Abstract
This chapter presents the state of the art of this research and frames the main research question of the work. Contemporary literature shows a growing interest in reframing boundaries of public and civic participation in planning and an urgent need to reframe the theory of planning itself, looking for more effective and legitimate conceptions and approaches to participation. As a background of the research, this chapter gives an overview of the cultural origins of participatory approaches to urban and territorial planning, by exploring the epistemological and paradigmatic evolution of planning theory, the different political attitudes towards participation and the most consolidated participatory cultures and practice. The last paragraph deals with contemporary criticisms, expressed in trade literature, of contemporary practices of participatory planning, largely drawn by the communicative tradition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Particularly, the revolutionary movement of ‘68 contributed to spread an anti-authoritarian and anarchical culture, which influenced the public domain as a whole. Faced with a depersonalized society, the movement claimed participation of self-organized social groups in the decision-making process and reassessment of the uniqueness of individuals over a standardized social mass.
- 2.
About Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice an in-depth analysis is provided in Chap. 2.
- 3.
In a more recent work (Lindblom 1990), the author explains the mechanism of partisan mutual adjustment, according to which each actor probes their own way of defining the problem considered through interaction, as well as the possible actions to cope with it and the acceptable solutions. Partisan mutual adjustment happens through probing (Lindblom 1990).
- 4.
Cohen, March and Olses called “organized anarchies” these kinds of organizations.
- 5.
In the article Coping with Uncertainty in Planning (1985), Christensen provides an interpretation of planning strategies as attempts to organize and relate means and ends, essentially reasserting the double character of the discipline. As Christensen states in her article, planning in conditions of confusion about both means and ends (ambiguity and uncertainty) is about finding a relation among them in the course of action, while thinking about the problem situation. The most effective strategy corresponds to redefining the problem (problem-setting) it elicits order and meanings from ambiguity (Christensen 1985) using expert and experiential knowledge in a collective process of making sense together (Christensen 1985).
- 6.
For Friedmann, Social Learning’s pragmatism represents the practical way of overcoming political ambiguity and conservative approach of Policy Analysis, in particular of Lindblom’s incrementalism (Friedmann 1987).
- 7.
Among the others agencies working on advocacy planning in United States, UPA (Urban Planning Aid) was one of the must active. As an O.N.G., UPA was working in Cambridge, Massachusetts and lead by Lisa Peattie, Chester Hartman and Robert Goodman. Their activities switched from advocacy to empowerment practices after few years. In fact, the Lisa Peattie’s radical conception of social planning pointed out the need for working with local communities by empowering them, rather than considering them as the planner’s client (Peattie 1968).
- 8.
German philosopher and social theorist Jürgen Habermas developed his “Theory of communicative action” (1984 and 1987, orig. 1981) which forms the cornerstone of communicative planning theory. He analyses public discourse and language as a non-neutral instrument in public action: “language is a tool for social control and power domination. It is necessary to legitimize power relations (…) and can be ideological”. In order to escape the distortion of the public discourse, Habermas suggests a theory of communicative action aimed at clearing the language from any ideological or instrumental super-structures. Thus, he argues that anyone who engages in a rational argumentation implicitly assumes some universal demand of effectiveness: (1) fairness (Richtigkeit): each speaker has to respect rules of the argumentative situation: for example, to listen to other’s assumption or to withdraw their own, whenever these prove false; (2) truth (Wahreit): each speaker has to formulate their own existential statement; (3) truthfulness (Wahrhaftigkeit). Each speaker has to be honest and convinced of their own statements, (4) comprehensibleness (Verständlichkeit): each speaker has to talk in a convenient way, consistent with grammatical meanings and rules. If one of these pre-conditions is not satisfied, then any possibility to create shared understanding crumbles (Abbagnano and Forniero 1996).
- 9.
According to a deliberative model for democracy, public discourse is interpreted as a collective deliberation, a dialogical process during which participants’ preferences can emerge and evolve, through interaction and confrontation. More insights in deliberative democracy will be provided in the following chapters.
- 10.
Forester builds a theory of deliberation contrasting with the practice of negotiation. According to communicative rationality, deliberating and negotiating mean rationally discussing and defending individual interests respectively. The former persuades though pure argumentative tools, while the latter is based on promises and intimidations (Elster 1991).
