Up to this point, the planner-public relationship has largely been structured as one-sided with planners using their expertise to act in the public’s best interest. The public’s role has been to respond to the actions of planners through the feedback processes of the rational comprehensive model, incrementalism, and mixed-scanning. This next configuration of the planner-public relationship sees the many voices of the public coming to the forefront of the planning process where the planner becomes a facilitator. In this configuration, planners are concerned with creating space for the public in its totality to be heard; often through a focus on public participation processes.
The planner as facilitator is best exemplified by what has been labeled as planning’s communicative turn (1). At the forefront of this communicative turn is Healey’s collaborative planning model. Healey frames planning as fundamentally dialectic, a lifelong interplay between technical experts and the interests of the communities they serve (2). The planner becomes a facilitator of a larger conversation between the public about what are the public’s needs and how they can be best accommodated. Healey frames the nature of this larger conversation with the following set of attributes:
Healey’s collaborative planning highlights the increasingly complex responsibilities required of the planner as facilitator. Facilitating a space where everyone is heard means being equipped to manage a diversity of voices and being able to open up the decision-making process to allow for a more flexible range of expertise. The push for a communicative approach to planning has arisen because planners have begun to recognize that they need to work with the public in order to access the local contextual knowledge needed to make effective decisions (3). This includes the knowledge of the day to day experience of the community that is difficult to access solely through planning’s technical and scientific expertise. There are other benefits from the facilitator role as planners are also able to unearth new knowledge through dialogue and reach a greater consensus on the public interest (4).
From the perspective of care, these communicative theorists have expanded the concept of care beyond the outcomes of planning. Planners now care for the public throughout the planning process through the methods of public participation. A caring planner in this model is one that is able to get as many voices to the table and one that can create a space for them to be heard. By bringing all these voices together, planners have created space for collaboration and conflict. Members of the public can build each other up or tear each other down. This means that the planning process now concerns the relationships within the public on top of the planner-public relationship.
Planners therefore need to care for the public but also for how the public cares about each other. If members of the public experience participation processes as abusive, for example if their voice is not heard or respected, that reflects poorly on the planner who has created the space and is facilitating interactions between the public. Communicative planning has thus explored how planners could better address emotions (5) and conflict (6). The more planners explore how to effectively facilitate a complex, heterogenous community, the more the expectations of the planner as facilitator increase to include a larger set of communicative skills. The scale of this communicative environment has pushed planners to develop one more configuration of the planner-public relationship.
The planner as facilitator is best exemplified by what has been labeled as planning’s communicative turn (1). At the forefront of this communicative turn is Healey’s collaborative planning model. Healey frames planning as fundamentally dialectic, a lifelong interplay between technical experts and the interests of the communities they serve (2). The planner becomes a facilitator of a larger conversation between the public about what are the public’s needs and how they can be best accommodated. Healey frames the nature of this larger conversation with the following set of attributes:
- It should recognize the range and variety of stakeholders concerned with changes to local and urban regional environments…
- It should acknowledge that much of the work of governance occurs outside the formal agencies of government…
- It should open up opportunities for informal invention for local initiatives…
- It should foster the inclusion of all members of political communities…
- It should be continually and openly accountable...(2)
Healey’s collaborative planning highlights the increasingly complex responsibilities required of the planner as facilitator. Facilitating a space where everyone is heard means being equipped to manage a diversity of voices and being able to open up the decision-making process to allow for a more flexible range of expertise. The push for a communicative approach to planning has arisen because planners have begun to recognize that they need to work with the public in order to access the local contextual knowledge needed to make effective decisions (3). This includes the knowledge of the day to day experience of the community that is difficult to access solely through planning’s technical and scientific expertise. There are other benefits from the facilitator role as planners are also able to unearth new knowledge through dialogue and reach a greater consensus on the public interest (4).
From the perspective of care, these communicative theorists have expanded the concept of care beyond the outcomes of planning. Planners now care for the public throughout the planning process through the methods of public participation. A caring planner in this model is one that is able to get as many voices to the table and one that can create a space for them to be heard. By bringing all these voices together, planners have created space for collaboration and conflict. Members of the public can build each other up or tear each other down. This means that the planning process now concerns the relationships within the public on top of the planner-public relationship.
Planners therefore need to care for the public but also for how the public cares about each other. If members of the public experience participation processes as abusive, for example if their voice is not heard or respected, that reflects poorly on the planner who has created the space and is facilitating interactions between the public. Communicative planning has thus explored how planners could better address emotions (5) and conflict (6). The more planners explore how to effectively facilitate a complex, heterogenous community, the more the expectations of the planner as facilitator increase to include a larger set of communicative skills. The scale of this communicative environment has pushed planners to develop one more configuration of the planner-public relationship.
1. Sandercock, L., & Attili, G. (2014). Changing the Lens. Journal of Planning Education and Research,34(1), 19-29.
2. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press.
3. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and the Environment – The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4. Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (1): 52–63.
Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. (2000). Planning Institutions in the Network Society: Theory for Collaboratory Planning. In the Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, edited by W. Salet and A. Faludi, 175–189. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science.
5. Baum, H. (2015). Planning with half a mind: Why planners resist emotion. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), 498-516.
Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367-382.
6. Bollens, S. A. (2006). Urban planning and peace building. Progress in Planning, 66(2), 67-139.
2. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press.
3. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and the Environment – The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4. Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (1): 52–63.
Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. (2000). Planning Institutions in the Network Society: Theory for Collaboratory Planning. In the Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, edited by W. Salet and A. Faludi, 175–189. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science.
5. Baum, H. (2015). Planning with half a mind: Why planners resist emotion. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), 498-516.
Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367-382.
6. Bollens, S. A. (2006). Urban planning and peace building. Progress in Planning, 66(2), 67-139.