Reflections on the Three Schools of Thought on Strategic Spatial Planning

Abstract

Based on their approaches to stakeholder involvement, policy integration, and project promotion, this article identifies three schools of thought on strategic spatial planning: the performance school, the school of innovative action, and the school of transformative strategy formulation. In addition to providing a guide for a more informed design and analysis of spatial strategy practices, some conceptual flaws and empirical gaps are suggested for future studies to focus on.

Between protocol and reality – Swedish municipal comprehensive planning

“…Ziafati Bafarasat (2015) identified three schools of strategic spatial planning: the performance school, the school of innovative action and the school of transformative strategy formulation. The schools are defined by the responsible planning agency and three key features of planning: 'stakeholder involvement', 'policy integration' and 'implementation' ( Table 1).…”

“…In return, the agency gains power from networking and political legitimacy. Such a planning agency is, according to Ziafati Bafarasat (2015), required in 'the school of transformative strategy formulation'. With reference to planning agency, legal requirements or 'protocol', it can be understood that the goals of Swedish MCPs best correspond to the school of transformative strategy formulation.…”

“…Faludi, 2000), only organized interests should be involved in the planning process. Public participation is limited; consultative procedures usually ask residents to choose from a predetermined set of options (Ziafati Bafarasat, 2015). In 'the school of innovative action', with a bottom-up process, inclusive debates should lead to innovative spatial development influenced by people (cf.…”

“…In 'the school of transformative strategy formulation', the greatest effects of stakeholder involvement are gained from tangible project-specific deliberations. A criticism of this school is that the grassroots are commonly included in the policy-making phase, but are excluded from the negotiation phase based on their confusion, low technical legitimacy and inability to provide desired organizational resources (Ziafati Bafarasat, 2015). In our survey, we captured the type and level of stakeholder involvement in MCP, ranging from efficiency to inclusivity, by the questions 'How were municipal residents involved in the planning process of your current MCP document?'…”

“…The implications for MCP using the discrepancy between protocol and reality are discussed, as well as the rural municipality as an agency in relation to supervisory and advisory regional and national agencies in the planning process and the potential for using MCP as a strategic tool for sustainable landscape planning. Overall, the analysis carried out is based on Ziafati Bafarasat's (2015) understanding of strategic spatial planning: ' … that it mediates between the respective claims on space of the state, market, and community around three considerations: stakeholder involvement, policy integration, and implementation' (Ziafati Bafarasat, 2015, p. 132). These three key features are considered to be crucial concerns in the spatial planning process, but also prerequisites for achieving sustainable development (Baker & Eckerberg, 2008;Eckerberg & Dahlgren, 2007).…”