneous. They identify five pillars of modernism that need to be
demolished!
1. Planning is concerned with making public/political decisions more rational
2. Planning is most effective when comprehensive
3. Planning is mostly a science
4. Planning is a project of state-directed futures, with the state seen as possessing and progressive
and as being separate from economy
5. Plannin
identify what that is

Post-modern planning theory builds upon openness and flexibility and

attempt to formalize a single totalizing w P
and diverse society.

Five principles that are the minimum foundations for post-modern planning:
1. Social justice
2. Emphasize the positive aspects of difference
3. A more fluid conception of citizenship
4. A reformed conception of community
5. From public interest to a civic culture

Post-structuralism
While post-modernism is concerned with wider shifts in contemporary society and the philosophy of
science that move on from modernism, post-structuralism is more specifically concerned with a
rejection of structuralism and the ways in which society is composed of much more diverse and
dynamic forces. At its core, post structuralism is rejects the idea that there are structures (economic,
social0 that shape society and our thoughts and actions. Post-structuralists argue that society is not
closed or linear, but much more open, dynamic and fluid.

17
Another theme of post-structuralism is the connectivity between the social and the spatial. Post
structuralist argue that spaces and places are open and engaged with other places and spaces. Space
is constituted by physical, biological, social and cultural processes that also influence each other.

Complexity Complexity is based on an understanding of places as being complex, open systems which
are nested spatially and relationally with other places at different scales, as well as with individuals,
households neighborhoods etc. At the same time, urban systems are also linked to ecological systems.
No system or scale is privileged as changes and dynamics in any part of the system can affect other
parts.

There are a number of links between post-structuralism and complexity:

1. Complex systems consist of a large number of elements, post-structuralism is underpinned by the

notion of multi-plicate
2. The elements in complex systems act dynamically. Actors within a post-structuralist understanding
consider that the self is constituted by the relation to others.

3. There is a rich level of interaction. Post-structuralists emphasize the breakdown in distinctions

between structure and agency and the historically contextualized understanding of structure.

4. Interactions are non-linear. Post-structuralism highlights the open and asymmetrical nature of
society the same piece of information may have different effects at different times.

5. Feedback and emerge. Complexity and complex adaptive systems are interdependent and co-exist,
influence and are influenced by other systems.

Conclusions

The influence of post-struct T

urban areas cannot be understood as integrated unities with a singular driving dynamic, contained
with clearly defined spatial boundaries. They are instead complex constructions created by the
interaction of actors in multiple networks who invest in material projects and who give meaning to
the quality of places. The webs of relations escape
C processes and thinking and postmodern
and post- I
understandings there is a breakdown E
as knowledge and there is a relativist approach to validating different knowledges.

18
Collaborative planning has 3 main influences: Habermas (anti modern), Foucalt (power relations etc.)
and Giddens (interrelations and co-existing)

McLennan (1992) argues that postmodern challenge involves questioning the following typical
modern tenets:
1. The view that our knowledge of society, like society itself, is holistic, cumulative and broadly
progressive in character.
2. That we can attain rational knowledge of society
3. That such knowledge is universal and thus objective
4. That sociological knowledge is both different from and superior to distorted forms of thought,
such as ideology, religion, common sense, superstition and prejudice.
5. That social scientific knowledge, once validated and acted upon, can lead to mutual liberation and
social betterment among humanity generally.
→ Science is also a narrative and science with an agenda (to better the world f.a.) is not objective

Habermas states that through communicative rationality: Breaking down the dominance of scientific
objectivism and building instead a different kind of objectivity based on agreements between
individuals reached through free and open discourse. But Lyotard states that the world is pluralistic
thus common links/agreements are misleading. → so you might need rules according to Habermas

Communicative rationality: About discourse language can maintain/develop power but also expose
it. A scientific rational view of discourse is limits the potential of discourse, because of problems:
1. Destroying the more congenial, spontaneous, egalitarian and intrinsically meaningful aspects of
human assoc W
2. Being anti-democratic through the concentration of political power, either by professions or
bureaucracies.
3. Repressing individuals by repressing freedom and the potential for individuals to express
themselves.
4. Being inadequate in representing complex social problems without disaggregating them into
constituent parts.
5. Making effective and appropriate policy analysis impossible.

These criticism have led to two approaches: 1. The discard of modernist thought altogether (Lyotard)
and 2. The attempt to reclaim modernity back from instrumental rationality (Hambermas).

Habermas presents 2 concepts: Lifeworld and system.

Lifeworld: symbolic network in which subjects interact and through shared practical knowledge,
coordinate social action. (The realm of personal relationships)
System: operates through power and interest and forms the context within which the lifeworld
operates. (like capitalist economy etc.)
→ The system dominates lifeworld and restricts its scope for communicative action.

A distinction must be made between communicative action and communicative rationality. Action: is
orientated towards intersubjective understanding, the coordination of action through discussion and
the socialization of member of the community. Rationality: extent to which this action is
characterized by the reflective understanding of competent actors.

