Informal Planning: Towards Promoting Resilient Governance in Greece

  • Theodora PapamichailEmail author
  • Ana Perić
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


Due to a controversial historical and political background and the prolonged socioeconomic crisis, the culture of collaboration and dialogue is not cultivated at any governance level in Greece. On the contrary, the conventional self-financed real-estate development model is deeply rooted within Greek society—planning regulation supports greenfield development instead of implementing urban renewal or compact-city policies. As a result, Greek cities are affected by sprawl and, often, illegitimate development tendencies. In order to effectively cope with such urban problems, there is an idea of introducing a communicative rationality approach—a tool towards promoting a resilient governance system. However, since collaborative dialogue, networks and trustful relationships among the relevant players build the core of communicative rationality, it is rather challenging to implement an approach in Greece such as a fuzzy-governance context. The paper revolves around two main questions: How can tailor-made initiatives transcend the current sociopolitical obstacles in Greece and contribute to resilient spatial development? How could the country absorb the social, political and intellectual capital in practice that is produced by collaborative initiatives? The central part of the research is the case study presenting the informal planning method (called the Test Planning Process), applied for the first time in the Greek planning context in the city of Patras. Elucidating the role of various actors involved in the process, the paper shows how collaboration in consecutive steps, based on expertise and impartial participation, may reverse irrational decisions, thus promoting the gradual development of an informal approach to spatial planning.


Communicative rationality Resilient governance Informal planning procedures Greece 


  1. Davoudi, S., & Strange, I. (2009). Conceptions of space and place in strategic spatial planning. Abingdon, Oxon, GBR: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. EC (European Commission). (2011). TEN-T Core network including core network corridors. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Getimis, P., & Giannakourou, G. (2014). The evolution of spatial planning in Greece after the 1990s: drivers, directions and agents of change. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe (pp. 149–168). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Giannakourou, G. (2011). Europeanization, Actor constellations and Spatial Policy in Greece. disP—The Planning Review, 47, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative—Volume 1: Action, reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Healey, P. (1992). An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research, 9, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Healey, P. (1995). The institutional challenge for sustainable urban regeneration. Cities, 12, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning—shaping places in fragmented societies. London: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Innes, J. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of American Planning Association, 62, 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009). Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (Eds.). (2016). Cities in Crisis: Socio-spatial impacts of the economic crisis in Southern European cities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems & planning projects. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Papaioannou, A., & Nikolakopoulou, Ch. (2016). Greek cities in crisis: Context, evidence, response. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Cities in Crisis: Socio-spatial impacts of the economic crisis in Southern European cities (pp. 172–189). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Papamichail, T. (2015). Railway and urban development in Patras: Towards the improved participation of local governance in complex planning problems. Serbian Architectural Journal, 7(3), 365–380.Google Scholar
  19. Pappas, V. (2017). Spatial planning in Greece, Lecture, MAS program in spatial planning, European aspects of spatial planning, symposium Part III, Zurich: ETH Zurich, February 7, 2017.Google Scholar
  20. Pappas, V., Kalamiotis, I., & Karidi, A. (Eds.). (2013). CODE PATRAS Joint seminar week, urban and railway development in Patras: Report. Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
  21. Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. H. (Eds.). (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Romero, J., Jiménez, F., & Viloria, M. (2012). (Un)sustainable territories: Causes of the speculative bubble in Spain (1996–2010) and its territorial environmental and sociopolitical consequences. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 467–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Averbury.Google Scholar
  24. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities (p. 1998). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  25. Scholl, B. (2017). Building actor relationships and alliances for complex problem solving in spatial planning: The test planning method. disP—The Planning Review, 53(1), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scholl, B., Frezadou, I., Milionis, N., Moraitis, K., Noser, P., Papamichail, T., et al. (2015). Code patras—rail & city—A test planning process for patras. Zurich: ETH Zurich, Institute for Spatial and Landscape Development.Google Scholar
  27. Scholl, B., Frezadou, I., Papamichail, T., & Signer, R. (2016). Code patras—rail & city, a test planning process for patras. Exhibition of the results 2015/workshop of ideas 2016. Zurich: ETH Zurich, Institute for Spatial and Landscape Development.Google Scholar
  28. Scholl, B., Staub, B., & Vinzens, M. (Eds.). (2013). Test planning—A method with a future. Zurich: vdf Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Spatial and Landscape DevelopmentETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Spatial and Landscape DevelopmentETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations