Speaker
Description
Comprehensive blueprint plans present a fixed end state for years or decades into the future, detailing elements such as land uses, zoning, and building regulations (Davoudi, 2021). Since the 21st century, criticism against blueprint planning has intensified, leading to a surge in adaptive planning concepts within planning literature, highlighting that blueprint planning is unsuitable for managing change and planning for uncertain futures (Rauws, 2017; Skrimizea et al., 2019). The core idea of adaptive planning is to make plans, projects, and urban areas adaptable to uncertain future changes (Pelzer & Pot, 2023; Skrimizea et al., 2019). This central characteristic is a significant aspect of various research strands that can be interpreted as adaptive planning concepts, some inspired by other disciplines. Simultaneously, adaptiveness has generally increased in spatial planning practices in Europe during the 21st century (Nadin et al., 2021).
Despite these theoretical and practical shifts, it is widely acknowledged that planning practices remain dominated by traditional approaches such as blueprint planning (Davoudi, 2021). While theoretical concepts abound, there is a shortage of empirical studies that deepen our understanding of how to operationalise adaptive planning within contemporary planning systems and practices. The few existing studies overlook how adaptive planning can be operationalised in current spatial governance and planning systems, which is crucial for translating theories into tangible approaches for practice.
In this paper, we aim to contribute to planning practice and research by addressing the research question: ‘How can adaptive planning be operationalised to prepare flexible plans and enhance the adaptivity of urban areas?’. We examine the Oude Dokken case, a large-scale urban redevelopment project ongoing since 2004 in Ghent, Flanders (Belgium), where practitioners consider it an example of adaptive planning despite Flanders’ (Belgium’s) rigid spatial governance and planning system (Lacoere and Leinfelder, 2023). This case offers valuable insights into how practitioners balance rigidity and flexibility in such a context. Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We analyse both (a) the adaptive planning process across the planning, design, and implementation phases, and (b) the neighbourhood's potential for long-term adaptivity, post-implementation. We propose a cohesive analytical framework examining four levels of planning practice: the planning and decision-making process, the strategic plan level (masterplan, visioning), the level of regulatory instruments (e.g., a land-use plan), and the project level (built environment and infrastructure). Additionally, we assess Oude Dokken’s potential long-term adaptivity potential by using Cozzolino’s (2019) characteristics of (anti-)adaptive neighbourhoods (AANs).
The empirical findings show how adaptive planning can be operationalised, despite constraints, even within a context of strong and continuous government control, and a rigid planning system, and that this can still lead to a potentially adaptive neighbourhood in certain respects. This suggests that planning practice can move forward and operationalize adaptive planning today, without radical institutional changes. Examples like Oude Dokken, which consciously complement traditional approaches with adaptive planning rather than treating them as conflicting, support arguments for hybrid planning approaches that balance rigidity and flexibility.
References
• Cozzolino, S. (2020). The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing complexity and distribution of design control in the ordinary built environment. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science
• Davoudi, S. (2021). Resilience, uncertainty, and adaptive planning. In E. Peker & A. Ataöv (Eds.), Governance of Climate Responsive Cities: Exploring Cross-Scale Dynamics (pp. 9-19). Springer International Publishing
• Lacoere, P., & Leinfelder, H. (2023). Land oversupply. How rigid land-use planning and legal certainty hinder new policy for Flanders. European Planning Studies, 31(9), 1926-1948
• Nadin, V., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., & Fernandez-Maldonado, A. M. (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 55(5), 791-803
• Pelzer, P., & Pot, W. (2023). 74: Long-term perspectives and futures. In K. Van Assche, R. Beunen, & M. Duineveld (Eds.), Elgar Encyclopedia in Urban and Regional Planning and Design (pp. 223-226). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
• Rauws, W. (2017). Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning. disP - The Planning Review, 53(1), 32-45.
• Skrimizea, E., Haniotou, H., & Parra, C. (2019). On the ‘complexity turn’in planning: An adaptive rationale to navigate spaces and times of uncertainty. Planning Theory, 18(1), 122-142
| Keywords | Adaptive planning; adaptivity; uncertainty; urban development; planning system |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
