Strategic Spatial Planning PDF
Strategic Spatial Planning PDF
Strategic Spatial Planning PDF
CITATIONS
READS
39
349
1 author:
Louis Albrechts
University of Leuven
52 PUBLICATIONS 1,299 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2015, volume 42, pages 000000
doi:10.1068/b130104p
The term strategic planning is, probably apart from Healey (1997a; 1999: 2004), more used in
continental Europe (see Albrechts, 2004, Balducci etal, 2011; Motte, 2006; Salet and Faludi, 2000).
It often matches with UK literature on spatial planning (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009;
Brand and Gaffikin, 2007). Moreover, there is ample evidence that in many strategic plans the often
more abstract discourse is turned into something more tangible and is redefined into a more familiar
vocabulary of statutory planning (see also Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page1703).
L Albrechts
able to cope with the challenges our society is facing and embed structural changes that
are needed. But at the same time, critical comments and reactions are raised on the theory
and practices of strategic spatial planning. I reflect on what can be done to revive strategic
planning as a critical theory and praxis. What could a more radical type of strategic planning
provide that statutory planning and the more traditional strategic planning could not? The
paper is organized in four main sections. Following this introduction I briefly introduce the
military and corporate history of strategic planning, its logic and aims and some critiques.
I then introduce the contours of a more radical strategic planning, initiate coproduction
as a cornerstone and, finally, opt for working with conflicts and legitimacy as supportive
building blocks. The paper relies on a selective review of planning literature and the authors
experience in practice.
Strategic spatial planning: history, logic, aims, critique
Physical planners, dreaming to develop sustainable cities and regions for the good of
society, and planning regulators, who are obsessed with avoiding potential conflicts by
setting clear and enforceable rules, have dominated planning for a long time. The business
community and politicians associated this type of planning with constraints on their freedom
of maneuver (Healey, 2006, page533). At some point in time strategic planning became
the new hope of the community of (mainly academic) planners in Europe and beyond to
overcome the shortcomings of statutory planning at local and regional tiers of planning
and decision making. The word strategy has its roots within a military context (see Sun
Tzu, 1994 [500BCE]). The focus is on accurate understanding of the real situation, realistic
goals, focused orientation of available strengths and persistence of the action. In the early
1980s, the state and local governments were called upon to use the strategic planning
approach developed in the corporate world (Kaufman and Jacobs, 1987). Others (Bryson,
1995; Bryson and Roering, 1988) stress the need to gather the key (internal and external)
stakeholders (preferably key decision makers), the importance of external trends and forces,
and the active involvement of senior-level managers, in order to construct a longer term
vision. Even if some of the objectives and arguments furnished by plans that develop this
perspective may seem innovative, the approach, method, and working hypotheses are quite
traditional (see Albrechts and Balducci, 2013). More recently some authors (see Albrechts,
2004; Balducci etal, 2011; Healey 1997a; 2000; Motte, 2006), have gradually developed a
definition that is clearly different from the military and corporate stance. Strategic planning
is defined as: a sociospatial process through which a range of people in diverse institutional
relations and positions come together to design planmaking processes and develop contents
and strategies for the management of spatial change; an opportunity for constructing new
ideas and processes that can carry them forward; collective efforts to reimagine a city, urban
region, or region and to translate the outcome into priorities for area investment, conservation
measures, strategic infrastructure investments, and principles of land-use regulation (see
Healey, 1997b; 2000). Defined in these ways strategic spatial planning is as much about
process, institutional design, and mobilization as it is about the development of substantive
theories. Content relates to the (strategic) issues selected in the process. The motivations
for using strategic spatial planning vary in practice, but the objectives have typically been:
to construct a challenging, coherent, and coordinated vision; to frame an integrated longterm spatial logic (eg, for land-use regulation, resource protection, sustainable development,
spatial quality, sustainability, and equity); to enhance action orientation beyond the idea of
planning as control; and to promote a more open multilevel type of governance.
