ANNUAL CONGRESS 2025

A transformation of planning? Grasping planning-cultural change through socio-material practices

Not scheduled

20m

Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul

Oral Track 10 | THEORIES

Speaker

Johannes Suitner (TU Wien, Institute of Spatial Planning, Research Unit Urban and Regional Research)

Description

The need for social-ecological transformation is beyond question. The relevance of spatial planning in shaping this transformation is equally undisputed (cf. Hofmeister & Warner, 2021 among others). However, we still know little about whether planning for transformations also involves a substantial transformation of planning itself (cf. Schreiber et al., 2023, for one of the few exceptions). In my contribution, I outline an approach to scrutinize indications of a transformation of planning.

I start from the argument of sustainability sciences and transformation research that profound transformation ultimately implies cultural change (cf. Meadows, 1997; Abson et al., 2016). This points to planning cultures as a fruitful perspective for grasping fundamental transformations of planning. As planning-cultural change can be deemed “too abstract for closure” (Alexander, 2015: 91), I turn to practices as a more immediate, tangible expression of planning cultures (cf. Alexander, 2015; Levin-Keitel & Sondermann, 2017; Othengrafen & Levin-Keitel,2019 for a similar approach). To grasp a change of planning practices conceptually, I draw on the concept of Transformative Social Innovation [TSI] (Pel et al., 2020).

I show that there are significant congruencies between notions of planning culture and TSI. Social innovation generally describes a reconfiguration in the socio-material relation between actors, ideas, objects, and activities (Pel et al., 2020) that are aimed at better addressing a societal issue than previous configurations did (Moulaert, 2013). If we similarly define planning as a social process of actors combining ideas, objects and resources to intervene in space (cf. Knieling & Othengrafen, 2016), we can interpret the transformation of planning as a process of social innovation and, through this lens, view it as changes in four types of socio-material practices: (1) a change of planning activities, (2) new forms of organizing (in) planning, (3) new ways of imagining societal and spatial futures, and (4) a change in learning and knowing.

I apply this lens tentatively to explore a potential transformation of planning in the context of the on-going “green transition”. I outline discernable changes of practice that indicate planning-cultural transformation, and end with an outlook on what can be considered further necessary planning-cultural transformations for realizing social-ecological transformation.

Literature:
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., ... & Lang, D. J. (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30-39.
Alexander, E. R. (2016) There is no planning – only planning practices: Notes for spatial planning theories. Planning theory, 15(1), 91-103.
Hofmeister, S., Warner, B., & Ott, Z. (eds.) (2021) Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung für die große Transformation – Herausforderungen, Barrieren und Perspektiven für Raumwissenschaften und Raumplanung (Forschungsberichte der ARL, 15). Hannover: Verlag der ARL.
Levin-Keitel, M., & Sondermann, M. (2017). Räumliches Planen in Wissenschaft und Praxis–von „Mind the Gap “zu „Finding Gaps “. Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning, 75, 1-5.
Meadows, D. (1997) Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth, 91(1), 78-84.
Moulaert, F. (ed.) (2013) The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Othengrafen, F., & Levin-Keitel, M. (2019). Planners between the chairs: How planners (do not) adapt to transformative practices. Urban Planning, 4(4), 111-138.
Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., ... & Jørgensen, M. S. (2020) Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational framework and 12 propositions. Research Policy, 49(8), 104080.
Schreiber, F., Fokdal, J., & Ley, A. (2023) A Catalyst for Innovation? A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing the Potential of Urban Experiments to Transform Urban Planning Practices. Planning Theory & Practice, 24(2), 224-241.