So Habermas states 4 claims of validity of communicating:

1. Truth: of proposition about our external reality

19
2. Rightness of our interpersonal relations with the other person
3. Truthfulness about our internal subjective state.
4. Comprehensibility of our language.
Are to be achieved through:
1. interactions free from domination, 2. Strategizing, and 3. Deception
4. All actors being equally and fully capable of making and questioning arguments
5. No restriction on participation
6. The only authority being that of a good argument
→ consensus reached under these conditions can be regarded as rational. But what about practice.

The practical application of communicative rationality

Dryzek identifies six element of political organization to produce a communicative rational approach:
- Ideal speech (Truth, rightness, truthfulness and comprehensibility) will always be violated in the
real world, but does exist in daily communication between individuals. So it can be used tot create
consensus and expose existing power relations. The communicative rational world would seek to
facilitate ideal speech through providing the necessary conditions.
- An authentic public sphere: Groups who determine their rules of interaction and relations with
each other. Through this the determine how to act. It could be created on the basis of two ideas:
discourse and holistic experimentation.
- Discourse and holistic experimentation: Discourse: free and open communication towards
reciprocal understanding, trust and an undistorted consensus. Also political practice could take the
form of the experimentation with aim of improving conditions of the subjects through reflection and
consensus.
- Discursive designs: So how do you do this in a institutional design? → make rules (power of the
better argument etc.) but who enforces them? Or just reasoned disagreements.
- Incipient designs: existing situations within liberal democracy where communicative actions is
possible. The are characterized by following things: 1. They resolve problems of interest to all parties
2. The context = degree of conflict 3. Neutral party is facilitator. 4. Discussion is face-to-face with
rules. 5. Product is action orientated consensus (voluntary).
- New social movements: Communicative rationality is already practiced by new social movements.
Like the greens etc. They operate through free discourse but this is less so when they get into
politics. This is caused by the existing political systems. Also problems and society become more
complex.

Planning as a communicative process

Planning is traditionally a modernistic thing, because its aim is to solve problems. But there are 2 types
of critiques critical(what is bad about it) and normative(how can it be better). Critical: planning is like
science and wants to solve problems, with objects and goals and mean and ends. It regards only
profession and not other types of knowledge, f.a. experience.
Figure 1 Friedmann his questions

20
There are 2 types of rationality in planning:
formal(achieve given ends) and substantive(includes
values, ideal and morals. Friedman includes 6
questions of the instrumental rational planning
approach.

→ alternatives are hard for planning because of

distortion, because of ambiguous problems,
incomplete info and restriction of time, money etc.
(practical limits)

But there are also structural limits: power and

(in)equality. Communicative rationality wants to
combat this but planner are mostly part of the
existing power structures.

But in practice plans are often examples/results of

discourse and thus reflective of a communicative
rationality. But the process of discourse in making
the plan is often not shown, so Healey says you
should show the discourse in the plan. Also the focus
of the communicative rational should be on the
process instead of the plan.

What should planner think about and five questions of planning if it is to development alternative
systems and processes and tentatively suggest some answers:

21
In current practice plans often have discourse in them but the process is not shown in the plan.
Forester (1989) comes with a list of lessons for planners:
1. The need to learn about value
2. The need to exploit ambiguity
3. Deliberate about ends as well as means
4. Practical judgement is reconstructive as well as justificatory focus on how the problems were
framed.
5. The need for public deliberation in the face of power deliberation should be based on conversation
in which people voice their concerns.
6. The need to bridge inclusiveness in participation and the perception and recognition of value.

Communicative planning and the neoliberalization of cities

The neoliberalization of cities is emphasizing inequality through economic development shielded by
democratic consensus. So this is also a danger for a communicative planning approach.

What if the agreements through a communicative approach are also flawed and dominatory.
Because only the usual suspect will join the participation process.

22
 With theories you will always encounter relativism, collaborative planning takes this into account by
open discourse to achieve consensus. Here discourse is used in practice to solve the issue of
relativism.

Theories of planning should no be seen as linear, like theories in exact sciences, but rather the should
be placed side by side and overlapping. Also interpretations of theories differ across space and time.
Some proved the importance of economic performance in explaining and employing planning theory.
Also the locality theory shows that the context of the local space influences the content,
interpretation and development of theory on the local.

Conclusions and the future

First should be stated that the future is unknowable and subjective. But Allmendinger poses 3

1. Further development of post-modern planning

are part of the discourse. Thought the post-modern approach is not always practical because of the
but the approach is great in revealing uneven power structures in
f.a. modernistic planning approaches.
So he made al list of principles upon which a postmodern planning could be built: postmodern
thought + foundations

2. Scenario is a further development of

the neo-modern forms of planning, like
collaborative and communicative
planning. Which do take into account
progress and absolute truths
(foundations). But planner in practice
mostly are still dominant and become
observant of actors and thereby can
and wider
processes. Therefore it would be helpful
to include some of the element of
postmodern theory.

