‘Either/or’ and ‘and’: first impressions of a journey into the planning cultures of four countries

Keller, Donald A.; Koch, Michaël; Selle, Klaus

doi:10.1080/026654396364925

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although several studies have broadened our understandings of planning culture's richness as well as complexity (see e.g. CULTPLAN, 2007;Keller, Koch, & Selle, 1996), the analytical power of planning culture comparison has been lacking. For Taylor (2013), the definition of planning culture is unsettled and left to interpretations by each researcher.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and comparing planning cultures: risk, trust and co-operative attitudes in experimental games

Dethier

Eika

et al. 2019

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural impacts in planning increasingly receive attention from both academics and practitioners around Europe. However, comparative planning cultures studies face the challenges of lacking systematic comparison and empirical evidence, especially at the micro level of planning actors' behaviour in interaction. This article aims to fill these gaps by (1) operationalizing the concept of planning culture; and (2) measuring and comparing it. We base our operationalization on the culturized planning model (Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (Eds.). ( 2009). Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham: Ashgate). We complement its explanatory power by building a link between planning culture and planning outcome through attitudes of planning actors. This article focuses on three attitudes: risk, trust and co-operation. To measure and compare these attitudes, we adopt three experimental economic games and conduct an experiment with public and private planning practitioners in three European countries: Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. Both cross-country and public-private differences in these attitudes are tested in the experiment. Our experimental findings suggest that Dutch planning actors value risk aversion and trust; Norwegian planning actors value cooperation; while (French-speaking) Belgian planning actors do not value these variables that much.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and comparing planning cultures: risk, trust and co-operative attitudes in experimental games

Dethier

Eika

et al. 2019

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considerable variations across nations are commonplace as a result (Rodriguez-Bachiller, 1988;Frank et al, 2014) with some favouring a design and physical planning approach, while other national conceptions position planning as a speciality of engineering or as social science. Moreover, as the urban environment changes, and societal and political contexts shift-so do the demands on the planning profession, for example, from designing urban extensions, to developing new towns, urban regeneration and more recently, facilitating smart and resilient cities (Keller et al, 1996;Dalton, 2001;Stiftel et al, 2009;van Timmeren et al, 2015). Planning curricula content and learning outcomes are thus regularly reviewed and updated to address perceived mismatches in skills and knowledge needs for practice (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educating spatial planners for the age of co-creation: the need to risk community, science and practice involvement in planning programmes and curricula

Rooij

Frank

2016

Planning Practice & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planners are often billed as leaders and change agents of the (un)built environment. It is, however, important to recognize that they are in reality only one of many players in a sea of actors involved in shaping future developments and projects. Plans and interventions today are co-created and in fact co-evolve relying as much on the input, cooperation and actions of inhabitants, users, developers, politicians as on expert planners and a wide variety of other professions. In this introductory section, we, as editors of this special issue, posit that planners therefore require skills for co-creation drawing on science and working with other disciplines. In turn, planning programmes and curricula need to incorporate learning and teaching approaches that prepare students in higher education for working in co-creation settings by purposefully exposing them to learning environments that involve community, science and practice. The collection of papers, which were presented initially at the 2014 Association of European Schools of Planning congress in Utrecht hereafter showcase curriculum developments and pedagogical research of planning educators from different world regions that in the round shed light on a variety of issues and challenges of embedding learning and teaching for co-creation and co-evolution. In particular, we elaborate on the tensions of employing transformational yet high-risk pedagogies in higher education settings that are becoming increasingly risk-averse and streamlined and we suggest an agenda for planning curriculum development.

show abstract

“…This literature also extends to cover areas and regions in North America. These studies lead to discussions on planning families, planning cultures (Booth, 2011;Keller et al, 1996;Othengrafen, 2012), and categories that summarise the characteristics of different planning systems and the resulting planning practice (Healey & Williams, 1993;Newman & Thornley, 1996). Nadin (2012) commented that comparative studies should not merely be descriptions of planning instruments and procedures but compare the different ways that 'planning tools and practices are being adjusted in response to common challenges' (p. 2).…”

Section: Establishing the Comparative Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage Conservation through Planning: A Comparison of Policies and Principles in England and China

Chen

Ludwig

Sykes

2020

Planning Practice & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparative study of conservation planning practice between Chester, England and Qingyan, China. It examines conservation policies and plans in the two cities, and aims to contribute to current international debates surrounding heritage management. Three key dimensions of conservation planning are identified and applied to the cases: the planning tools delivering conservation; the recognition of heritage; and conservation objectives and principles pursued. The analysis reveals that enduring socio-cultural and institutional specificities contribute to moulding approaches to conservation planning. Understanding such contextual specificities and distinctiveness is essential for international exchanges of experience around conservation planning.

show abstract

‘Either/or’ and ‘and’: first impressions of a journey into the planning cultures of four countries

Cited by 30 publications

References 0 publications

Measuring and comparing planning cultures: risk, trust and co-operative attitudes in experimental games

Measuring and comparing planning cultures: risk, trust and co-operative attitudes in experimental games

Educating spatial planners for the age of co-creation: the need to risk community, science and practice involvement in planning programmes and curricula

Heritage Conservation through Planning: A Comparison of Policies and Principles in England and China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About