Speaker
Description
The increasing emphasis on participatory planning processes has highlighted the importance of communicative approaches to engage stakeholders (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000). Within this context, planning theorists have underscored the value of storytelling, both as a tool for and an outcome of planning (see Van Hulst, 2012). This ‘narrative turn’ in spatial planning (Ameel et al., 2023) shifts the focus from planning as a technical task to an ongoing process of co-creating, negotiating, and sharing stories about places and their futures. From this perspective, spatial planning can be understood as a dynamic, open-ended storytelling process, seeking common ground to guide decisions about spatial development.
A dominant story emerges when diverse perspectives and interests converge in the search for a shared narrative that guides the spatial development of a place (Ameel et al., 2023). The dominant story is not static or final; rather, it is a continuously evolving synthesis of ideas shaped by ongoing dialogue between spatial actors. It reflects a collective search for joint understanding into ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’ (Van Hulst, 2012). Over time, the dominant story shapes how the physical environment is understood, which spatial decisions are made, and how change (or conservation) is implemented (Ameel et al., 2023).
While much of the literature on storytelling in planning has focused on urban political processes (Van Hulst, 2012), this paper extends the discussion to rural contexts. Rural areas face numerous complex spatial and social challenges, with stakeholders often diverging in their views on the best path forward. In such settings, the collaborative search process and evolution of a dominant story can provide clarity and direction, helping to reconcile conflicting interests and shape collaborative decisions. Achieving this convergence, however, requires deliberate facilitation to encourage dialogue, align stakeholder values, and create shared frames of reference (Lindhout et al., 2024).
Despite the growing recognition of storytelling’s role in planning, epistemological challenges persist regarding its definition and measurement. The perspective that storytelling is a core element of planning itself emphasizes that planning is fundamentally a cultural activity of collective meaning-making. Drawing from the influential works of Richard Dawkins (1976), Aaron Lynch (1996), Susan Blackmore (2000) and Malcolm Gladwell (2000), this paper adopts a memetic perspective to explore how the content of stories evolve and spread during a rural spatial planning process. When storytelling is viewed through a lens of memetics, a dominant story emerges as a synthesis of replicating cultural messages and ideas—or ‘memes’—that actively shape the planning discourse.
The paper explores how a dominant story evolves throughout a planning process, applying the memetic lense. The research is guided by three research questions: (I) What memes can be identified during the planning process? (II) When do these memes emerge, adapt, align, and/or fade? And (III) what contextual conditions, factors, or events influence the evolution of the dominant story? A case study approach is employed, focusing primarily on document analysis of materials related to a visionary rural area development process: the Holwerd aan Zee (Holwerd by the Sea) project, located in the north of the Netherlands.
Although the analysis is ongoing, this paper argues that memes can serve as proxies for internal cognitive processes and as indicators of storytelling within spatial planning. By tracing memes throughout the planning process, this research aims to provide insights into how dominant stories evolve and shape rural spatial development.
References
Ameel, L., Gurr, J.M. and Buchenau, B. (2023). Narrative in Urban Planning: A Practical Field Guide. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Blackmore, S.J. (2000). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Hajer, M. and Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatial planning in the network society-rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European planning studies, 8(3), pp.337-355.
Lindhout, N.A., van Dijk, T., and van der Vaart, G. (2024). ‘Are we in agreement?’ Process architecture considerations as a tool for navigating stakeholder perspectives in favor of consensus-building in land consolidation projects. Planning Practice & Research, pp.1-22.
Lynch, A. (1996). Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads through Society. New York: Basic Books.
Van Hulst, M. (2012). Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning. Planning Theory, 11(3), pp.299-318.
| Keywords | memetics; rural spatial planning; dominant story; collaborative planning; joint understanding |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