3. Middle way taking into account the

best parts of both schools. Like critical
social theory and modern concerns such
as democracy and equality. Also systems
theory are increasingly used as
assessments within an open planning
debate

23
Chapter 6: Shifts in planning practice and theory: From a functional towards a
communicative rationale.
A shift in planning can be seen from technical rational to pragmatic to more fuzzy approaches of
planning.

As Healey puts it: different actors and frame of references cause a new fuzzy reality so a better
understanding of notions, concepts, doctrines, plans, decisions and their interactions with the
institutional setting are needed. Martens foresees a more open, interactive and discursive planning
and policy system form an object to intersubjective approach based on role of actors. Voogd and
Woltjer state that effective intermediate level of governance is important, which must become more
open and pluralistic. → a transformation of models and systems of governance from top-down
towards a pluralistic governance system (from technical rational to communicative rational approach.
Miller adds that information through indicators is important in this shift. From how to why en
wherefore.

Historical reflection: the end of planning control?

Traditionally the governments in EU were top-down (perform and conform). Post-WW2 conditions
made it that functional approach to planning was needed.

Rational planning
Criteria of success laid down in advance, a instrumental, technical or procedural approach (functional).
Based on government control. In 60 this no longer was the only option. Scenario approaches came to
be in spatial visions for the future. It also was a more regional approach but still with the confidence
that physical development were controllable.

Sectoral specialisation of planning

in control government declined. More critical and interest groups came about. Government
became more sectoral, like planning with distinct fields like water, transport etc. I
sectors were elaborated further, causing a divided planning system.

Losing control ?
Because of this dilemmas emerged, like the paradox of the compact city. 1. A compact city as relief
from expiation to the countryside 2. Environmental zones around f.a. industry (which were mostly in
cities) → did no go together. This is still the thing. ,
integration of communicative and competitive models into the coordinative model
of governance. (fa. Market processes and public-private partnerships.) Also more
communicative approach and flexible approach in accordance with decentralisation
De Roo: this transformation
should be seen as a response to the growing dynamics, complexity and
uncertainties of our societies.

Theoretical reflections
- Technical planning: functional, modernistic, bleu-print planning, cause-effect.
Primiti

24
- Scenario planning: response to shortcoming of
functional planning. Various routes are made to
tackle a problem. Most favoured is chosen. Also
feedback loops were added.
- Communicative rationale: planning issues are
not determined but abstract constructions of
various people involved. Should be tackled with
different actors a long the way. However, even
this approach has its limitations. A
communicative strategy is only beneficial for
those issues, where numerous actors have
relatively equally-valued and mutually
dependent, however opposing interests.

Conclusion
Accepting uncertainty as a reality requires fundamental changes in our belief system or frame of
A emma of how to
cope with complexity and dynamics. Increasing uncertainty in planning necessitates a shift from a
functional rational approach towards a communicative rational approach. To put it in a different
context: as the complexity of a given issue increases, the approach in planning changes from a focus
object towards an inter-subjective or institutional perspective. Instead of maximizing
the planning result in line with the predefined goals, the focus will shift towards optimizing the
planning process. In the latter case it means that planners have become managers of change, in a
continuously transforming environment. If we can come to terms with a frame of reference that
accepts uncertainty, we will recognize the restrictions that we have placed upon ourselves by adhering
to the tradition of rational planning. This represents a significant step forward. It allows us room for
new lines of reasoning that can enhance our planning concepts, can provide an insight into improved
planning techniques, and can help us to confront the reality of the twenty-first century.

25
Chapter 7: understanding fuzziness in planning

The problem with contemporary planning is that fuzziness in not taking into account, actor consulting
can combat this.

7.2 Towards actor-consulting

Two extreme approaches can be seen in
planning: The technical rational, for simple
cases, and the communicative-rational, for
more complex cases. See figure. Most of the
issues take place between the 2 extremes. So
the challenge is to identify approaches to tackle
these issues between the 2.

In the 2nd figure A and C are theoretical

situations. B is more a scenario approach, it is
predefined like A but take into account the that
various routes the planning process might
follow. It is a response to lack of certainty but
not accepting uncertainty. C is the
communicative/participative approach, its
about interaction and consensus/agreements,
which are the base for further action. Because
its is quite extreme the actor-consulting model is introduces.

7.3 Actor-consulting as a means of coping with fuzziness in planning

Concepts as sustainability, compact city and participation are fuzzy concept that appear clear and
useful for a top-down implementation but in reality are not! There is also uncertainty involved in
moving from strategic decisions to implementation. Indistinctness of a lot of factors, f.a. actors, is a
key concept in this uncertainty. So what is missing is are decision making models that are capable of
handling issues where the content and goals(fa. sustainability) are more or less accepted, but where
an insight into the way actors should act, could act, or are willing to act is lacking.

7.4 Fuzziness in planning: When and where?

Technical approaches on the one hand are useful in the case of relatively straightforward issues and
communicative approaches would suit the very complex situations. In the communicative approach
actors are black boxes. So the degree of complexity becomes a criterion for choosing the mode of
planning/decision-making. Fuzziness and complexity are very related, fuzziness: representative of a
situation that is unclear about the precise meaning of notions and concepts, and the consequent
response of actors. Fuzziness itself is not the subject of the communicative rationale but it is combatted
with open agenda and clearance of intentions etc.