Despite a certain popularity of strategic spatial planning (see Metzger, 2012, page781)
one cannot be blind to the critique formulated on strategic planning. The critiques focus
on very different registers of the strategic spatial planning approach. Some of the critiques
are related to the ontology and epistemology of strategic planning. Questions are raised on
how (and to what extent) the shift from a Euclidian concept of stable entities towards a nonEuclidian concept of many spacetime geographies (see Friedmann, 1993, page482; Graham
and Healey, 1999) is reflected in strategic spatial planning? How are the different types
ofknowledge (tacit/experiential knowledge of local communities versus traditional scientific
knowledge), relevant for a relational(2) strategic planning, reflected in strategic plans and
actions based on these plans? Economicpolitical ideological critiques draw a link between
the uprise of strategic spatial planning and the strengthened neoliberal political climate (see
Cerreta etal, 2010; Olesen, 2011; 2012; Olesen and Richardson, 2012;). It is feared that the
ideal of strategic spatial planning could easily be used to favor the most aggressive neoliberal
models of urban and regional development (Cerreta etal, 2010, pagex; see also Olesen
2011; Sager, 2013) and questions are raised about whether strategic spatial planning practices
are able to resist the hegemonic discourses of neoliberalism (see Olesen, 2011; 2012). Others
attack the militaristic and corporate terminology (see Adonis Barbieri, 2008; Leal de Oliveira,
2000) of strategic planning. And finally, there are those who focus on the implementation of the
theory in practice, asking whether existing practices of strategic spatial planning really follow
its normative grounding (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009b; 2010; Newman, 2008).
In the next section I sketch the contours of a more radical strategic planning that opens
some perspective to broaden the scope of possible futures and to organize the relationship
between (all) actors in a more open and equitable way.
Contours for a more radical strategic spatial planning
Due to an increasing complexity, strategic planning processes need to be adaptive to changing
circumstances and need to evolve with new information, new knowledge (scientific and
local), and changing contextual conditions. As practices clearly demonstrate, strategic spatial
planning is not a monolithic block of axioms set in stone. It is not a single concept, procedure,
or tool. In fact, it is a set of concepts, procedures, and tools that must be tailored carefully to
the situation at hand if desirable outcomes are to be achieved. The context forms the setting
ofthe planning process but also takes form and undergoes changes in the process (see Dyrberg,
1997). For some people strategic planning needs a specific political and institutional context
[see Olesen and Richardson (2012, page1690); see also Needham (2000) for success factors]
and is sensitive to specific intellectual traditions. Therefore, the capacity of a strategic spatial
planning system to deliver the desired outcomes is dependent not only on the legalpolitical
system itself, but also on the conditions underlying it. These conditionsincluding political,
societal, cultural, and professional attitudes towards spatial planning (in terms of planning
content and process) and the political will on the part of the institutions involved in setting the
process in motion (and, even more difficult, to keep it going)affect the ability of planning
systems to implement the chosen strategies.
The actual conditions are dominated by a persistent neoliberal context. Neoliberalism
assumes that sociospatial problems have a market solution (see Peck and Tickel, 2002;
Purcell, 2009; Swyngedouw etal, 2002), and its aim was and is to depoliticize the economy
(Friedmann, 1992, page83) and to subordinate everything to the economic realm and
sovereignty of the market (Mouffe, 2005, page92). Indeed, one can witness neoliberal
attempts to create competitive cities and regions by generating investments in major cities
and urban regions (Olesen and Richardson, 2012, page1692; Swyngedouw etal, 2002). Such
investments (projects) have become a key component of a neoliberal shift from distributive
policies, welfare considerations, and direct service provision towards more market-oriented
(2)
A relational approach emphasizes the multiplicity of the webs of relations which transect a territory
and the complex intersections and disjunctions which develop among them (Healey, 2006, page526).
L Albrechts
A frame in this context embodies a sensitivity to plurality. As Healey (2008, page35) perceptively
writes a frame embodies a sensitivity to the complexity, plurality and indeterminacy of particular
urban development dynamics as they emerge, and which generate sufficient energy to inspire and
direct transformative actions within those dynamics with the aim of shaping what happens in a place.
(4)
Reference could be made here to parallel discussions on communicative/collaborative planning (see
Brand and Gaffikin, 2007; Huxley and Yftachel, 2000; Sager, 2013).
(5)
Foresters (2010) Habermasian idea of deliberation (and particularly his concept of power) is very
different from the form of engagement described by Mitlin (2008) with a Foucauldian concept of
power.
(6)
A plan, policy, or approach is termed normative when it gives the force of law to its object (a
prescriptive plan, policy, approach). For Campbell and Marshall (2006, page240) planning is an
activity which is concerned with making choices about good and bad, right and wrong, with and for
others, in relation to particular places.
