Reframing collaborative planning theory and practice

Ana Perić; Ana Perić

doi:10.3934/urs.2024019

Urban Resilience and Sustainability

2024, Volume 2, Issue 4: 365-370. doi: 10.3934/urs.2024019

Previous Article Next Article

Editorial

Reframing collaborative planning theory and practice

Ana Perić ^{1,2
,
,}

1.
School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland
2.
Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Received: 15 December 2024 Revised: 17 December 2024 Accepted: 17 December 2024 Published: 18 December 2024

Citation: Ana Perić. Reframing collaborative planning theory and practice[J]. Urban Resilience and Sustainability, 2024, 2(4): 365-370. doi: 10.3934/urs.2024019

Related Papers:

References

[1]	Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35: 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
[2]	Davidoff P (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J Am Inst Plann 31: 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187 doi: 10.1080/01944366508978187
[3]	Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 1: Reason and rationalization of society), Boston: Beacon Press.
[4]	Habermas J (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason), Boston: Beacon Press.
[5]	Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity.
[6]	Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[7]	Healey P (1992) A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. J Am Plann Assoc 58: 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975531 doi: 10.1080/01944369208975531
[8]	Healey P (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, London: MacMillan Press.
[9]	Innes JE (1995) Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. J Plan Educ Res 14: 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307 doi: 10.1177/0739456X9501400307
[10]	Innes JE (1996) Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. J Am Plann Assoc 62: 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975712 doi: 10.1080/01944369608975712
[11]	Booher DE, Innes JE (2002) Network power in collaborative planning. J Plan Educ Res 21: 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301 doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100301
[12]	Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864302
[13]	Fainstein SS (2010) The Just City, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[14]	Forester J (1982) Planning in the face of power, J Am Plann Assoc 48: 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167 doi: 10.1080/01944368208976167
[15]	Forester J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[16]	Lee D, Feiertag P, Unger L (2024) Co-production, co-creation or co-design of public space? A systematic review. Cities 154: 105372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105372 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105372
[17]	Schmitt P, Wiechmann T (2018) Unpacking spatial planning as the governance of place: Extracting potentials for future advancements in planning research. disP–Plann Rev 54: 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2018.1562795 doi: 10.1080/02513625.2018.1562795
[18]	Hendriks F, Lidström A, Loughlin J (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19]	Piletić A (2021) The role of the urban scale in anchoring authoritarian neoliberalism: A look at post-2012 neoliberalization in Belgrade, Serbia. Globalizations 19: 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1882817 doi: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1882817
[20]	Yuan Y, Chen Y, Cao K (2021) The third sector in collaborative planning: Case study of Tongdejie community in Guangzhou, China. Habitat Int 109: 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102327 doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102327
[21]	Ataöv A, Kahraman ZEH (2009) Constructing collaborative processes through experiential learning: Participatory planning in Kaymaklı, Turkey. Habitat Int 33: 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.11.001
[22]	Atkinson R, Zimmermann K (2018) Area-based initiatives—a facilitator for participatory governance?, In: Heinelt, H. Author, Handbook on Participatory Governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785364358.00019
[23]	Bragaglia F, Janin Rivolin U, Berisha E, et al. (2024) How is urban co-production conveyed in European cities?. Eur Plan Stud 32: 1613–1631. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2024.2339933 doi: 10.1080/09654313.2024.2339933
[24]	Fiket I, Markov Č, Ilić V, et al. (2024) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Southeast Europe: How to Engage in Flawed Democracies, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003426103
[25]	Knaap G, Nedovic-Budic Z, Carbonell A (2015) Planning for States and Nation States in the U. S. and Europe, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
[26]	Knieling J, Othengrafen F, Allmendinger P, et al. (2015) Soft Spaces in Europe: Re-negotiating Governance, Boundaries and Borders, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768403
[27]	Huxley M, Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. J Plan Educ Res 19: 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402 doi: 10.1177/0739456X0001900402
[28]	Hillier J (2003) Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be 'Real'. Plan Theory 2: 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005 doi: 10.1177/1473095203002001005
[29]	Ruming K (2018) Post-political planning and community opposition: Asserting and challenging consensus in planning urban regeneration in Newcastle, New South Wales. Geogr Res 56: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12269 doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12269
[30]	Swyngedouw E (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: In search of a democratic politics of environmental production. Int J Urban Reg Res 33: 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x
[31]	Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503
[32]	Mouffe C (2000) The Democratic Paradox, London: Verso Books.
[33]	Purcell M (2009) Resisting neoliberalization: Communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements?. Plann Theory 8: 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232 doi: 10.1177/1473095209102232
[34]	Albrechts L, Barbanente A, Monno V (2020) Practicing transformative planning: The territory-landscape plan as a catalyst for change. City Territ Archit 7: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-019-0111-2 doi: 10.1186/s40410-019-0111-2
[35]	Healey P (2012) The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Plan Theory 11: 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211419333 doi: 10.1177/1473095211419333
[36]	Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS (2024) Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009261845
[37]	Savini F, Aalbers MB (2016) The de-contextualization of land use planning through financialisation: Urban redevelopment in Milan. Eur Urban Reg Stud 23: 878–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415585887 doi: 10.1177/0969776415585887
[38]	Davies J (2021) Between Realism and Revolt: Governing Cities in the Crisis of Neoliberal Globalism, Bristol: Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3818743
[39]	Othengrafen F (2010) Spatial planning as expression of culturised planning practices: The examples of Helsinki, Finland and Athens, Greece. Town Plann Rev 81: 83–110. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.25 doi: 10.3828/tpr.2009.25
[40]	Özdemir E, Tasan-Kok T (2019) Planners' role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Stud 56: 741–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017726738 doi: 10.1177/0042098017726738

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)