The communicative approach focuses on reaching consensus with respect to a common

understanding, before that an agreement on the precise nature of the issue is needed. → agree or do
not agree (1th order of consensus)

Actor consulting is more useful when actors their interest are more in line with each other. → that
agree that they agree (2nd order of consensus). But the filling of the same goal/interest/agreement can
be of course discursive. So actor-consulting is most suitable for the

26
The difference between actor-consulting and scenario-planning is that scenario do not consult the
actors and actor-consulting does not question the outcome of planning.

7.5 Fuzziness in complicated and complex situations

The difference between complicated and complex. A
direct causal relationships are still demonstrable, only one has to dig substantially to overcome the
obstacles. T
appearance of remote causal relations. It has multiple interpretations. Uncertainty is a fact and in
complicated situations certainty can be achieved. Example of the complex= the compact city and
sustainability. Planner should find the right balance between certainty and uncertainty. So fuzziness
might occur in complicated issues and is unavoidable in complex issues.

7.6 Understanding fuzziness

Complexity theory: complexity is a measure for uncertainty → difficulty of predicting outcomes of
actions and interactions. Nothing is certain and always becoming. The world is a dynamic process,
seeking balance between stability and fluidity. Fuzziness= when things are not 1 or 0, yes or no or black
or white, but always somewhere in between becoming something else. Fuzziness in planning is likely
to occur where complicated and complex situations meet.

On the one hand there is the possibility to achieve an element of certainty by investing in substantive
action. In the case of complex situations, on the other hand, there is a rising degree of uncertainty, as
a result of lacking causality, the existence of fuzziness or both. When fuzziness is around, the reframing
of the perceptions of the actors involved should clearly precede any attempt to reshape our physical
environment via planning goals and activities (De Roo 1999, 2003). We understand at this point what
fuzziness is, what it is caused by, where and when it can be expected and what the consequences might
be. A tool is now needed to handle fuzziness. We will go on to argue that a process of consultation
with actors is an important starting point in situations that are likely to suffer from fuzziness.

27
Chapter 8: Actor consulting: A model to handle fuzziness in planning

8.2 The origins of the actor-consulting model

Actor consulting can be a good model for addressing fuzziness. Because consultation can be used as a
mechanism to work towards a well-defined mutual understanding and a common frame of reference
between actors who are agreeing about the conditions under which the planning process will take
place. It is part of a group of methods that provide model-based decision support for various ill-
structured problems (multiple actors, perspectives and conflicting interests. Traditionally these are
phase models but actors do not necessarily behave rationally but are coping by being reasonable.
Actor consulting: is focusing on reframing the frames of reference of actors. → it has to lead to
clarification of vague, fluid or fuzzy conditions at the various stages of the planning process. → to
structure a reality out of social processes. Therefore it is necessary to consult actors about their stories
and makes listening and being heard important.

8.3 Linking actor-consulting to sociological theory

Luhnmann: 3 levels of relations/actions: interactional, organizational and societal. Actor-consulting
should focus on interactional and organizational. The actors should have clear roles (for the
structure) and have So a stakeholder analyses should be made.

8.4 Steps to be taken

Possible steps to reach a meaningful and :
1. identify the unclear and fuzzy contextual structures of the issue.
2. Select the parties and organizations to be involved
3. Identify set of conditions(definitions, interpretations, notions, concepts) by exploring the
opinions of the actors
4. Develop an understanding of the interactions and positions of the actors within the issue and
toward each other.
5. Identify the quality of the relationships above around the likeliness that agreement on definition
of the problem, action program and division of tasks. If not clear → maybe communicative
approach
6. Repeat for every stage of the planning process.

In this process the planner will encounter stories framed within 5 subsystems: 1. the technical
subsystem; 2. the structural subsystem; 3. the psychosocial subsystem; 4. the managerial subsystem;
and 5. the cultural and values subsystem. Although parties involved in the process will most likely to
present themselves in a transparent way → a agreement to agree (second order consensus) +
agreement on the issue itself (first order consensus). The actions of the actors should not be
differentiated by willingness and competence but by the desired, actual and potential contributions of
the actors.

A
Desired contribution: willingness, the presentation of criteria. Potential contributions:
competence
Present contribution: indication of the baseline conditions based on history, attitude etc towards the
planning issue and other parties. → this is an important point of reflection. Step 3/5: allow to reflect
on the actors, to obtain this it is important to know: what actors are willing to the issue at hand (the
desired contributions), their actual contribution to the issue (the present contribution) and how they
might be able to contribute to the issue (the potential contribution). →
behavior on interactional and organizational perspective.

28
The present contributions are based the resources available and the institutional setting of the actor.
They also have ideas on the way they want to act: desired contributions. Additional research and talk
can generate info about the potential contribution. This can be done in 2 steps: 1 finding out what
solutions already exist 2. To explore advantages and disadvantages to these solutions for different
actors. (similar to the technical alternatives study). The three forms of contribution form the basis of
the Actor consulting model.