The focus on structural transformation does not imply that the day-to-day problems are not important
for strategic planning. They are important! But there is evidence that, for whatever reasons, spatial
planners are often left out (or leave themselves out) or else are reduced to being mere providers of
space when major decisions are at stake.
L Albrechts
See Mazza (2009) and Holston and Appadurai (1996) in this respect
Friedmann (2011, page71) calls these leftover, marginal areas where social practice is
inconsequential because it poses no threat to the basic configurations of power.
L Albrechts
Roy, 2003; 2009; Watson, 2011). With coproduction, people are being asked to construct
their own governance institutions (see Healey, 1997b, page209). While taking part in these
processes participants (may) develop institutional rules, or norms of behavior. Demands for
openness and accountability arise from the perception that some (the more articulate, the
powerful) may have undue influence behind the scenes (Healey, 1997b, page209). Intelligent
accountability requires more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total
control. Good governance is possible only if institutions are allowed some margin for selfgovernance in a form that is appropriate to their particular tasks, and within a framework
of financial and other reporting (ONeill, 2002, page58). Coproduction advocates greater
accountability of the disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized groups. As classical
institutions are still endowed with substantial powers, it is clear that redistributive policies
also need to be framed in more general redistribution and regulatory policies at higher-scale
levels (see also Swyngedouw etal, 2002).
As the values, interests, views, ideas, and policies from actors in a coproduction process are
different, strategic spatial planning involves choices and hence inevitably works in a context
of conflicts, or clashes between the different actors. As most strategic planning processes are
nonstatutory processes, questions are raised about the legitimacy of such processes.
Working with conflict and legitimacy as additional building blocks
Working with conflict
Content and process are given by certain ideals, the principles which articulate certain values
(justice, equity, accountability). These values may be different from the perspective of (even
different levels of) the state,(10) the community, and NGOs. In the spatial planning field it
requires a need to recognize the deeply pluralistic character of our neighborhoods, cities,
city regions, and regions and the irreducible conflicts of values and interests, with all the
conflicts that pluralism entails. Conflicts for which no rational solution could ever exist
(Mouffe, 2005, page10). Hence the necessity to open up strategic spatial planningas a
field of contested planning rationalities and spatial logics (see Olesen and Richardson, 2012,
page1691)for a plurality of understandings. What is at stake is the recognition of social
division and the legitimization of conflict. It brings to the fore the existence in a democratic
society of a plurality of interests and demands which, although they conflict and can never
be finally reconciled, should nevertheless be considered as legitimate (Mouffe, 2005, pages
119120; see also Hillier, 2002; 2003; Brand and Gaffikin, 2007).
It is not in the power of strategic spatial planning to eliminate conflicts but it is in its
power to create the practices, discourses, and institutions that would allow those conflicts to
take an agonistic(11) form (see Mouffe, 2005, page130). It, therefore, aims for a fundamental
shift in the balance of power not only between governments and citizens but also between
different private actors (see Boyle and Harris, 2009). Planners must raise awareness that
strategic spatial planning is a field shaped by power relations where a hegemonic struggle
takes place and that it risks becoming an instrument in the imposition of a neoliberal policy
and a Western intellectual (political) hegemony. Hence, the necessity of making room for
pluralizing strategic spatial planning. As these processes may have a deep impact, concerns
(10)
In any context the state (and actors who promote their interests through the state) comprises actors
who have agency and power, operate within different rationalities, and take positions (individually
or in coalition) even within the disciplining effects of laws, rules, and regulations (Watson, 2011,
page14). In fact I suggest combining a rights-based and a needs-based approach.
(11)
Agonism is looked upon as a wethey relation where the conflicting parties, although acknowledging
that there is no rational solution to their conflict, nevertheless recognize the legitimacy of their
opponents (Mouffe, 2005, page20).
are expressed (see Mntysalo, 2013; Mazza, 2013)(12) about the legitimacy of strategic
planning processes and consequently about the role of planners in these processes.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy is not only a procedural problem (who decides) but also a substantive problem (the
link between strategic planning and statutory planning). For Mazza (2013)(13) and Mntysalo
(2013) the possible detachment of strategic spatial planning from the statutory planning
system into a parallel informal system would pose a serious legitimacy problem. So, instead
of detaching strategic planning from statutory planning Mntysalo (2013, page51) identifies
strategic planning not only as planning distinct from statutory planning but also as planning
framing the statutorystrategic planning relationship itself. In line with Friedmann (2004,
page56), he argues that, as a consequence, the objective of strategic planning should not be
the production of plans themselves (not even strategic ones) but the production of insights
of prospective change and encouraging public debates on them. It is a way of probing the
future in order to make more intelligent and informed decisions in the present (Friedmann
2004, page56). The strategic probing of future uncertainties frames the fixing of certainties
in the present.
