The Day After Tomorrow: Transition Management, Spatial Planning & the Low Carbon Economy

Many of the societal challenges that current spatial planning practice claims to be addressing (climate change, peak oil, obesity, aging society etc) encompass issues and timescales that lie beyond the traditional scope planning policy (Campbell 2006). The example of achieving a low carbon economy typifies this in that it demands a process of society-wide transition, involving steering a wide range of factors (markets, infrastructure, governance, individual behaviour etc). Such a process offers a challenge to traditional approaches to planning as they cannot be guided by a fixed blueprint, given the timescales involved (up to 50 years) and an enhanced level of uncertainty, social resistance, lack of control over implementation and a danger of ‘policy lock in’ (Kemp et al 2007). One approach to responding to these challenges is the concept of transition management which has emerged from studies of science, technology and innovation (Geels 2002, Markard et al 2012). Although not without criticism, this perspective attempts to uncertainty and complexity encompassing long term visions that integrates multi-level, multi-actor and multi-domain perspectives (Rotmans et al 2001).
 
Given its origins, research on transition management has tended to neglect spatial contexts (Coenen et al 2012) and, related to this, it’s relationship with spatial planning is poorly understood. Using the example of the low carbon transition, this paper will review the relationships between the concepts, methodologies and goals of transition management and spatial planning to explore whether a closer integration of the two fields offers benefits to achieving the long term challenges facing society.
 

Questioning the Universality of Institutional Transformation Theories in Spatial Planning: Shopping Mall Developments in Palermo

Theories about institutional transformation in spatial planning, although mainly based on the Anglo-Saxon context, have assumed a dominant role in planning research and theory as means to understand the transformations that have been restructuring planning systems in recent decades in the Western world and beyond. The article, looking at transformations of planning practice through the lenses of the concept of planning cultures, debates the utility of building ‘universal’ theories for spatial planning and advocates for the need for a de-provincialization of planning theories. This is done through a case-study approach applied to the history of the transformation of the retail system in a context characterized by the specificities of the Italian planning context and Southern European cities, namely: the planning processes for, and power relationships underlying, the first shopping malls opened in Palermo, Italy, since 2009 — some decades later than most of Western cities.

Re-conceptualising public participation in spatial planning: a view through autopoiesis

This article examines the relevance of the concept of autopoiesis for public participation in spatial planning. The concept of autopoiesis within social science, as advanced by Niklas Luhmann (1995) argues for a systemic, consistent and sophisticated theory of society based on a systems view, as opposed to more familiar action-based theories (for instance as in the case of the Habermasian tradition). By examining the relevance of the concept for public participation in spatial planning, this article highlights specific aspects of public participation that draw attention to dimensions of planning that are not currently explicitly highlighted within mainstream discourses in planning

Engaging in European spatial planning: a central and Eastern European perspective on the territorial cohesion debate

The following paper sets out to determine the differential extent of the engagement of Central and Eastern European (CEE) member states with the European spatial planning (ESP) debate over territorial cohesion. It focuses on the written statements submitted in response to the European Commission “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” consultation in 2009. The geographical distribution of the respondents is analysed, before CEE member states’ responses are examined in detail, to explore the diverse interpretations of the concept of “territorial cohesion” among CEE actors. While the data collection for this paper has been restricted empirically to the consultation process, it reflects its findings in consideration of member states’ engagement with the debate as it manifested before and after the Green Paper. The debate over the exact conceptual and operational “framing” of territorial cohesion, launched by the European Commission's Green Paper, constitutes one of the many arenas through which ESP currently evolves, together with the transnational initiatives developed in the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation objective, the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) and the process that recently led to the publication of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. The paper concludes that the overall level of engagement of CEE actors in ESP is proportionally lower in comparison with that of their northwestern European counterparts. The increasing involvement of some CEE member states within the ESPON 2013 Programme, as well as the activities undertaken by the Hungarian and Polish EU Presidencies in 2011, suggests that this level of CEE engagement is growing albeit differentially.