- 11.
Reference is here made to contemporary versions of Arnstein’s “Stair of Participation” (1969), which for the first time tried to evaluate and classify participation and inclusiveness in planning decision-making processes at different levels. While Arnstein’s levels of participation were conceived as a political aim of participatory planning in terms of enhancing social mobilization, contemporary classifications and taxonomy of methods (which associated different techniques of public facilitation with different kinds of participation in the public domain) are mainly value-free and conceived as interrelated steps of a progressive participatory process. Specifically, while Arnstein considered empowerment and citizens’ power as the only real participation, for contemporary classifications animation, communication and consultation (Mela and Ciaffi 2006), collaboration or active involvement (Ecosfera 2001) are key steps towards empowerment.
- 12.
Pretty suggested a “typology of participation” (Pretty 1995) to distinguish between more and less participatory interventions. He described seven distinct forms of participation: (1) manipulative participation, (2) passive participation, (3) participation by consultation, (4) participation for material incentives, (5) functional participation, (6) interactive participation, and (7) self-mobilization. The first ones are the least participatory, especially manipulative intervention, where participation is only confined to physical presence. On the other end, self-mobilization implies total participation, where all aspects of the intervention are carried out bottom-up.
- 13.
Bobbio (2004), a well-known handbook providing local administrators with guidelines to activate participatory decision-making processes, classifies participatory tools and methodologies according to three main “approaches” to participation: (1) Active listening: an approach that includes all those techniques addressed to understand how problems are described and perceived by participants; (2) Constructive interaction: that gathers all the methods for helping people discuss and produce shared decisions; (3) Conflicts resolution: that instead collects those techniques aimed at containing and reducing radical conflicts (Bobbio 2004).
- 14.
A deeper insight of this statement is given by the author in the article “Planning Theory and The City” (2005). “The ideal that everyone’s opinion should be respectfully heard and that no particular group should be privileged in an interchange is an important normative argument. But it is not a sufficient one, and it does not deal adequately with the classic conundrums of democracy. These include the problems of insuring adequate representation of all interests in a large, socially divided group; of protecting against demagoguery; of achieving more than token public participation; of preventing economically or institutionally powerful interests from defining the agenda; and of maintaining minority rights. Within political theory, endless dispute has revolved around these issues, and they have by no means been resolved. Communicative planning theory typically tends to pass over them in its reliance on goodwill and to dismiss the view that the character of the obstacles to consensus building based on tolerance derive from a social context that must be analyzed” (Fainstein 2005).
- 15.
By quoting Susan Fainstein “(..) the advocates of a Habermasian or deliberative approach argue that the role of planners is to listen, especially to listen to subordinated groups. Acting as a mediator, the planner must search for consensus and in doing so accept a plurality of ways of knowing, of self-expression (stories, art, etc.), and of truth (Forester 1999; Healey 1997; Innes 1995; Hoch 2007). Criticism of this outlook is not anti-democratic, but rather contends that it is a proceduralist approach which fails to take into account the reality of structural inequality and hierarchies of power (Fainstein 2009).
- 16.
See A più Voci, Bobbio (2004) and www.communityplanning.net.
References
Abbagnano, N., & Forniero, G. (1996). Protagonisti e testi della filosofia. Torino: Paravia.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., Schön, D., & Carmagnola, F. (1998). Apprendimento organizzativo. Teoria, metodo e pratiche, Guerini e Associati.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice—The case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350.
Balducci, A. (1991). Disegnare il futuro. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Balducci, A. (1996). L’urbanistica partecipata, Territorio, Vol. 2, Milano.
Besio, M. (2000). Etica e pianificazione: Un rapporto mutevole. In: G. Maciocco, G. Del Piano, & G. Marchi, (Eds.), Etica e pianificazione spaziale, Milano: Franco Angeli.
Bobbio, L. (1996). La democrazia non abita a Gordio. Studio sui processi decisionali politico-amministrativi. Franco Angeli: Milano.
Bobbio, L. (2004). A più Voci. Amministrazioni pubbliche, imprese, associazioni e cittadini nei processi decisionali inclusivi. Roma: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Bobbio, L. (Ed.). (2007). Amministrare con i cittadini. Torino: Dps.
Christensen, K. S. (1985). Coping with uncertainty in planning. Apa Journal, 51(1), 63–72.
Cohen, M., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny. London: Zed Books.
Crosta, P. L. (2000). Società e territorio, al plurale. Lo spazio pubblico—Quale bene pubblico—come esito eventuale dell’interazione sociale, Foedus, 1.
Crosta, P. L., (2010). Pratiche. Il territorio “è l’uso che se ne fa”. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331–338.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ecosfera (Ufficio speciale per la partecipazione dei cittadini e dei Laboratori di quartiere) (2001). Le ragioni della partecipazione nei processi di trasformazione urbana, Roma.
Elster, J. (1991). Arguing and bargaining in two constituent assemblies. Storrs Lectures: Yale University.
Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban Affaires, 4, 451–478.
Fainstein, S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 121–130.
Fainstein, S. (2009). Spatial Justice and Planning. Journal on Spatial Justice and Planning 1(1), 58–77
Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Planning and foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 44–62). London, New York: Routledge.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gastil, J., & Levin, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Books.
Giangrande, A. (2006). L’approccio territorialista allo sviluppo sostenibile, dispense del corso di “Progettazione e pianificazione sostenibile”, Università Roma Tre.
Giusti, M. (1995). Urbanista e terzo attore. Ruolo del pianificatore nelle iniziative di autopromozione territoriale degli abitanti. Torino: Harmattan.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
Hillier, J. (2002). Direct action and agonism in democratic planning processes. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus—Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory, 2(1), 37–59.
Hoch, C. (2007). Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 272–283.
INNES, J. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3) (Spring), 183–189.
Illich, I. (1978). Toward a history of needs. Pennsylvania State University: Heyday Books.
Lanzara, G. (1993). Capacità nengativa. Capcità progettuale e modelli d’intervento nelle organizzazioni, Ed. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Lascoumes, P., & Le Gàles, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21.
Laurian, L., & Shaw, M. M. (2008). Evaluation of public participation: The practices of certified planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 293–309.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
Lindblom, C. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.
Lindblom, C. (1990). Inquiry and change. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
Mäntysalo, R. (2005). Approaches to participation in urban planning theories. In I. Zetti (Ed.), Rehabilitation of suburban areas, Brozzi and Le Piagge neighbourhoods. Firenze: Shira Brand.
Magnaghi, A. (a cura di) (1998). Il territorio degli abitanti. Dunod, Milano.
Mazza, L. (2004). Progettare squilibri. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Mela, A., & Ciaffi, D. (2006). Partecipazione: Dimensioni, spazi, strumenti. Torino: Carocci.
Mela, A., & Ciaffi, D. (2011). Urbanistica partecipata. Modelli ed Esperienze, Ed. Carocci, Roma.
Miessen, M. (2011). The nightmare of participation. London: Sternberg Press.
Moroni, S. (Ed.) (1994) Territorio e giustizia distributiva, Milano: Franco Angeli.
Moroni, S. (1997). Etica e territorio. Prospettive di filosofia politica per la pianificazione territoriale. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Mumford, L. (1956). The transformation of man. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Palermo, P. C., & Ponzini, D. (2010). Spatial planning and urban development, critical perspectives. London: Springer.
Pasqui, G. (2005). Progetto, governo, società. Ripensare le politiche territoriali. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Pasqui, G. (2012). Azione pubblica, partecipazione, conflitti. Riflessioni in forma di tesi. In A. Cancellieri, & G. Scandurra (Eds.), Tracce urbane. Alla ricerca della città, Milano: Franco Angeli.
Peattie, L. (1968). Reflections on advocacy planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 34(2), 80–88.
Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.
Rittel, J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Stein, S. L., & Harper, T. N. (2005). Rawls justice and fairness: A moral thesis for contemporary planning theory. Planning Theory, 4(2), 147–172.
Veca, S. (1985). Il piano e il contratto sociale: la tutela dei diritti e della rappresentatività democratica. In A. Tutino (Ed.), Metodi della Pianificazione e metodi della decisione, Ed. Lavoro, Roma.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saporito, E. (2016). New Challenges for Participatory Approaches in Spatial Planning. In: Consensus Building Versus Irreconcilable Conflicts. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30829-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30829-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30827-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30829-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)