The voluntary character of most European strategic planning experiences seems, for some,
to act as a structural antidote against marked standardization (see Balducci, 2008; Sartorio,
2005)(14). As long as strategic planning is not defined as a legally defined instrument
and for many it would not be a wise move to strengthen or legalize the approachthen
strategic planning is a tool which can convey innovation and creative action into processes
of urban and regional development (Kunzmann, 2013). For some (see Balducci etal,2011;
(12)
10
L Albrechts
Kunzmann, 2013), any effort to standardize and legalize strategic planning would be extremely
counterproductive.(15) Indeed, by doing this, the flexible instrument would soon become
as procrustean and inflexible as traditional overregulated land-use planning (Kunzmann,
2013, page31). For others the end product may consist of a critical analysis of the main
processes and structural constraints shaping our places, which amounts to realistic, dynamic,
integrated,and indicative long-term visions (frames), plans for short-term and long-term
actions, a budget, andflexible strategies for implementation. It constitutes a commitment or
(partial) (dis)agreement between the key actors. As (mainly) nonstatutory processes, questions
are raised on the kind of legitimacy in strategic planning processes (see Mazza, 2013, page40).
Coproduction (can be/has been/is) looked upon as an attack on the legitimacy of political
institutions as it reverses and upsets the relationship between the state and its citizens. The
normative idea of coproduction does not sit easily within an increasingly neoliberal political
climate. It is clear that the representative government articulates merely political and not all
values. If we accept that representative democracy is not a single completed thing but that
it is capable of becoming(16) in a new context and in relation to new issues at hand then
we may conclude that a more radical strategic planning based on coproduction does not
reject representative democracy but complements it. It adds to the fullness of concrete human
content, and to the genuineness of community links [see iek (1992, page163) about the very
notion of democracy]. With coproduction the aim is to stimulate counterhegemonic projects
and to challenge power relations through a process of change. It needs a disarticulation of
existing practices and the creation of new discourses and (informal) institutions (Mouffe,
2005, page33). The narrative of coproduction is a narrative of emancipation: it fulfills a
legitimating function: that is, it legitimates social and political institutions and practices,
forms of legislation, ethics, and modes of thought and symbolism. It grounds this legitimacy
not in an original founding act but in a future to be brought about: that is, an idea to realize.
This idea (of equity, fairness, social justice) has legitimating value because it is universal (see
Lyotard, 1992, page50). So, apart from legitimacy stemming from a representative mandate,
in strategic planninglooked upon as a quest, a collective process, a social construction
fighting for a new (even impossible) future [see also Healey (2008) and Monno (2010) who
argues that strategic planning has too limited a scope in that it does not include envisioning
the impossible] and a specific outputlegitimacy may come from its performance as a
creative and innovative force and its capacity to deliver positive outcomes and actually gain
benefits. As such, strategic planning is in politics (it is about making choices) and it cannot
escape politics (it must make values and ethics transparent), but it is not politics (it does not
make the ultimate decisions).
(15)
Experience across Germany (see Kunzmann, 2001) shows that institutionalizing strategic planning
by creating new public or public supported agencies does not necessarily stabilize planning efforts. The
Ruhr is a pertinent example. The established intercommunal regional authority, the Regionalverband
Ruhr, did not succeed in launching any regional development perspective. Subsequently, many large
cities such as Berlin, Dortmund, and Frankfurt established new urban development units, acting as
think tanks for strategic urban development, while traditional routine land-use planning was left to the
established urban planning department. Though a few years later, with the declining trust in the role of
the public sector, most such units were scaled down or even sacrificed to demonstrate the willingness
to reduce unnecessary staff in the public sector. In recent years, however, a renaissance of strategic
urban development can be observed. Cities, such as Stuttgart, Leipzig, Bonn, and Dresden, or Vienna
in Austria have successfully initiated the development of strategic urban development perspectives.
