Sustainable Cities and Communities

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Communicative Turn in Spatial Planning and Strategy

  • Stefania ProliEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71061-7_65-1

Synonyms

Definition

The term “communicative turn” has been used to denote the spread of a planning theory, generally called “communicative planning theory” or “collaborative planning theory” that, instead of focusing on the production of a plan, emphasizes the value of planning in promoting public debates (Olsson 2009).

Communicative planning or collaborative planning is a planning approach where planners use discourse, communication, and consensus building for facilitating the dialogue between the stakeholders involved in a planning issue and reaching a shared understanding of the problem and consensus on what to do (Verma 2007; Machler and Milz 2015). Unlike systematic planning, where decisions are taken on the basis of the technical expertise and skills of the planner, the main concern of communicative planning is the democratic management and control of urban and regional environments and the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Albrects L (2003) Planning and power: Towards an emancipatory planning approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21(6):905–924.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c29mCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (2002) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P (1990) In other words: essays towards a reflective sociology. Polity Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand R, Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory 6(3):282–313.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faga B (2006) Designing public consensus: the civic theatre of community participation for architects landscape architects, planners and urban designers. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Fainstein SS (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Aff Rev 35(4):451–478.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107808740003500401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flyvbjerg B, Richardson T (2002) Planning and Foucault: in search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, London, pp 42–62Google Scholar
  9. Forester J (1982) Planning in the face of power. J Am Plan Assoc 48(1):67–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault M (1984) Space, knowledge and power. In: Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault reader. Pantheon Books, New York, pp 239–256Google Scholar
  13. Gallent N, Ciaffi D (2014) Communities, community action and planning. In: Gallent N, Ciaffi D (eds) Community action and planning. Context, drivers and outcomes. Bristol University Press, Bristol, pp 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodspeed R (2016) The death and life of collaborative planning theory. Urban Planning 1(4):1–5.  https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action vol. 1: reasons and the rationalisation of society. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey D (1989) The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Head BW (2007) Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Aust J Polit Sci 42(3):441–454.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Healey P (1992) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Plann Rev 62(2):143–162.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey P (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environ Plann B Plann Des 23(2):217–234.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press, VancouverCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Healey P (1998a) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environ Plan A Econ Space 30(9):1531–1546.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healey P (1998b) Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plann Rev 69(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.69.1.h651u2327m86326pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Plann Theory 2(2):101–123.  https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoernig H, Leahy D, Zhuang ZX, Early R, Randall L, Whitelaw G (2005) Planning for people: integrating social issues and processes into planning practice. Berkeley Plann J 18(1):35–55. http://scholarship.org/uc/ucb_crp_bpj/18/1. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
  25. Huxley M (2000) The limits of communicative planning. J Plan Educ Res 19(4):369–377.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huxley M, Yiftachel O (2000) New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. J Plan Educ Res 19(4):333–342.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Innes J (1992) Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. J Am Plan Assoc 58(4):440–453.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Innes J (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. J Plan Educ Res 14(3):183–191.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes J, Booher D (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5(4):419–436.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Innes J, Booher D (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Khakee A (1998) The communicative turn in planning and evaluation. In: Lichfield N, Barbanente A, Borri D, Khakee A, Prat A (eds) Evaluation in planning: facing the challenge of complexity. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Machler L, Milz D (2015) Innes. The evolution of communicative planning theory. Young academics booklet series. InPlanning, Groningen.Google Scholar
  33. Mandelbaum S (1996) The talk of the community. In: Mandelbaum S, Mazza L, Burchell RW (eds) Explorations in planning theory. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  34. Mazza L (2002) Technical knowledge and planning actions. Plann Theory 1(1):11–26.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsson AR (2009) Relational rewards and communicative planning: understanding actor motivation. Plann Theory 8(3):263–281.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rittle HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rode P (2016) The integrated ideal in urban governance: compact city strategies and the case of integrating urban planning, city design and transport policy in London and Berlin. Doctoral thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3399/1/Rode_The_Integrated_Ideal.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2018
  38. Sager T (1994) Communicative planning theory. Ashgate, AveburyGoogle Scholar
  39. Sager T (2002) Deliberative planning and decision making: an impossibility result. J Plan Educ Res 21(4):367–378.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Stromberg K (1999) A methodology for communicative planning. In: Proceedings of the Gothenburg conference: communication in urban planning, Gothenburg, 2–5 October 1999. http://www.greenstructureplanning.eu/MAPweb/Goteb/index.htm. Accessed 25 July 2018
  42. Tewdwr-Jones M, Allmendinger P (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environ Plan A 30(11):1975–1989.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a301975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verma N (2007) Institutions and planning: an analogical inquiry. In: Verma N (ed) Institutions and planning. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Elisa Conticelli
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly