The paper critically reviews communicative and agonistic planning theories from the viewpoint of a systemic turn in deliberative democracy theory. While the approach reveals complementarities between the theories, it also argues that each theory is vulnerable to criticism because of an ‘institutional gap’. The theories are found to complement each other in addressing planning conflicts at different dimensions. Communicative planning theory deals with conflicts between different stakeholders’ interests in planning processes. Agonistic planning theory, in turn, concentrates on conflicts from a more ontological dimension, related to the (implicit) conflict between hegemonic and marginalized discourses and related identity-forming processes of inclusion and exclusion in planning policies and governance. The institutional gap of communicative planning theory is argued to reside in its focus on situational deliberation that largely ignores the institutional dimension of rules and norms of democratic conduct. Agonistic pluralism, in turn, does engage with the dimension of democratic institutions, but in an overly critical manner, making it difficult for agonistic planning theory to address the dynamic interplay between institutional reconfiguration and policy stabilization in planning. This is argued to be the institutional gap of agonistic planning theory. The paper calls for further work in the field of planning theory to incorporate a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and thereby tap into the dialectics of institutional and situational dimensions of planning.
{"title":"Institutional Gaps in Agonistic and Communicative Planning Theories. Critical Implications of the ‘Systemic Turn’ in Deliberative Democracy Theory","authors":"R. Mäntysalo","doi":"10.14512/rur.1676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1676","url":null,"abstract":"The paper critically reviews communicative and agonistic planning theories from the viewpoint of a systemic turn in deliberative democracy theory. While the approach reveals complementarities between the theories, it also argues that each theory is vulnerable to criticism because of an ‘institutional gap’. The theories are found to complement each other in addressing planning conflicts at different dimensions. Communicative planning theory deals with conflicts between different stakeholders’ interests in planning processes. Agonistic planning theory, in turn, concentrates on conflicts from a more ontological dimension, related to the (implicit) conflict between hegemonic and marginalized discourses and related identity-forming processes of inclusion and exclusion in planning policies and governance. The institutional gap of communicative planning theory is argued to reside in its focus on situational deliberation that largely ignores the institutional dimension of rules and norms of democratic conduct. Agonistic pluralism, in turn, does engage with the dimension of democratic institutions, but in an overly critical manner, making it difficult for agonistic planning theory to address the dynamic interplay between institutional reconfiguration and policy stabilization in planning. This is argued to be the institutional gap of agonistic planning theory. The paper calls for further work in the field of planning theory to incorporate a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and thereby tap into the dialectics of institutional and situational dimensions of planning.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44950239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book review of: Gurr, Jens Martin; Parr, Rolf; Hardt, Dennis (eds.) (2022): Metropolitan Research: Methods and Approaches","authors":"Joh N. Harrison","doi":"10.14512/rur.1996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1996","url":null,"abstract":"Book review.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42808003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The current debate on agonism has become fixed in an institutional approach: How can an agonistic design institutionally become a tool against forms of domination? An agonistic space needs decisions that do not silence dissensual voices with a finite decision. This paper suggests that this agonistic approach needs de-cisions or simply put, temporary decisions drawn from seeing a decision as a solution for now. A de-cision is not a no-decision, but a decision recognised as temporary. The paper proposes ‘the sketch’ as an appropriate mode for working de-cisionally and unfinished. By having a sketch and working de-cisionally, planners are able to invite agonistic positions to ongoing talks and to act progressively, adaptably, or rationally in the face of emerging circumstances and uncertainty. To work unfinished from a sketch transforms the planning process from being a matter of reaching a finite decision to a strife about how to understand the present and which temporary contours and directions to move on from. The paper as such thus deals with difficult praxis questions, for instance: How is it possible to allow dissent to inform planning praxis in praxis? How can quarrelling and working unfinished empower planning democracy?
{"title":"Agonism, decision, power – The art of working unfinished","authors":"John Pløger","doi":"10.14512/rur.1668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1668","url":null,"abstract":"The current debate on agonism has become fixed in an institutional approach: How can an agonistic design institutionally become a tool against forms of domination? An agonistic space needs decisions that do not silence dissensual voices with a finite decision. This paper suggests that this agonistic approach needs de-cisions or simply put, temporary decisions drawn from seeing a decision as a solution for now. A de-cision is not a no-decision, but a decision recognised as temporary. The paper proposes ‘the sketch’ as an appropriate mode for working de-cisionally and unfinished. By having a sketch and working de-cisionally, planners are able to invite agonistic positions to ongoing talks and to act progressively, adaptably, or rationally in the face of emerging circumstances and uncertainty. To work unfinished from a sketch transforms the planning process from being a matter of reaching a finite decision to a strife about how to understand the present and which temporary contours and directions to move on from. The paper as such thus deals with difficult praxis questions, for instance: How is it possible to allow dissent to inform planning praxis in praxis? How can quarrelling and working unfinished empower planning democracy?","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46306320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The energy transition and the expansion of renewable energies are central challenges to planning. In view of tightened climate protection targets and the associated rise in installation capacity, planning conflicts are likely to intensify further in the coming years. At the same time, democratic institutions are under increasing pressure. The expansion of wind energy must proceed swiftly while democratic participation must be ensured. Based on planning conflicts over wind turbines in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Brandenburg, this paper addresses the extent to which research on planning conflicts can benefit from a justice perspective, both in theoretical-conceptual and empirical terms. Drawing on concepts from research on spatial justice, energy justice, and planning justice, the paper uses a three-dimensional conception of justice to identify access points for dealing constructively with conflicts. First, conflicts have to be recognized as such and their productive potential has to be acknowledged. Second, strategies have to be established that allow conflicts to be dealt with constructively. In doing so, several dimensions of justice must be taken into account: distributive justice and the question of what is to be distributed according to which criteria, recognition justice and the reflexion on difference and needs beyond hegemonic majority opinion, and finally procedural justice, which is intended to ensure that recognition and fair distribution can be implemented. In this way, a proactive attitude towards planning conflicts can make a central contribution to sustainable and democratic planning.
{"title":"Planungskonflikte und Gerechtigkeit: Konzeptionelle Überlegungen am Beispiel des Ausbaus der Windenergie im Nordosten Deutschlands","authors":"Eva Eichenauer","doi":"10.14512/rur.1681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1681","url":null,"abstract":"The energy transition and the expansion of renewable energies are central challenges to planning. In view of tightened climate protection targets and the associated rise in installation capacity, planning conflicts are likely to intensify further in the coming years. At the same time, democratic institutions are under increasing pressure. The expansion of wind energy must proceed swiftly while democratic participation must be ensured. Based on planning conflicts over wind turbines in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Brandenburg, this paper addresses the extent to which research on planning conflicts can benefit from a justice perspective, both in theoretical-conceptual and empirical terms. Drawing on concepts from research on spatial justice, energy justice, and planning justice, the paper uses a three-dimensional conception of justice to identify access points for dealing constructively with conflicts. First, conflicts have to be recognized as such and their productive potential has to be acknowledged. Second, strategies have to be established that allow conflicts to be dealt with constructively. In doing so, several dimensions of justice must be taken into account: distributive justice and the question of what is to be distributed according to which criteria, recognition justice and the reflexion on difference and needs beyond hegemonic majority opinion, and finally procedural justice, which is intended to ensure that recognition and fair distribution can be implemented. In this way, a proactive attitude towards planning conflicts can make a central contribution to sustainable and democratic planning.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45805443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Merely safeguarding ecologically spatial functions is not (or no longer) sufficient to maintain their ability to function in the course of climate change and under increasing pressure of use. Rather, a fundamental change of perspective also in spatial planning practice is required to build up a resilience-proof spatial ecology, especially due to the tension between biomass production, carbon storage and biodiversity protection. In this context, biocapacity resilience is put forward for discussion as an impetus for a guiding vision of spatial development. Possible opportunities for the actors of spatial planning are elaborated to better fulfil their regional steering mandate in the sense of precautionary planning under the lens of global challenges despite limited resources.
{"title":"Biokapazitive Resilienz – Leitbild und Strategie zum Aufbau einer schützenden Raumökologie. Steuerungschancen für die Raumordnungspraxis im Kontext einer klimaresilienten Entwicklung?","authors":"Jakob Hüppauff","doi":"10.14512/rur.1247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1247","url":null,"abstract":"Merely safeguarding ecologically spatial functions is not (or no longer) sufficient to maintain their ability to function in the course of climate change and under increasing pressure of use. Rather, a fundamental change of perspective also in spatial planning practice is required to build up a resilience-proof spatial ecology, especially due to the tension between biomass production, carbon storage and biodiversity protection. In this context, biocapacity resilience is put forward for discussion as an impetus for a guiding vision of spatial development. Possible opportunities for the actors of spatial planning are elaborated to better fulfil their regional steering mandate in the sense of precautionary planning under the lens of global challenges despite limited resources.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42489131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.
{"title":"The quest for certainty: Introducing zoning into a discretionary system in England and the European experience","authors":"S. Dembski, P. O’Brien","doi":"10.14512/rur.1695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1695","url":null,"abstract":"The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45566676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the “communicative turn“ planning research has been intensively concerned with how conflicts should and are dealt with. Approaches of “agonistic“ planning theory contradict the normative premise of building consensus among planning participants. Rather, they want to make conflicting positions normatively fruitful for spatial development. At the same time, they emphasise a supposed duality of planning and protest, which is questioned in recent protest and movement theory. Building on a discussion of different approaches in planning and protest theory as well as an empirical analysis of planning-related protests in Germany, this paper shows that these protests are increasingly perceived as “normality“ by planning actors and that antagonistic participation remains culturally bounded despite increasing conflictuality and the supposed questioning of representative democracy. Protest action is part of differentiated “participation bundles“ that, depending on the situation, also include public participation, direct democratic referenda and lawsuits. Protesters usually pursue a reform-oriented agenda that does not require “taming“. However, the underlying conflicts often cannot be “resolved“ at all. Planners, on the other hand, may have rationalist and deliberative approaches at their disposal even within an agonistic planning environment, which they use situationally and strategically.
{"title":"Jenseits agonistischer Planungstheorien: Die „Normalität“ von Protesten und ihr Einfluss auf die Konfliktaustragung in der räumlichen Planung","authors":"G. Bertram, Uwe Altrock","doi":"10.14512/rur.1674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1674","url":null,"abstract":"Since the “communicative turn“ planning research has been intensively concerned with how conflicts should and are dealt with. Approaches of “agonistic“ planning theory contradict the normative premise of building consensus among planning participants. Rather, they want to make conflicting positions normatively fruitful for spatial development. At the same time, they emphasise a supposed duality of planning and protest, which is questioned in recent protest and movement theory. Building on a discussion of different approaches in planning and protest theory as well as an empirical analysis of planning-related protests in Germany, this paper shows that these protests are increasingly perceived as “normality“ by planning actors and that antagonistic participation remains culturally bounded despite increasing conflictuality and the supposed questioning of representative democracy. Protest action is part of differentiated “participation bundles“ that, depending on the situation, also include public participation, direct democratic referenda and lawsuits. Protesters usually pursue a reform-oriented agenda that does not require “taming“. However, the underlying conflicts often cannot be “resolved“ at all. Planners, on the other hand, may have rationalist and deliberative approaches at their disposal even within an agonistic planning environment, which they use situationally and strategically.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42635656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Innovative land policy does not yield to the pressure of short-term capital exploitation. Rather, innovative land policy establishes a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the public interest. As a keystone of land policy, property – particularly if open to innovation – plays a vital role in achieving this balance. This commentary explains four normative principles that help design innovative property. Since the four principles derive from long-standing ideas about property in land, the commentary uses a distinctly conservative approach. This approach, however, is quite innovative in the face of the reductionist view of property as a right that only serves the purposes of its owners. According to the first principle, innovative land policy must pay attention to the nexus between private and common property. Under the second principle, property in land must account for the government’s positive duty to provide for adequate land uses for all. The third principle distinguishes between property rights of natural and legal persons: personal property guarantees individual liberty, but corporate property is a social function, not a right at all. The fourth principle reminds of the inseparable bond between property in land and land ethics.
{"title":"Innovative Property for Innovative Land Policy: Four Normative Principles","authors":"B. Davy","doi":"10.14512/rur.1702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1702","url":null,"abstract":"Innovative land policy does not yield to the pressure of short-term capital exploitation. Rather, innovative land policy establishes a fair balance between the interests of landowners and the public interest. As a keystone of land policy, property – particularly if open to innovation – plays a vital role in achieving this balance. This commentary explains four normative principles that help design innovative property. Since the four principles derive from long-standing ideas about property in land, the commentary uses a distinctly conservative approach. This approach, however, is quite innovative in the face of the reductionist view of property as a right that only serves the purposes of its owners. According to the first principle, innovative land policy must pay attention to the nexus between private and common property. Under the second principle, property in land must account for the government’s positive duty to provide for adequate land uses for all. The third principle distinguishes between property rights of natural and legal persons: personal property guarantees individual liberty, but corporate property is a social function, not a right at all. The fourth principle reminds of the inseparable bond between property in land and land ethics.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43470459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Book review of: Breckner, Ingrid; Sinning, Heidi (Hrsg.) (2022): Wohnen nach der Flucht. Integration von Geflüchteten und Roma in städtische Wohnungsmärkte und Quartiere","authors":"René Kreichauf","doi":"10.14512/rur.1731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1731","url":null,"abstract":"Buchrezension.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49578075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Station-based carsharing systems are regularly seen as key building blocks for a successful sustainability transition of municipal mobility systems. While numerous studies deal with the optimal distribution of carsharing stations from a business perspective, none explores which spatial and temporal patterns shape the development of carsharing station networks, even though sustainability transitions and their patterns are perceived as strictly place-specific. This study uses a comparative cross-case analysis of five southwest German cities to reveal similarities in spatial and temporal patterns. The analysis differentiates between ‘efficient causes’, described by structural and social demographic characteristics of cities, and ‘final causes’, described by the causal pathway development of municipal carsharing policy. Results reveal that despite the different city characteristics and causal pathways, the spatial evolution of station-based carsharing systems follow similar growth paths, tending towards consolidation of carsharing patterns regardless of municipal support. The study adds to our understanding of mobility transitions and casts doubt on the ability of current station-based carsharing systems to shift municipal mobility systems towards ecological sustainability.
{"title":"Mobility transition or just another business? Temporal and spatial analysis of the diffusion of station-based carsharing services in five German municipalities","authors":"Martin Ritter, Verena Volkmer, H. Schanz","doi":"10.14512/rur.219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.219","url":null,"abstract":"Station-based carsharing systems are regularly seen as key building blocks for a successful sustainability transition of municipal mobility systems. While numerous studies deal with the optimal distribution of carsharing stations from a business perspective, none explores which spatial and temporal patterns shape the development of carsharing station networks, even though sustainability transitions and their patterns are perceived as strictly place-specific. This study uses a comparative cross-case analysis of five southwest German cities to reveal similarities in spatial and temporal patterns. The analysis differentiates between ‘efficient causes’, described by structural and social demographic characteristics of cities, and ‘final causes’, described by the causal pathway development of municipal carsharing policy. Results reveal that despite the different city characteristics and causal pathways, the spatial evolution of station-based carsharing systems follow similar growth paths, tending towards consolidation of carsharing patterns regardless of municipal support. The study adds to our understanding of mobility transitions and casts doubt on the ability of current station-based carsharing systems to shift municipal mobility systems towards ecological sustainability.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43709707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：