Addressing the regional tier, the German Academy of Spatial Research and Planning has recently
launched a position paper to promote regional strategic planning (ARL, 2011).
(16)
Strategic spatial planning, as presented here, shifts from an ontology of being, which privileges
outcome and end-state, towards an ontology of becoming, in which actions, movement, relationships,
conflicts, process, and emergence are emphasized (see Chia, 1995, page601; 1999, page215).
11
Concluding note
To take part in the debate on existing planning approaches and the search for new ideas (see
Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, page328) I have provided in this paper the contours
of a more radical strategic planning with coproduction as a cornerstone and working with
conflicts and legitimacy as additional building blocks. A basic purpose of this radical
strategic spatial planning is to position cities and regions as both the text and context of new
debates about fundamental sociospatial relations, and it is about thinking without frontiers,
by providing new kinds of practices and narratives about belonging to and being involved in
the construction of a place and in society at large.
It is argued that if dominant modes of knowledge (causal, statistical), are incapable of
envisioning the impossible [as the absolutely new (see Grosz, 1999, page21)], they have to
be questioned (see Roy, 2010) and complemented with other modes of knowing and other
forms of thinking. Coproduction, as conceived in this paper, is introduced to open up for
other modes of knowing, and to avoid shaping an urban future in a way that is just in line
with the aspirations of the most powerful segment among the actors. It therefore combines
the usual concept of coproduction in the provision of public goods and services needed and
coproduction as a political strategy preparing citizens and grassroots organizations for a more
substantive engagement with the political. In this way it is instrumental in the building of
strong, resilient, and mutually supportive communities that could assure its members that
their needs would be met. This makes coproduction different from standard participation
(see also Mitlin, 2008). Underlying this is the conscious or unconscious maintenance of
citizens as passive recipients is not just a waste of their skills and time; it is also the reason
why systemic change does not happen.
The normative viewpoint of a more radical strategic spatial planning produces quite a
different picture from traditional planning in terms of strategies (strategies versus master
plans or land-use plans), type of planning (providing a framework versus technical or
legal regulation), and type of governance (a more pivotal role for civil society through
coproduction). In this way it aims to enable a transformative shift, where necessary, to develop
openness to new ideas, and to understand and accept the need and opportunity for change.
Radical strategic planning needs to mobilize the power of citizens to engage in counterhegemonic struggles to establish other policies and to play a central role in decision making
by insisting that other policies are possible (see Lambert-Pennington etal, 2011; Purcell,
2009, pages 151152; Saija, 2011) or, in Monnos (2010) terms working the impossible as
emancipatory imagination. It counters hegemonic politics by challenging neoliberalization,
in which some groups are systematically advantaged by decision-making practices (Purcell,
2009, page154). In this way the results of strategic spatial planning processes cannot be
judged solely by the implementation of a plan or strategy. Broadening the scope of possible
futures and giving voice to certain groups must be considered as important and valuable
outcomes of a strategic planning process. Strategic planning gets its legitimacy through a
combination ofits performance as a creative and innovative force, its potential to deliver
positive outcomes, and a formal acceptance by the relevant government level.
The more radical strategic spatial planning is not presented here as the ultimate model
which would be chosen, in idealized conditions, by every planner, government, or NGO
as a panacea for all challenges and all problems; it is not meant as a substitute but as a
complement for other planning tools (statutory planning). It is clear that strategic spatial
planning and especially the more radical version presented in this paper needs a context and
an intellectual tradition in which success factors (see Needham, 2000) are available or can
be made available. The capacity of a strategic spatial planning system to deliver the desired
outcomes is dependent not only on the system itself, but also on the conditions underlyingit
12
L Albrechts
(see also Mintzberg, 1994). The surrounding political regime enhances or inhibits the
institutional change needed for the more radical strategic planning to be adopted. These
conditions clearly affect the ability of planning systems to implement the chosen strategies.
This is linked to moments of opportunity when strategic ambitions seem to engage with
political structures. The structure element of political opportunity helps us to focus on path
dependence in institutional development (Newman, 2008, page1379) and to acknowledge
that the past puts constraints on future development.
