Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1177/1473095221995861
Thomas Buhler
This paper focuses on the use of vague discourse in planning. Early contributions identified vagueness as a ‘problem’ to be solved so as to avoid potential misunderstandings and conflicts. This paper adopts the complementary point of view whereby vagueness can also be a ‘resource’, that is, a strategy used by actors in adverse circumstances. A systematic analysis of the texts and illustrations of 36 urban transport plans shows that vagueness is an essential ingredient. It is used mainly as a way to hedge against unwanted public commitments in the context of major uncertainties and tension between actors.
{"title":"When vagueness is a strategic resource for planning actors","authors":"Thomas Buhler","doi":"10.1177/1473095221995861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221995861","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the use of vague discourse in planning. Early contributions identified vagueness as a ‘problem’ to be solved so as to avoid potential misunderstandings and conflicts. This paper adopts the complementary point of view whereby vagueness can also be a ‘resource’, that is, a strategy used by actors in adverse circumstances. A systematic analysis of the texts and illustrations of 36 urban transport plans shows that vagueness is an essential ingredient. It is used mainly as a way to hedge against unwanted public commitments in the context of major uncertainties and tension between actors.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"325 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221995861","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43071473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1177/1473095221997085
E. Alexander
In fair disclosure I must reveal two special interests that motivated me to review Beauregard’s Advanced Introduction to Planning Theory. Besides approaching this book as a conscientious reviewer in the role of a potential reader, these interests give me some other roles. One is as a fellow author of a planning theory textbook (Alexander, 1992a), which makes comparison irresistible. The other is as a colleague who, like Beauregard, has critically engaged with planning theory and its relationship with planning practice (Alexander, 1992b, 2018; Beauregard, 1996, 2013). My review will conclude in this role, in a dialog about this book’s subject: planning theory itself. Beauregard has written an excellent book, one that serves its purpose well and fulfills its author’s intentions. Written as a textbook “for graduate students in urban and regional planning” and also for interested scholars, reflective practitioners, and curious outsiders (p. 2), he intends to offer a literature review that is as fair and unbiased an account as possible of the prevailing planning theory discourse (p. 19). In my judgment, he has succeeded. The book’s structure is interesting and effective. Its presentation of planning theory is structured around four core tasks involved in planning practice: knowing, engaging, prescribing, and executing, devoting a chapter to each. This is a novel approach: previous reviews have used schools of thought, for example, Friedmann’s (1987) magisterial review and my (Alexander, 2018: 10–13) imitation, and Allmendinger’s (2002) Planning Theory, or issues-topics, for example, Cooke (1983), Healey McDougall and Thomas (1991) and Yiftachel (1989). It works well for the reader, combining a logical division between themes and ideas with a narrative flow that connects them. The Introduction gives a condensed historical overview of urban and regional planning as a professional practice, and of planning practice from the 1950s to the 90s. These are useful summaries for the impatient student. “Knowing is. . .essential to planning,” as planning is the link between knowledge and action (Friedmann, 1987). The chapter begins with the rational comprehensive planning paradigm and ensuing epistemological critiques of technical-scientific knowledge, 997085 PLT0010.1177/1473095221997085Planning TheoryBook review review-article2021
{"title":"Advanced Introduction to Planning Theory","authors":"E. Alexander","doi":"10.1177/1473095221997085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221997085","url":null,"abstract":"In fair disclosure I must reveal two special interests that motivated me to review Beauregard’s Advanced Introduction to Planning Theory. Besides approaching this book as a conscientious reviewer in the role of a potential reader, these interests give me some other roles. One is as a fellow author of a planning theory textbook (Alexander, 1992a), which makes comparison irresistible. The other is as a colleague who, like Beauregard, has critically engaged with planning theory and its relationship with planning practice (Alexander, 1992b, 2018; Beauregard, 1996, 2013). My review will conclude in this role, in a dialog about this book’s subject: planning theory itself. Beauregard has written an excellent book, one that serves its purpose well and fulfills its author’s intentions. Written as a textbook “for graduate students in urban and regional planning” and also for interested scholars, reflective practitioners, and curious outsiders (p. 2), he intends to offer a literature review that is as fair and unbiased an account as possible of the prevailing planning theory discourse (p. 