On the ‘complexity turn’ in planning: An adaptive rationale to navigate spaces and times of uncertainty

Abstract

Complexity sciences have been long ago acknowledged to be useful at conceptualizing a variety of phenomena relevant to planning. Nevertheless, the actual mechanisms that will prove adequate to tackle complex planning issues are still under debate. Considering that in today’s so-called era of the Anthropocene such planning issues are more present and evident than ever, the need for further investigating the implications of complexity sciences into building planning approaches becomes very relevant. In this article, we use the concept of complex systems as an analytical framework challenging our understanding of planning and we argue in favour of a ‘complexity turn’ in planning through the adaptive rationale. We define the adaptive rationale as an additional, both normative and analytical, trajectory in planning theory, in the interplay between certainty and uncertainty. Finally, to assimilate this rationale into planning mechanisms capable to respond to contemporary social and ecological challenges, we call for issue-driven adaptive planning approaches conceptualized through normative sustainability and nourished by post-normal science.

Designing with Pathways: A Spatial Design Approach for Adaptive and Sustainable Landscapes

“…As the grid structure of East Boston shows, an established configuration of the landscape can determine the future of an area for many decades. Cities and their communities have to live with the consequences of the choices made in the design process [17]. For this reason, it is useful to be able to develop an adaptive design approach.…”

“…In addition, pathways themselves might offer a valuable set of concepts to create new landscape design approaches that help shift away from landscape design aimed at static, predefined outcomes, towards creating adaptive and time-sensitive designs. More adaptiveness in design might ameliorate the negative consequences of uncertainty about future change [17].…”

Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: trends across Europe

“…Uncertainty and complexity in spatial planning is a key argument for more 'adaptive' planning tools and processes (Rauws & De Roo, 2016;Rauws et al, 2014). Authors such as Zandvoort et al (2018) and Skrimizea et al (2019) point to the weakness of planning tools that assume that uncertainty and complexity can be controlled through the application of scientific rationality, and argue for an 'adaptive rationale' in planning. At present, much planning practice tends to underplay uncertainty, despite the growth of ubiquitous disruptive urban technologies (Batty, 2016) and the increasing fragmentation of actors and values in urban development.…”

Antifragile planning

“…It raises problems of what the normative content of planning may legitimately and realistically be, and casts a shadow over certain planning practice overconfident about the effectiveness of too specific goal-oriented attitudes. Among attempts of conceptual overhaul of planning theory and practice to deal with the complexity and uncertainty of urban systems, a prominent, and thriving, approach is that of urban resilience (Davoudi et al, 2013; Davoudi and Porter, 2012; Meerow et al, 2016), together with that, somewhat related, of adaptive planning (Kato and Ahern, 2008; Rauws, 2017; Skrimizea et al, 2018). Our key claim in this work is that the notion of antifragility developed by Nassim N. Taleb (2012) introduces a fruitful conceptual framework to engage and broaden the general coordinates of the debate on planning under complexity and uncertainty.…”