The more radical strategic planning described in this paper may take place beyond the
boundaries(17) of the (traditional) planning profession and planning laws and regulations. As
it aims to check government and corporate power, guarantee the use of local knowledge and
ensure that planning processes are responsive and democratic (see Friedmann, 1992) andas
it aims at securing political influence it is certainly confrontational and conflicting. It is
directed at change by means of specific outputs (strategies, plans, policies, projects) framed
through spaces of deliberative opportunities. These outcomes must be well informed, just,
and fair. As mentioned before, the fact that whoever has true power is able to determine the
content of these concepts and words places this conceptualization at the heart of any strategic
planning process.
If we want a culture of public service, professionals and public servants must in the end
be free to serve the public rather than their paymasters (ONeill, 2002, page59; see also
Healey, 2010). As a more radical strategic planning requires a change to the status quo the
world of planning and planners inevitably becomes more complicated and messy. However,
it is in making planning issues and approaches messy that transformative practices can take
place (see also Campbell, 2002, page351).
Acknowledgment. I would like to thank three referees for their insightful comments.
References
Adonis Barbieri R, 2008, From global to local: Erechim 100 plan and city marketing in the periphery,
paper presented at 44th Isocarp congress, http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1272.pdf
Albrechts L, 2004, Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 31 743758
Albrechts L, 2013, Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective
Planning Theory and Practice 12 4663
Albrechts L, Balducci A, 2013, Practicing strategic planning: in search of critical features to explain
the strategic character of plans disP-The Planning Review 49(3) 1627
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009a, Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new
spatial planning in the Thames Gateway Environment and Planning A 41 617633
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2009b, Commentary. Critical reflections on spatial planning
Environment and Planning A 41 25442549
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2010, The future of spatial planning: why less may be more Town
and Country Planning July, 326328
ARL, 2011, Strategische Regionalplanung, Ein Positionspapier 84, Akademie fr Raumforschung
und Landesplanung, Hanover, http://shop.arl-net.de/media/direct/pdf/pospaper_84.pdf
Balducci A, 2008, Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex environments, in Empowering the
Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action Eds J Van den Broeck, F Moulaert, S Oosterlynck
(Acco, Leuven) pp7999
Balducci A, Fedeli V, Pasqui G (Eds), 2011 Strategic Planning for Contemporary Urban Regions
(Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey)
Bovaird T, 2007, Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of
public services Public Administration Review 67 846860
(17)
Hajer (2009, chapter 1) refers to a legitimacy deficit as the complications that arise now the most
pressing policy problems no longer respect the territorial scales along which constituencies are
traditionally organized.
13
Boyle D, Harris M, 2009, The challenge of coproduction: how equal partnerships between
professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services, discussion paper, Nesta,
London, http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf
Brand R, Gaffikin F, 2007, Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world Planning Theory
and Practice 6 282313
Bryson J M, 1995 Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Jossey-Bass,
SanFrancisco, CA)
Bryson J M, Roering W D, 1988, Initiation of strategic planning by governments Public
Administration Review 48 9951004
Bunker R, 2011, Paradigm lost or paradigm renamed? Current Australian metropolitan strategies,
paper presented at SOAC, Melbourne University, 29 November2 December
Bunker R, Searle G, 2007, Seeking certainty: recent planning for Sydney and Melbourne Town
Planning Review 78 619642
Cahn E, 2000 No More Throw-away People: The Co-production Imperative (Essential Books,
Washington, DC)
Campbell H, 2002, Thinking about discourses: theory is practical? Planning Theory and Practice
3 351352
Campbell H, Marshall R, 2006, Towards justice in planning: a re-appraisal European Planning
Studies 14 239252
Cerreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (Eds), 2010 Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge
and Values (Springer, Dordrecht)
Chia R, 1995, From modern to postmodern organizational analysis Organization Studies 16
579604
Chia R, 1999, A rhizomic model of organizational change and transformation: perspective from a
metaphysics of change British Journal of Management 10 209227
Corburn J, 2003, Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: improving urban
planning for communities at risk Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 420433
de Toqueville A, 1992[1835] De la dmocratie en Amrique (Les ditions Gallimard, Paris)
DPUD, 1990 Metroplan: A Planning Strategy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Department of
