Managing Complex Spatial Planning Processes

This article surveys the way in which the idea of sustainable development is integrated into current spatial planning practice by Swedish local authorities. The Brundtland Report's definition of sustainable development calls for all dimensions of sustainability to be considered. Given that today's planning processes deal with large volumes of basic data where epistemological and technical knowledge must be co-ordinated with the actors' values and views of society, this makes spatial planning a very complex process for local planning authorities. The question is whether these ideals of sustainability are manageable in a complex planning situation. Case histories of the implementation process in Sweden indicate that local authorities seek to limit this complexity by dividing the main topics, i.e. ecological, social and economic, into separate planning processes and planning documents. Furthermore, each of the sustainability dimensions seems to be strengthened by social discourses, which can be recognised in the visions of the local plans. The various modes of planning correspond to and are strengthened by these discourses.

[1]  P. Healey.  Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies , 1997 .

[2]  Richard Cowell,et al.  Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process , 2001 .

[3]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. , 1987 .

[4]  J. Feagin,et al.  Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. , 1990 .

[5]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[6]  Nikolaos Zahariadis.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[7]  Aaron Wildavsky,et al.  If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing , 1973 .

[8]  Randall G. Arendt,et al.  Charter of the New Urbanism , 1999 .

[9]  David Murphy,et al.  Still muddling through ... , 2000 .

[10]  Torben Bech Dyrberg.  The Circular Structure of Power: Politics, Identity, Community , 1997 .

[11]  T. Sager.  Communicative Planning Theory , 1994 .

[12]  B. Guy Peters,et al.  ‘With a Little Help From Our Friends’: Public-Private Partnerships as Institutions and Instruments , 1998 .

[13]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[14]  C. Lindblom.  Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. , 1979 .

[15]  J. Innes.  Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice , 1995 .

[16]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[17]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Information in Communicative Planning , 1998 .

[18]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[19]  Kristina L. Nilsson.  Planning in a sustainable direction - the art of CONSCIOUS CHOICES , 2003 .

[20]  E. Weiss.  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development , 1992, International Legal Materials.

[21]  Louis Albrechts,et al.  Planning and Power: Towards an Emancipatory Planning Approach , 2003 .

[22]  E. R. Alexander,et al.  The Planner-Prince: Interdependence, Rationalities and Post-communicative Practice , 2001 .

[23]  Amitai Etzioni.  Mixed-Scanning: A 'Third' Approach to Decision-Making , 1967 .

[24]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2003 .