19). In my judgment, he has succeeded. The book’s structure is interesting and effective. Its presentation of planning theory is structured around four core tasks involved in planning practice: knowing, engaging, prescribing, and executing, devoting a chapter to each. This is a novel approach: previous reviews have used schools of thought, for example, Friedmann’s (1987) magisterial review and my (Alexander, 2018: 10–13) imitation, and Allmendinger’s (2002) Planning Theory, or issues-topics, for example, Cooke (1983), Healey McDougall and Thomas (1991) and Yiftachel (1989). It works well for the reader, combining a logical division between themes and ideas with a narrative flow that connects them. The Introduction gives a condensed historical overview of urban and regional planning as a professional practice, and of planning practice from the 1950s to the 90s. These are useful summaries for the impatient student. “Knowing is. . .essential to planning,” as planning is the link between knowledge and action (Friedmann, 1987). The chapter begins with the rational comprehensive planning paradigm and ensuing epistemological critiques of technical-scientific knowledge, 997085 PLT0010.1177/1473095221997085Planning TheoryBook review review-article2021","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"21 1","pages":"101 - 105"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221997085","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45529877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-23DOI: 10.1177/1473095221992392
B. Boonstra, Ward Rauws
As urban self-organization grows into a key concept in spatial planning—explaining spontaneous spatial transformations—the understandings and applications of the concept divert. This article turns to the ontological dimension of urban self-organization and scrutinizes how a critical realist and a post-structuralist ontology inspire theoretical practices, analytical tendencies, empirical readings, and subsequent planning interventions in relation to urban self-organization. This is illustrated with an example of the self-organized regeneration of a deprived street in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. With this contribution, we aim to create ontological self-awareness among planning scholars in studying urban self-organization and invite them to reflect on how their positions complement, deviate, and potentially challenge or inspire those of others. We argue that by clarifying ontological diversity in urban self-organization, theoretical practices and complexity-informed planning interventions can be further deepened and enriched.
{"title":"Ontological diversity in urban self-organization: Complexity, critical realism and post-structuralism","authors":"B. Boonstra, Ward Rauws","doi":"10.1177/1473095221992392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221992392","url":null,"abstract":"As urban self-organization grows into a key concept in spatial planning—explaining spontaneous spatial transformations—the understandings and applications of the concept divert. This article turns to the ontological dimension of urban self-organization and scrutinizes how a critical realist and a post-structuralist ontology inspire theoretical practices, analytical tendencies, empirical readings, and subsequent planning interventions in relation to urban self-organization. This is illustrated with an example of the self-organized regeneration of a deprived street in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. With this contribution, we aim to create ontological self-awareness among planning scholars in studying urban self-organization and invite them to reflect on how their positions complement, deviate, and potentially challenge or inspire those of others. We argue that by clarifying ontological diversity in urban self-organization, theoretical practices and complexity-informed planning interventions can be further deepened and enriched.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"303 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221992392","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45666998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-16DOI: 10.1177/1473095221991487
Nurit Alfasi
The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization. Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to nonelected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, resultoriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize
{"title":"Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment","authors":"Nurit Alfasi","doi":"10.1177/1473095221991487","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221991487","url":null,"abstract":"The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization. Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to nonelected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, resultoriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"175 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221991487","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45294387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1473095221991488
Sherif Zakhour
