On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

2022 ◽  
pp. 147309522110663
Author(s):  
Ernest R. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Regional Planning ◽  
Transportation Planning ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Critical Reflection ◽  
Sociology Of Knowledge ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
The Third ◽  
Three Generations ◽  
Regional Community

The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.

“Planning” or e-Planning?

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest R. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
Social Purpose ◽  
Construction Of Knowledge ◽  
Usable Knowledge

Planning theory is hardly relevant for E-Planning, because generic “planning” does not exist for practical purposes, except as distinct planning practices. E-Planning is such a practice, with implications for E-Planning theory, education and practice. Defining planning as “what planners do” makes planning a socially recognized practice; for such practices “planning” always has a qualifyer: urban-, environmental- or strategic planning. Meaningful discussion of planning demands contingent referents not abstract generalizations. Diverse planning practices are identifyable on several dimensions: sector, level or domain, and country. With various actors and blends of usable knowledge, planning practices contribute expertise to the co-construction of knowledge. The case for E-Planning follows the prototype of spatial planning, including tools: knowledge that E-planners contribute; practice: the E-Planner's role and social purpose; and context: E-planners' workplaces and their institutional environment. Evidence of institutionalization (including the IJEPR) confirms that E-Planning is a real planning practice, with E-Planning theory in development and awaiting integration.

Spatial Planning as a Design Discipline: A Paradigm for Western Europe?

10.1068/b2633 ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barrie Needham
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
Planning Education ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Relationship

There is an implicit paradigm in the theory of spatial planning, which we call “spatial planning as a design discipline”. It is implicit in much of planning theory, and the exposition here is in many respects an ordering of ideas from planning theory which have been in circulation for many years. I will make them explicit and relate them to each other in order to lay bare the underlying assumptions, to help planning education, and to improve the relationship between theory and practice. Such an ordering of existing ideas inevitably looks backwards, so I will also investigate how the paradigm presented here relates to some recent innovations in planning theory. Because many of the ideas have been in good currency for a long time, it is probable that they have had a strong influence on planning practice in much of Western Europe: there is not just a paradigm shared by academics but also a discourse shared by academics and practitioners.

scholarly journals Responding to a complex world: Explorations in spatial planning

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelique Chettiparamb
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Complexity Theory ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Third Sector ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Complex World ◽  
Planning Systems ◽  
First Order ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Social

This article discusses three aspects in relation to Complexity Theory. First, from an understanding of time and space specificities in the rise of theories, it discusses the wider socio-political reasons that may account for the rise of complexity theory and its interest for planners today. The rise of the third sector in governance, the decentralisation of the nation state, the rise of informality, the exponential rise of information and knowledge in every sphere of human and non-human activity and the rise of new normative ideologies are argued to provide the social context for interest in complexity theory. Second, this article positions complexity theory within general social science theories and argues that complexity theory best suits the second-order realm of social science theorisation. Third, this article positions complexity theory within planning theory and suggests that complexity theorists within planning might engage with the theory in three ways. These are by suggesting new ways of ordering of society and space by configuring or re-configuring planning systems in the first order, unravelling new opportunities for actors to work in society and space with largely self-organised entities and finally by searching for and discovering new dynamics for systems in the first order in society and space.

A Materialist Basis for Planning Theory and Practice: Comments on the Papers by Roweis and by Forester

1983 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Jensen-Butler
Keyword(s):  
Social Practice ◽  
Scientific Explanation ◽  
Qualitative Change ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Rational Approach ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
Base Analysis ◽  
Epistemological Position

Analysis of the practice of planning is increasingly being used to develop planning theory, The papers by Roweis and Forester in the second issue of Environment and Planning D: Society and Space base analysis of planning practice on hermeneutic, linguistic, and phenomenological approaches, as an alternative to the technical -rational approach to planning theory, In the present paper, I argue that the approaches adopted by these two authors create more problems than they solve, and a critique of Roweis's and Forester's theoretical ideas is made, It is argued that these approaches rest upon idealist ontological assumptions, rendering explanation of qualitative change (development) impossible. Discussion of Giddens's concept of structuration and of the negative consequences for scientific explanation of Habermas's epistemological position is presented, as both approaches are used by Roweis and Forester. Criticism is also made of the separation of territorial relations from relations of substance. Finally, the serious consequences of their approaches for scientific and social practice are outlined. I conclude that this type of approach cannot provide a satisfactory basis for planning theory, and furthermore, that the approach is inherently conservative. Some ideas arc presented concerning planning theory based on materialist ontological foundations.

scholarly journals Decolonizing regional planning from the Global South: Active geographies and social struggles in Northeastern Brazil

2021 ◽  
pp. 026377582110246
Author(s):  
Federico Ferretti
Keyword(s):  
Regional Planning ◽  
Global South ◽  
Northeastern Brazil ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Literature ◽  
The South ◽  
Political Conservatism ◽  
Colonial Histories ◽  
Resisting Oppression

This paper addresses the engagement of critical geographers from Northeastern Brazil with regional planning, aiming at transforming society by acting on their region’s spaces. Extending and putting in relation literature on planning theory in the Global South and geographical scholarship on decoloniality, I explore new archives showing how the planning work that these geographers performed from 1957 to 1964 was an example of the ‘South’ re-elaborating and putting into practice notions arising from ‘international’ literature, such as that of ‘active geography’, and pioneering critical uses of instruments, such as mappings and statistics, that have often been associated with technocracy and political conservatism. Connected with peasants’ struggles and with a theoretical framework that is cognisant of the colonial histories and insurgent Black and indigenous traditions in the Northeast, these geographers’ works show that there is no ‘Southern Theory’ without a concrete engagement of scholars with social and political problems, one which is not limited to ‘participation’, but aims at challenging the political powers in place. Although not devoid of contradictions that are analysed here, the experiences of these Southern geographers acting in and for the South can provide precious insights into current (Northern or Southern) scholarly programmes aimed at resisting oppression.

scholarly journals Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: Exploiting a hybrid opportunity space

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 232-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alister Scott ◽  
Claudia Carter ◽  
Michael Hardman ◽  
Nick Grayson ◽  
Tim Slaney
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Planning Practice ◽  
Ecosystem Science

scholarly journals Spatial planning vs territorial planning – Areas of concern of the content of regional planning types

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 1897-1914
Author(s):  
Kseniya Yu. PROSKURNOVA
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Regional Planning ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Territorial Planning ◽  
Planning Methods ◽  
Areas Of Concern

Subject. This article discusses the issues of creating a planning system to improve the efficiency of cooperation between planning entities. Objectives. The article aims to study the features of application and specific characteristics of spatial and territorial planning. Methods. For the study, I used a comparative analysis. Results. The article finds that interpretations of the concepts of spatial and territorial planning used in Russian and foreign practice and research differ. Some authors confuse the two types of planning and use the relevant terms as synonyms, others distinguish the use of these types of planning in practice. Conclusions. The article concludes that spatial planning in comparison with territorial one, includes a larger number of elements. Spatial planning can form the basis to create a system of cooperation between neighboring regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document