Speaker
Description
Over the past few decades, the role of and need for plans, as written and agreed documents, has been questioned or denied by many planning practitioners and theorists (Neuman 1998; Moroni 2023). Nevertheless, plans continue to be produced by organisations and governments at all spatial levels and to be used in addressing a wide range of complex urban and social futures.
All planning and plans occur in ongoing uncertainty. Uncertainty arises from the environment and from governance and planning processes (Abbott 2005). Because of climate change, global and local environmental systems are changing and breaking down and becoming more unpredictable. Wars, famines and refugee numbers are increasing and threatening global and local order and governance. We live in a world of uncertainty and crisis. In this context, this paper asserts the ongoing agency, role of, and need for plans. But the nature of planning and plans needs to change.
Friedmann (1987) notes that planning focusses on how knowledge is linked to actions. But what if planners assume they have knowledge that they do not have: what Christensen (1999) calls delusions of certainty. This paper reverses Friedmann’s emphasis and looks at how a lack of knowledge or uncertainty can be recognized in plan making and plans, how this can be linked to actions, and how this will change the nature of plans and planning practice.
There are many conceptions of planning and plans, including as: choosing the best future actions; reaching agreement about future actions; ongoing mutual learning; exploring scenarios and choosing contingent actions; seeking to achieve goals or a vision; informing and coordinating the actions of others; managing uncertainty; and creating frameworks to adapt to complex, self-organising systems. But plans have limitations, as Wildavsky’s well known 1973 critique of planning overreach notes. Plans need boundaries, timeframes and institutional arrangements and to be adaptive. This paper puts forward a new concept of plans that actively recognize, address and adapt to ongoing uncertainty.
Recognising uncertainty is iterative and is about identifying or creating an institutional context for complex problems that allows stakeholders to become aware of uncertainties in their various problem perceptions and to seek to address these. Making plans that are flexible and adaptable is not a new idea but there is increasing recognition of its importance and of new approaches, such as using codes and framework instruments.
Uncertainty about the future is ongoing and creates a need for planning and plans. Predictability is limited but the future is not indeterminate. The future can’t be predicted or controlled but plans can act continually to address and change the future towards goals and visions. Actions to recognise and address ongoing uncertainty need to become a critical and active component of plans. A plan is thus a dynamic tool to change the future.
References
Abbott, John. 2005. Understanding and Managing the Unknown: The Nature of Uncertainty in Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 24(3): 237-251.
Christensen, Karen. 1999. Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Moroni, Stefano. 2023. Distinguishing ‘planning’ from the ‘plan’. Institutional and professional implications of taking urban complexity seriously. European Planning Studies, 31(11): 2327-2341.
Neuman, Michael. 1998. ‘Does Planning Need the Plan?’ Journal of the American Planning Association. 64 (2): 208-220.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. If Planning is Everything, Maybe it’s Nothing. Policy Sciences. Vol 4: 127-153.
| Keywords | Uncertainty; plans; planning theory; planning practice; |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
