Beyond soft planning: Towards a Soft turn in planning theory and practice?

Abstract

Over the last decade, soft planning has become an increasingly visible concept in planning literature. Since the term soft spaces was firstly coined, soft planning has been used to describe a growing number of practices that occur at the margins of statutory planning systems. However, as soft planning-related literature proliferates, so does the diversity of approaches and planning practices it encompasses. Such diversity fuels long-standing questions about what can or cannot be considered as soft planning as well as about its usefulness for today’s planning theory and practice. To shed light on this still unclear conceptual outline, this article divides the soft planning debate into five contextual components (ethos; governance; politics; policies; spaces; and scale) while paying particular attention to the relationship between soft planning and strategic spatial planning. The aim is to foreground soft planning as a concept, and add clarity and awareness on the challenges, the risks and opportunities, planning currently faces.

Bridging knowledge gaps on the role of spatial planning in wildfire risk reduction: insights from Portugal

“…The current spatial planning framework in Portugal is hierarchical and very normative at the municipal level and should try to move from a strict land-use zoning approach, namely with a consistent development strategy for a given territory (Ferrão 2011). In this sense, Cavaco et al (2022) advocate a soft planning approach, supported by principles of strategic planning, policy integration, collaborative governance and long-term vision, proposing the consideration of 'alternatives scales, rather those of statutory powers, where soft spaces feature the creation of new levels of geographical resolution to address specific territorial phenomena in a place-based and tailor-made view' (Cavaco et al 2022, p. 15). Although the alignment of spatial planning and wildfire risk reduction is paramount, it should be supported by an approach that accommodates the different landscape scales, the local context, and the dynamic and temporal dimensions of wildfire risk (Gonzalez-Mathiesen et al 2021), avoiding static, simplistic and deductive approaches that limit new understandings about the dynamic temporal and spatial dimensions of wildfires and do not take into account risk reduction context-specific characteristics (Gonzalez-Mathiesen and March 2018; Gonzalez-Mathiesen 2020).…”

Thinking Sideways: A Plea for “Weak Theory”

“…Planned efforts, they argued, would be more effective if planners narrowed their goals, worked on problems as they arose, and realized that professionals do not rationally analyze every aspect of a problem, but rather “muddle through” with incremental changes because of organizational and political constraints (Lindblom, 1959). These criticisms, combined with the calls for “advocacy planning” (Davidoff, 1965) and “flexible planning” (Solasse, 1967) amidst the urban riots of the 1960s, shattered the myths of strong theories and could be seen as the moment of origin of what is now called “soft planning” (Cavaco et al, 2022). At the same time, social anthropologists and Marxist human geographers joined the criticism of conventional and technocratic planning theories for favoring the powerful, instead of the urban poor (Gans, 1968; Peattie, 1968; Harvey, 1970).…”

Spatial Planning and Land-Use Management

“…Soft spatial planning acknowledges the significance of local input, involving communities in decision-making processes. While it may introduce uncertainties, soft spatial planning effectively manages risks through adaptability and a holistic understanding of local dynamics [19][20][21].…”