In her comment to my paper (Zakhour, 2020b), Nurit Alfasi takes issues with a tendency in planning discourse to view public participation in planning as a vehicle for democratization. Her concern proceeds from a twofold argument: first, that there are considerable obstacles towards achieving genuine and meaningful participation in planning. Second, one such obstacle—if not the foremost—is the fact that planning itself is an undemocratic activity. Alfasi thus urges planning scholars to explore more favorable avenues for democratizing planning than what can be expected from participation. Let me start by saying that I fully agree with Alfasi’s assertion that participation in planning is found wanting. I also welcome her call for new ways to understand the linkage between planning and democracy. I was therefore surprised that she read my paper as an example of the tendency to equate this relationship with public participation—a theme already, as Alfasi rightfully notes, “burdened with theorization and demonstration.” My intention was never to demonstrate (or discredit) the democratic merits of participation in planning, nor to add more theory to the equation. On the contrary, the paper proceeded from the reasoning that the effects of participation upon the democratization and legitimacy of planning are highly ambiguous and directly contingent on what meanings, standards and normative ideals one chooses to fit under the concept “democracy.” The aim of the paper was therefore to explore some of the meanings and expectations of democracy among those we vest with the task of actually conferring trust and legitimacy towards planning as part of participation—that is, the public. Interestingly, many of the citizen voices foregrounded in the paper also pointed to an understanding of planning and democracy that went well beyond participation. So, since I agree with Alfasi’s first argument and her broader sentiment, I want to take the opportunity to discuss some of the interesting implications raised by her second assertion: that planning itself does not constitute a democratic action. It is interesting
{"title":"The democratization of planning would be helped by a democratization of theory","authors":"Sherif Zakhour","doi":"10.1177/1473095221991488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095221991488","url":null,"abstract":"In her comment to my paper (Zakhour, 2020b), Nurit Alfasi takes issues with a tendency in planning discourse to view public participation in planning as a vehicle for democratization. Her concern proceeds from a twofold argument: first, that there are considerable obstacles towards achieving genuine and meaningful participation in planning. Second, one such obstacle—if not the foremost—is the fact that planning itself is an undemocratic activity. Alfasi thus urges planning scholars to explore more favorable avenues for democratizing planning than what can be expected from participation. Let me start by saying that I fully agree with Alfasi’s assertion that participation in planning is found wanting. I also welcome her call for new ways to understand the linkage between planning and democracy. I was therefore surprised that she read my paper as an example of the tendency to equate this relationship with public participation—a theme already, as Alfasi rightfully notes, “burdened with theorization and demonstration.” My intention was never to demonstrate (or discredit) the democratic merits of participation in planning, nor to add more theory to the equation. On the contrary, the paper proceeded from the reasoning that the effects of participation upon the democratization and legitimacy of planning are highly ambiguous and directly contingent on what meanings, standards and normative ideals one chooses to fit under the concept “democracy.” The aim of the paper was therefore to explore some of the meanings and expectations of democracy among those we vest with the task of actually conferring trust and legitimacy towards planning as part of participation—that is, the public. Interestingly, many of the citizen voices foregrounded in the paper also pointed to an understanding of planning and democracy that went well beyond participation. So, since I agree with Alfasi’s first argument and her broader sentiment, I want to take the opportunity to discuss some of the interesting implications raised by her second assertion: that planning itself does not constitute a democratic action. It is interesting","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"179 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095221991488","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44919903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-05DOI: 10.1177/1473095220985892
S. Alian, Stephen Wood
This paper draws on the work of Jean Baudrillard to critique the manner in which notions of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ are employed in understandings of the multicultural city. It begins with an overview of ways in which ethnicity is construed in the planning literature on multicultural cities. This is followed by discussion of Baudrillard’s contention that the basic terms of engagement with multiculturalism, ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, are problematic in so far as they mirror the fundamental means by which discrimination is effected in capitalist societies. It is argued that, in some cases, commentators on the multicultural city merely rehearse and entrench certain of capitalism’s key ideological ‘alibis’; in other cases, commentators present as critical insights what Baudrillard might regard as normative descriptions of the current machinations of capitalism.
{"title":"What difference does ‘difference’ make? Identity, difference and the multicultural city","authors":"S. Alian, Stephen Wood","doi":"10.1177/1473095220985892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220985892","url":null,"abstract":"This paper draws on the work of Jean Baudrillard to critique the manner in which notions of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’ are employed in understandings of the multicultural city. It begins with an overview of ways in which ethnicity is construed in the planning literature on multicultural cities. This is followed by discussion of Baudrillard’s contention that the basic terms of engagement with multiculturalism, ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, are problematic in so far as they mirror the fundamental means by which discrimination is effected in capitalist societies. It is argued that, in some cases, commentators on the multicultural city merely rehearse and entrench certain of capitalism’s key ideological ‘alibis’; in other cases, commentators present as critical insights what Baudrillard might regard as normative descriptions of the current machinations of capitalism.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"286 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220985892","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47144034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-25DOI: 10.1177/1473095220981118
Elham Bahmanteymouri
Urban development and land release policies in the city fringes are criticised because they often fail to achieve their objectives such as providing affordable housing for low to moderate-income groups as well as provision of infrastructure and transportation. From a Marxian point of view, urban development plans fail because of the inherent contradictions of capital, and consequently, maximisation of surplus-value becomes the main objectives of land supply policies. In this paper, I draw on the Lacanian concept of drive and use the homology between Marxian surplus-value and Lacanian surplus-enjoyment to explain how the market rationality of neoliberalism (late-capitalism) deflects the desired objectives of urban development plans (UDPs); that is, the desire to provide affordable housing and urban services and infrastructure instead facilitates speculative activities on land in the suburban areas of a metropolis, such as Perth, Western Australia. In particular, the paper focuses on the neoliberal intuitional and financial dimensions of UDPs. In conclusion, I suggest how planners may deal with the pressure of the lack in the hegemonic discourse of neoliberalism in order to avoid the stuckness of the logic of drive materialised in the operation of planning institutions.
{"title":"A Lacanian understanding of urban development plans under the neoliberal discourse","authors":"Elham Bahmanteymouri","doi":"10.1177/1473095220981118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220981118","url":null,"abstract":"Urban development and land release policies in the city fringes are criticised because they often fail to achieve their objectives such as providing affordable housing for low to moderate-income groups as well as provision of infrastructure and transportation. From a Marxian point of view, urban development plans fail because of the inherent contradictions of capital, and consequently, maximisation of surplus-value becomes the main objectives of land supply policies. In this paper, I draw on the Lacanian concept of drive and use the homology between Marxian surplus-value and Lacanian surplus-enjoyment to explain how the market rationality of neoliberalism (late-capitalism) deflects the desired objectives of urban development plans (UDPs); that is, the desire to provide affordable housing and urban services and infrastructure instead facilitates speculative activities on land in the suburban areas of a metropolis, such as Perth, Western Australia. In particular, the paper focuses on the neoliberal intuitional and financial dimensions of UDPs. In conclusion, I suggest how planners may deal with the pressure of the lack in the hegemonic discourse of neoliberalism in order to avoid the stuckness of the logic of drive materialised in the operation of planning institutions.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"231 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220981118","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44806465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-15DOI: 10.1177/1473095220980499
P. Filion
The paper casts light on structural factors limiting and shaping the actions of planners. In doing so it attempts to compensate for the emphasis planning theory places on the agency dimension of planners at the expense of the structural limitations they encounter. The paper draws from Giddens’s structuration theory, which depicts how the imbrication of agency and structure within institutional contexts sets the resources and constraints environment wherein social actors function. In order to adapt structuration theory to the reality of planners, the paper explores how motivations driving their agency take form largely within their professional realm. It also highlights the role institutional dynamics and political economy play in setting the structural context in which planners operate. The empirical substance originates from two junctures in the evolution of Toronto planning. The paper paints the picture of knowledgeable and reflective planners making informed decisions within changing structural contexts they do not control.
{"title":"Creative or instrumental planners? Agency and structure in their institutional and political economy context","authors":"P. Filion","doi":"10.1177/1473095220980499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220980499","url":null,"abstract":"The paper casts light on structural factors limiting and shaping the actions of planners. In doing so it attempts to compensate for the emphasis planning theory places on the agency dimension of planners at the expense of the structural limitations they encounter. The paper draws from Giddens’s structuration theory, which depicts how the imbrication of agency and structure within institutional contexts sets the resources and constraints environment wherein social actors function. In order to adapt structuration theory to the reality of planners, the paper explores how motivations driving their agency take form largely within their professional realm. It also highlights the role institutional dynamics and political economy play in setting the structural context in which planners operate. The empirical substance originates from two junctures in the evolution of Toronto planning. The paper paints the picture of knowledgeable and reflective planners making informed decisions within changing structural contexts they do not control.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"255 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220980499","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41988986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1177/1473095220979156
Angelique Chettiparamb
{"title":"Editorial: Planning theory and the planning discipline","authors":"Angelique Chettiparamb","doi":"10.1177/1473095220979156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220979156","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"3 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473095220979156","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43822832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","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：