The interaction between authorities and other parties can be described in terms of:
direct regulations: imposed with legal power, like bylaws. indirect regulation: with incentives like
subsidies when criteria are met. self-regulation: agreement between actors to behave in a particular
way.
H L argument (1982) that many
problems arise from dislocations between what he calls the interactional face-to-face level and the
T
that we find difficult to understand due to the fuzziness of the issue at hand. If we can understand
and overcome the fuzzy character of these issues, we will find ourselves in a position to propose more
realistic regulation. → Why actor-consulting is important

→ Actor-consulting goes hand-in-hand with new pluralistic forms

of governments. The different types of regulation are also parts of
the actor consulting model. Also the organizations, plans and
actors are introduces within the model, because they are likely to
clarify the storylines and institutional context of interests the are
put on the table. Consequently, the institutional background of
organizations, represented by actors and presented through plans,
must be analyzed in order to gain a clear understanding of the issue
at hand. They are woven through the three contributions.
8.6 Actor-consulting and the various phases in the planning
process
Consensus is mostly not lasting for a long period. But it can be a
basis for futher action through negotiated order. This is why actors
should not only be consulted at the beginning of the decision-
making process, but also when decision are translated into a plan
or programme and the implementation phase(also new actors can
emerge). Also actors should be consulted into the evaluation phase
to view the effectiveness based on the decisions made in the
beginning.

29
 In conclusion, we should seek to understand the role of actors throughout the planning
process. With this perspective we are able to take a more critical and reflexive approach to all the
actions that we, together with others, make within any process of planning.
8.7 concluding remarks
Fuzziness makes things complex → planning that occurs with that
should be preceded by reframing of the perception of the actors
involved. Fuzziness occurs when things like notions, goals, visions etc.
are there. The aim of the actor-consulting model is then to address the
subjective nature of planning issues, to create a common understanding
among actors, and to unravel underlying mechanisms that determine
the actions of actors. → to reduce uncertainty and make realistic policy.
1. The choice of the planning approach depends on the complexity of a
planning issue. 2. Perception
3. The context of the issue is also important. These three element reflect
strongly the subjective nature of planning. Actor consulting is the
missing link between planning practice and planning thought.

30
 de Roo Sliva
Ashgate Farnham

First all was perceived to be certain → technical/ rational modernistic etc. + Types of systems 1,2,3,4
(2.1/2.2/2.3)

2.4 accepting uncertainty

Critical rationalism was introduced → falsification instead of verification. Also radical social theory
emerged rejecting existence of general principles independent of societal forces and were critical
toward capitalism. (post modernists like Habermas, Foucault and Derrida). Intersubjectivity became
important under planners, so intersubjective communication and collaboration became as important
as the traditional object oriented focus in constructing a fair idea about reality.

2.5 Rationalizing the communicative side of planning

New theories were adapted in planning, like social-constructivism and discourse analyses. This resulted
in a more communicate approaches of planning. Planner became mediators, advocates and guides for
the actors involved in the planning process in order to optimize their interests. Though: a solely
technical perspective on our reality would prove to be too good to be true, a post-modern view would
leave us nothing but skepticism and is in essence rather fatalistic.

2.6 Complexity in an atemporal planning environment

Technical Communicative
Rationality rationality
Order Chaos
Low complexity Hight complexity
Object-oriented intersubjective-oriented
Low uncertainty and High in uncertainty and
fuzziness fuzziness
Causality, stability, Valuing, argumentation,
entity agreeing, discourse
Stable context → Unstable content →
content context
Goal maximalization Process spatialization
Male Female (like in the bible)

Both extremes or non-existing, the world exists in between.

Though while accepting uncertainties in planning, it still remains important to seek those certainties
that do exist.

C -of-
Systems theory: Bertalanffy: generals systems theory. Lorentz: Chaos theory: Systems are out of
balance, chaotic dynamic systems that show a reality with great uncertainties but also with a wealth
of possibilities.
- System theory: regards the system as a way of understanding reality on the basis of a collection of
nodes (entities) that are connected by their (joint) actions and reactions.
- Chaos theory also takes into account the factor of time and shows that the development of systems
can be non-linear and dynamic in which reality is not represented by stable entities but is a
progressive process.

31
→ The world around us evolves from simple and straightforward conditions towards highly complex,
chaotic situations that are highly unpredictable and susceptible to intervening interactions.
Chaos theory connects the technical and communicative worlds, because it considers this
evolving process from one towards the other a necessity and it is an evolving process due to a growing
degree of complexity or a shift from a univocal order toward diversity. →connection with planning:
planning is addressing reality that is evolving form simple and straight entities to highly complex
situations with fuzzy entities. And most of the issues are in between.

Development and progress on system theory:

1. An open system evolves due to growing complexity from order towards chaos. → it represents a
transition in planning from orderly to highly complex conditions.
S -evolve.
Complex systems are emergent, adaptive and have a large degree of self-organization(spontaneous
development of new structures as result of feedback and feedforward mechanisms. → this makes
these systems robust and flexible ate the same time. Development takes place under certain
conditions path-dependent that can be defined and that provide insight into the system and its
development.
3. Assumption that orderly systems emerge from these systems at a higher level and that these will
start to evolve as complexity increases. Together these three assumptions represent as non-linear,
evolutionary process.

C
- Under assumption 1 systems are stable and predictable to a degree and show behavior that is to be
expected under certain conditions, but there are also moment when these systems are far from stable
and behave dynamic. The systems move between stable and unstable conditions. → dynamic reality

- Under 2nd assumption: Systems are both robust and flexible, like cities. In contemporary planning
these systems are being modelled(mutliscalar) in simulation and scenarios processes, urban growth
models and GIS. These development demonstrate a strong interest in emergent, adaptive and self-
organizing systems behavior → Class 4 systems.
Class 1: Systems and it nodes and interactions are fixed.
Class 2: feedback causes meaning of nodes and interactions to change
Class 3: The system stays more or less the same but the nodes and interactions change
Class 4: systems does not maintain structure and function
→ Class IV behavior enables entities in the system to maximize the benefits of stability while retaining
R
The third assumption tells us that a new order is likely to emerge from periods of change, chaos and
transition when the system connects well with a stable contextual environment at a higher level, while
adding new dimensions to this contextual environment. (like paths → sand → horses → stone → care
etc.

If we consider progress as a transition towards higher degrees of complexity, from which co-evolving
and emergent systems arise, resulting in a new order at a higher level, this not only transcends but
also connects the different academic disciplines, including planning, focusing as they do on the various
aspects of the world around us.

32
 2.9 Planning and complex systems
behavior
The 4 types of systems are though
connected. The first 3 systems are a fixed
state, but things are always becoming
something. TIME, takes into account the
non-line
rationality. The planner is now also a
trend watcher and transition manager. →
from technician to mediator to trend
watcher. This leads us to the final figure
I F

33
Characteristics of the systems analyst and designer
The attitude of a planner should be: 1. Detached, rational, objective, scientific. 2. Grasp the whole
system
3. Be interdisciplinary 4. Optimize, incorporate all relevant and important aspects of the planning
problem at hand into measure of effectiveness which the tries to maximize. Also be innovative.
Achievements of the systems approach to date
Systems approaches have a lot of applications, also computer is important for it. But is has not really
worked out (1972), the first generation → introduces second generation.

Steps in the first generation system approach Operations research

The 1th generation has a certain mode of procedure: 1. Define het solutions space, the
1. Understanding of the problem variables
2. Information gathering to understand the context 2. define the constraints, chose the
surrounding best solution
3. analyses of the information 3. Define measure of effectiveness
4. generation of solutions 4. optimize the measure of
5. assessing of the solutions → chose the best
6. Implementation → 7. Test → 8. Modify if necessary

Shortcomings of the first generation approach the paradoxes of rationality

The whole 1th generation approach is a paradox of tracing consequences of contemplated actions an
making variables into infinity etc. Also life is to short to do that.
Wicked problems and tame problems
Planning issues are wicked problems, tame problems can eventually be solved like with mathematics.
• Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. + Every formulation of the WP corresponds to a
statement of the solution + there is no stopping rule for wicked problems + there is no correct or
false → is always subjective + no exhaustive, but enumerable list of permissible operations + there
are many explanations for the same discrepancy + problems can be symptoms of other problems,
therefore we should tackle the more comprehensive system + there is neither an immediate nor
an ultimate test + each WP is a one-shot operation (you cannot undo what you have done in the
1th trial + every wicked problem is essentially unique + the wicked problem solver has no right to
be wrong.
• Tame problems: one problem one solution + the solution is either correct or false + exhaustive
list of permissible operations + one problem explanation + s
→ all of the above properties blatantly contradict the steps of the first generation system approach,
so something else should be invented.

Some principles of the systems approach of the second generation

1. The needed knowledge is not in any single head, the planner is not the expert
2. Nobody wants to be planned at, so you should maximize involvement and participation
3. With every step towards a solution deontic statements will be made on it, so the process should
be transparent
4. Solution cannot be correct or false but good or bad, there is no authority to say what is better.
Objectification should be implemented: we must successfully exchange info about the foundations of
our judgement so we hope to achieve: To forget less, to stimulate doubt, to raise the right issues, to
control the delegation of judgement, and the belief that explicitness is helpful.
5. There is no scientific planning; dealing with wicked problems is always political.
6. The planner is not an expert, but a mid-wife of problems and more a teacher then a doctor.

34
7. The planner makes careful, seasoned respectlessness → casting doubt on things as a virtue
8. The planner is moderate optimistic
9. We should all work together in a conspiracy model because it is a adventure (because we cannot
predict the consequence of our plans)
10. Planning process of wicked problem solving must be understood as an argumentative process: we
should talk about it. → this all does not mean that you should not conduct a research approach to
planning, because you will have to make to many off-hand judgement. Therefor your should make
deliberated judgements on sequence of events by making partial(deliberated) judgements a long the
way.

