Collaborative planning – A neoliberal strategy? A study of the Atlanta BeltLine

Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning

“…It tends to reinforce the status quo (Bengs, 2005;Purcell, 2009) and nurture the post-political condition (Roy, 2015) by suppressing the radical and transformative edge (Harris, 2002), favouring certain groups above others (Fainstein, 2000;Flyvbjerg, 1998;Gunton et al, 2007;Swyngedouw, 2005). Actions organised within communicative planning are limited and exclusive (Blakeley, 2010;Eraydin and Tasan-Kok, 2014).…”

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

“…McAfee et al (2015) argue that CI backbone organizations ultimately must have a "point of view" (p. 8) if they care about fairness and inclusion, compared to some CI texts that suggest the need to be "neutral" (O'Brien, Littlefield, & Goddard-Truitt, 2013, p. 26). Collaboration scholars suggest that CI can be successful if backbone organizations can create spaces where genuine, open dialogue occurs and if they allow for "radical criticism, dissensus and disagreement" (Roy, 2015, p. 67). Forester (2009 also describes how an "activist mediator" can structure more inclusive dialogue, debate, and negotiated action plans even under the most divisive circumstances by doing things like incorporating sufficient time for colearning (e.g., time for personal histories, unstructured social events, search conferences, study groups) and establishing "ground rules" that are culturally sensitive (p. 5).…”

“…Particularly in food systems work, corporate-led approaches to solving food systems problems clash regularly with the social justice and food sovereignty tenents of community-based groups (Agyeman & McEntee, 2014;Anada, 2011;Giorda, 2012;Jaffee & Howard, 2010), complicating efforts that attempt to bring multiple stakeholders together when power differences are so stark. Post-political and other participatory planning scholars show how more powerful actors can co-opt collaborative decision-making processes to protect and legitimize their own interests (Arnstein, 1969;Roy, 2015;Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). This can occur when power inequities and conflicts are bracketed out of collaborations, either by overlooking marginalized groups or by avoiding conflictive topics in order to reach an agreement (Roy, 2015).…”

“…Post-political and other participatory planning scholars show how more powerful actors can co-opt collaborative decision-making processes to protect and legitimize their own interests (Arnstein, 1969;Roy, 2015;Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). This can occur when power inequities and conflicts are bracketed out of collaborations, either by overlooking marginalized groups or by avoiding conflictive topics in order to reach an agreement (Roy, 2015). Even intentional efforts to balance multiple perspectives, Kaza (2006) argues, can lead to a "tyranny of the median" (p. 255), when groups settle on a decision where all agree, rather than equitybased, progressive action.…”

Making a difference : boundary management in spatial governance

“…Strategic spatial planning at the regional level often involves collaboration of governmental actors with companies because of economic development issues (Olesen, 2014;Zanon, 2013). However, a privileged position of companies over citizens and civil society groups in collaboration and deliberation is often criticized for democratic deficit (Mäntysalo et al, 2014;Roy, 2015;Skelcher et al, 2005). On the other hand, collaborative processes that do involve these stakeholders are not free from difficulties either.…”