Balancing participatory planning and planning for resilience in nature-based solutions. A case of transformative agency?

From Social Barriers to Transformative Planning in Energy Transitions: Learning from Norwegian Planners' Perspectives

“…Going further, the next step is to consider a framework that puts the categories in relation to each other while being open to the addition of further categories over time. Given the inherent tension between the planner's inner role to serve the public good and the outer role structured by the institutional setting (Plüschke-Altof et al, 2023), it is proposed to orient the categories of social barriers on the planner and on the context in which the planner is situated and therefore practising. Through the use of the framework, the researcher would be able to orient challenges upon the inner and outer worlds of the planner and support a more structured approach to thinking about the strategies and specific measures that could be used to address social barriers in relation to "activity system transformation" (Virkkunen, 2006), from the planner to the field of planning.…”

“…Filion et al (2015) identified social obstacles to urban transformation from an institutionalist perspective, pointing to the importance of practical knowledge and professional values. Since then, learnings on social barriers can also be drawn from experiences of planning nature-based solutions, which identify structural, relational, and inner conflicts to be navigated by planners when fulfilling their expected roles (Dorst et al, 2022;Plüschke-Altof et al, 2023). Furthermore, research on PEDs suggests a clear role for the planner in mediating polarising social aspects (Krangsås et al, 2021) while being situated in their institutional context.…”

“…Related to transformative change, transformative agency describes the ability of actors to collectively transform an activity system, a process dependent on practitioners' knowledge and experience, in a way that redefines the object or outcome of the system (Virkkunen, 2006). In this way, the re-orientation of planning towards sustainability calls upon the exercise of transformative agency in planning, which has so far been addressed in socio-ecological systems (Plüschke-Altof et al, 2023;Westley et al, 2013;Wolfram, 2016) but not in socio-technical systems (e.g., for energy transitions). Thus, there is an opportunity to develop conceptual linkages between the socio-technical system perspective and the potential for transformative agency, drawing on their common concern with context and agency.…”

“…At the same time, the localisation imperative has the potential to further stress the already limited capacities of ordinary cities and the roles and abilities of planners who find themselves charged with leading cities and their inhabitants towards sustainability. Knowledge, participation, and consensus building have been recognised as continuous challenges in planning for environmental sustainability (Calderon et al, 2022;Plüschke-Altof et al, 2023;van den Hove, 2006). This is also the case in planning for the energy transition, as planners are confronted with the need to integrate highly technical and specialised knowledge while coordinating, educating, and convincing stakeholders with diverse and conflicting interests to collectively achieve a transformation of the built environment, all while adhering to democratic planning principles.…”

“…The analytical approach links planning with innovation and transition theories, placing the "urban" energy transition, referring here to the built environment also in suburban and rural areas, in the context of socio-technical system transformation. Building on a growing literature on transformative change in planning for sustainability (Castán Broto et al, 2019;Filion et al, 2015;Plüschke-Altof et al, 2023;Wolfram, 2016), the analysis considers the utility of theories around transformative agency and capacities for planning energy transitions, i.e., planners' reflexivity and institutionalism. In dealing with socio-technical systems and planning, it also adheres to an institutionalist view that acknowledges the structural constraints and agency of planners dealing with physical infrastructure (i.e., the built environment) and communities within local and/or national planning systems.…”