35
Chapter 4: Planning-oriented action in a theoretical
perspective

Spatial planning issues have a objective, a subjective and a

sociological dimension(the intersubjective):
O: The physical and social reality that could be subject to
policy-based or planning based intervention, now or in the
future; (the object-oriented dimension)
S: The choices made in the decision-making process; (the
subject-based, rational dimension)
I: The organization and communication of, and participation in,
decision-making and policy; (the intersubjective dimension)

→ These 3 dimension find their way into the in the

planning-oriented actions (:any action performed by
individuals, groups or organizations that is designed to
achieve goals in a systematic way by making and
implementing choices and decisions, with the help of others
if necessary, and by using the required resources):
- Goal-oriented: the form of the planning process. It is
about the relationship between the
subject(decisionmaker) and the object(what has to be
changed/managed). It about the effect of planning.
- Decision-oriented: relates to the way in which choices
are made, the reasoning behind them, the rationalizing
of arguments and the uncertainties inherent in the
foundation of the arguments.
- Institution-oriented: is not restricted to the questions
of who should be involved in the decision-making
process and how the process and parties will be organized
decision-making subjects [...] can intervene in the behavior I
short, this is a matter of interaction.
The three are complementary!

The rest can be explained through schemes and tables and the conclusion at the end this saves 60
pgs of reading.

36
 Typology of planning oriented action based on three categories of complexity
- Orientation towards object
- Effectiveness of planning
Degree of A. What to be achieved?
complexity of - Scope of goals and action structure
planning issue - Emphasis on effects and decision stage
Goal-oriented action
- Emphasis on constituent parts of the
whole (closed system)
- Fixed goals (blueprint planning)
- Linear mechanical regulation process
Relatively
- Fixed decision stages
straightforward
- Decision-making process has clear
beginning and end
Emphasis on whole and constituent parts
in an open system
- Shifting goals (iterative planning) -
Linear phased cyclic planning process
Relatively with feedback, correction and self-
complex regulation - Decision stages are process-
dependent - Beginning and end of
decision- making process varies
- Emphasis on whole, on constituent
parts and contextual environment
- Linked or integrated problems, solutions
and goals (multiple- objective approach)
Relatively very - Information cycles
complex - Decision stages as a dynamic, interactive
part of ongoing process
- Nature of decision-making process is
continuous
- Orientation towards rationality
- Choices relating to efficiency and effectiveness
of planning
B. How can it be achieved?
- Justification of decisions
- Emphasis on choices
<-- Decision-oriented action -->
- Full or extensive knowledge /- Few or no
uncertainties
- All-embracing / - Control of the whole
- Functional rationality
- Direct causal (causa proxima) relationships
predominate
- Reductionism
- Strongly delineated issues - Main aim is
predictions and solution strategy
- Knowledge insufficient; limited and selective
availability
- Uncertainty due to continuous assessment and
discontinued feedback
- Selective scope
- Co-ordination in terms of the whole
- Bounded rationality
- Behavioral interpretation - Holism - Diffuse
delineation of issues - Strong emphasis on
problem definition and problem selection
- Knowledge acquisition in a dynamic and
interactive ongoing process
- Uncertainty is a constant, together with
autonomous variable factors
- Context-dependent - Adapt to context
- Communicative rationality - Interpretative
analysis (causa remota) is predominant -
Expansionism - Issue is part of a larger whole -
Problem co-ordination / integration and
bundling of strategies
37
- Orientation towards intersubjectivity
- Efficiency in planning
C. Who is involved?
Actors and institutional links Emphasis on
interaction
Institution-oriented action
- Central governance
- Vertical network
- High degree of formalization, standardization and
routine
- Policy-maker is decision-maker / Hierarchical
interdependence
- For a collective that is not actively involved
- Tightly controlled institutional links with clearly
defined tasks and responsibilities
- Decentralized shared governance
- Local network
- Mix of formalization, standardization and
specialization
- Role of policy-maker is part of collective decision-
making - Symmetrical interdependence within
context framework - Collective, local and individual
interests are given equal consideration - No
hierarchical local autonomy, but shared
responsibility and commitment strategies.
- Interactive governance
- Horizontal network
- High degree of specialization and flexibility
- Role of policy-
- Symmetrical interdependence, varying interests
- Local and individual interests are basis for
development
- Highly variable and problem-based institutional
links with responsibilities that are difficult to
identify.
A = Full control
B = Full control is lacking with market mechanism functioning in its purest form.
A typology of planning-oriented action (according to the structure of Table 4.1).

Left: Framework for planning-oriented action, in which the relationship between planning goals and
interaction is based on complexity.