Planning and Urban Development (Government of WA, Perth)
Dyrberg T B, 1997 The Circular Structure of Power (Verso, London)
Engels B, 2012, From parks to social infrastructure: the historical evolution of public facility
provision standards in the metropolitan planning of Melbourne, paper presented at 26th AESOP
Annual Congress, Ankara, 1115 July
Forester J, 1989 Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
Forester J, 2010, Foreword Making Strategies in Spatial Planning Eds M Cerreta, G Concilio,
VMonno (Springer, Dordrecht) ppvvii
Freestone R, 1981, Planning for profit in urban Australia 19001930: a descriptive prolegomenon
Antipode 13(1) 1526
Friedmann J, 1982 The Good Society (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Friedmann J, 1992 Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development (Blackwell, Oxford)
Friedmann J, 1993, Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning Journal of the American Planning
Association 59 482485
Friedmann J, 2004, Strategic spatial planning and the longer range Planning Theory and Practice
5 4967
Friedmann J, 2005, Globalization and the emerging culture of planning Progress in Planning 64
183234
Friedmann J, 2011 Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory (Routledge, London)
Graham S, Healey P, 1999, Relational concepts of space and place: issues for planning theory and
practice European Planning Studies 7 623646
Grant J, Searle G, 1978 The Melbourne Scene 18031956 (Hale and Ironmonger, Sydney)
Grosz E, 1999, Thinking the new: of futures yet unthought, in Becomings: Explorations in Time,
Memory, and Futures Ed. E Grosz (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY) pp1528
14
L Albrechts
15
Lambert-Pennington K, Westendorff D, Reardon, K, 2011, Planning under the lions paw: a Bluff
City tale, paper presented at ACSP Congress, Salt Lake City, 1316 October
Leal de Oliveira F, 2000, Strategic planning and urban competition Planners Network: The Agenda
of Multinational Agencies in Brazil number 143 1113
Legacy C, 2010, Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholder engagement and planmaking Environment and Planning A 42 27052720
Lyotard J F, 1992 The Postmodern Explained (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
McLoughlin J B, 1992 Shaping Melbournes Future? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Mntysalo R, 2013, Coping with the paradox of strategic spatial planning disP-The Planning
Review 49(3) 5152
Mazza L, 2009, Strategic planning and republicanism, paper presented at IAUS Conference,
Belgrade, 78 December,
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-569X/2010/1450-569X1022001M.pdf
Mazza L, 2013, If strategic planning is everything maybe its nothing disP-The Planning Review
49(3) 4042
Metzger J, 2012, Placing the stakes: the enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes
Environment and Planning A 45 781796
Mintzberg H, 1994 The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (The Free Press, New York)
Mitlin D, 2008, With and beyond the state: coproduction as a route to political influence, power and
transformation for grassroots organizations Environment and Urbanization 20 339360
Monno V, 2010, When strategy meets democracy: exploring the limits of the possible and the
value of the impossible, in Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values
EdsM Cerreta, G Concilio, V Monno (Springer, Dordrecht) pp161183
Motte A, 2006 La Notion de Planification Stratgique Spatialise en Europe (19952005) (Puca,
Paris)
Mouffe Ch, 2005 On the Political (Routledge London)
Moulaert F, 2011, When solidarity boosts strategic planning, in Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts
for Change Eds S Oosterlynck, J Van den Broeck, L Albrechts, F Moulaert, AVerhetsel
(Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon) pp7984
Needham B, 2000, Making strategic spatial plans: a situational methodology! Revival of Strategic
Planning Eds Salet W, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam)
pp7990
Newman P, 2008, Strategic spatial planning: collective action and moments of opportunity
European Planning Studies 16 13711383
Ogilvy J, 2002 Creating Better Futures (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Olesen K, 2011 Strategic Spatial Planning in Transition: Case Study of Denmark PhD thesis,
Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University,
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/56082656/strategic_spatial_planning_in_transition_olesen_2011.pdf
Olesen K, 2012, The neoliberalisation of strategic planning Planning Theory and Practice 13
288303
Olesen K, Richardson T, 2012, Strategic spatial planning in transition: contested rationalities and
spatial logics in 21st century Danish spatial planning European Planning Studies 20 16891706
ONeill O, 2002 A Question of Trust (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Ostrom E, 1996, Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development World
Development 24 10731087
Ozbekhan H, 1969, Towards a general theory of planning, in Perspectives of Planning
Ed. E Jantsch (OECD, Paris) pp45155
Parks R, Baker P, Kiser L, Oakerson R, Ostrom E, Ostrom V, Percy L, Vandivort M, Whitaker G,
Wilson R, 1981, Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional
considerations Policy Studies Journal 9 10011011
Peck J, Tickel A, 2002, Neoliberalizing space Antipode 34 380404
16
L Albrechts