Right: A= integral environmental zoning C= Multiple goals, but central. Between B and D= ROM
The issue of
environmentally sensitive functions and activities is a type of issue that anyone can comprehend.
Industry and traffic bring risk and nuisance, which in turn lead to environmental impact in local
residential areas. This is a good reason for maintaining a certain distance from such activities. However,

38
developing a satisfactory solution for such issues is quite another matter. Environmental/spatial
conflict, which can be so easily explained in terms of the causal relationship between harmful activities
and sensitive functions that results from contaminating emissions, cannot always be represented as a
direct cause-and-effect relationship. There are many social and economic interests involved in the
process that leads to the release of harmful emissions and in the consequences of such emissions. The
spatial-functional context of environmental/spatial conflicts (e.g. the compact city) partly results in the
fact that maintaining sufficient distance between harmful and sensitive functions is not necessarily the
logical consequence of environmentally harmful emissions. In practice it is not always easy to
implement such an apparently simple solution because many other factors influence and determine
the nature and scale of an environmental/spatial conflict not least the reevaluation of principles,
policy changes and political standpoints, and shifts therein. For a long time, environmental/spatial
conflicts have been considered as relatively simple issues that could be resolved through
environmental standards, an instrument based on a functional-rational policy vision. We have already
seen that, in practice, the inflated evaluation of environmental standards works in favor of a
participative approach, i.e. a communicative-rational approach. This development could lead to a
situation in which interaction between actors becomes more important than the conventional
objectives designed to protect the environment. In order to be able to assess this development in
terms of environmental planning and analyze its implications for decision-making methods, three
approaches to planning action have been identified and developed:
A goal-oriented approach;
B. a decision-oriented approach;
C. an institution-oriented approach.

The implications of these approaches illustrate an interesting shift in planning theory from nuances,
modifications and constraints on the logical-positivist tradition in planning towards planning theory
based on participation and communication. This development at least in principle can be
compared to the critique of the policy-based approach to environmental/spatial conflict. Above we
have seen how this parallel is a stimulus to using planning-theory discourse as an aid to formulating
arguments when following and evaluating new policy developments. This relates to:
A. the shift from fixed targets to ongoing, integral goals;
B. the shift from functional to communicative rationality;
C. the shift from hierarchic structures to more horizontal, interactive networks.

The shifts in planning-theory discourse have resulted in greater emphasis on problem definition, the
planning process and the involvement of actors in that process. Interaction in planning has
increasingly become a goal in itself, while there is decreasing emphasis on the eventual result of
planning on the physical and social environment. By contrast, there is an increased awareness that
the results of interactive planning strategies can be predicted only to a limited extent, that the

39
degree of certainty of an issue is limited and that, all too often, the ultimate result of planning will
depend on the number of parties and interests involved. In short, more consideration is given to the
Here, however, there is a move away from the idea that the
principles underlying technical, centralized and functional-rati
replaced by other principles, which can be used to explain complex issues and be developed into a
W -
interactive elements of planning. As decision-making processes become more participative, goal-
oriented action remains appropriate, albeit in a different form. Goal-oriented and institution-
oriented planning measures are neither mutually exclusive nor diametrically opposed to each other.
Rather, they should be seen as complementary. The study has used the method of classifying the
features of goal-oriented, decision-oriented and institution-oriented approaches to planning
T esult of this classification, and can be used as
a guideline when determining the complexity of issues and selecting appropriate planning oriented
measures. The classification is reduced to its essential elements in Fig. 4.8. In the terminology of
Etzioni
ctions can be combined that arise from and/or lead to
abstractions at a higher level. It is a framework for planning-based action, whereby features of the
goal-oriented and institution-oriented approaches to planning are linked by complexity as a decision-
oriented criterion for planning-based action. Complexity as a criterion for planning-based action is
discussed primarily in terms of systems theory. Depending on the complexity of an issue, the
emphasis is placed either on its constituent parts, on the whole issue in relation to its constituent
parts, or on the relation of the whole issue to its context. As the emphasis shifts towards direct
causal relationships between constituent parts, a functional-rational approach command-and
control planning is readily available and, given the initial conditions of the issue, the ultimate result
of planning will be reasonably predictable. Where there are less clear relationships between the
various relevant aspects of an issue, and contextual factors of the issues are also seen as determining
factors, the complexity of the issue will increase, as will the uncertainty with regard to the end result.
However, the possibilities for dealing with the issue will also increase and this is an important
argument in favor of formulating a solution strategy that is not only more area-specific, but also
devised within a broader administrative framework situation-specific, area-oriented planning that
evolves towards shared governance. Such solutions would then be based on a more communicative-
rational approach. Taking this argument further, we can say that, with complexity as a criterion for
planning-based action, the somewhat dualistic relationship between functional rationality and
communicative rationality can be bridged. The cohesive framework for planning-based action allows
a connection to be established between two apparently diametrically opposed instruments in
environmental planning: integral environmental zoning and the ROM designated-areas policy. The
question remains as to how the planning-theoretical conclusions can be applied in practice, in this
case the developments that are taking place in environmental policy in the Netherlands. This
question is central to the following chapters, which will discuss the empirical evaluation of the
planning-theory developments identified in this chapter, the related arguments, and the abstractions
deriving from them. The discussion in the next section will focus on developments in area-specific
environmental policy and the consequences of those developments.

40