Developing a planning theory for wicked problems: Swarm planning

Roggema, R

Developing a planning theory for wicked problems: Swarm planning

Roggema, R

Permalink

Publisher:: Springer
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Swarm Planning, 2014, pp. 67 - 89
Issue Date:: 2014

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Swarm_Planning_The_Development_of_a_Planning_Metho..._----_(3_Developing_a_Planning_TheoryPlanning_theory_for_Wicked_Problems_Swar...).pdf	Published version	1.06 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Roggema, R https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-0779	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Roggema, R https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-0779	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Swarm Planning, 2014, pp. 67 - 89	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9789400771512	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/119994
dc.description.abstract	Climate change adaptation is seen as a wicked (VROM-raad 2007; Commonwealth of Australia 2007) or even a superwicked (Lazarus 2009) problem. A wicked problem is accurately defined in the seminal paper of Rittel and Webber: ‘‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’’ (Rittel and Webber 1973). Wicked problems are defined as being dynamic, they do not know a final solution, are ‘‘a one shot operation’’ and essentially unique. As planners, we do not have the right to be wrong. Spatial planning is defined in many different ways. Dror for example (1973) describes planning as a process: ‘‘Planning is the process of preparing a set of decisions for action in the future, directed at achieving goals by preferable means’’. In the course of this paper spatial planning is defined as the ‘co-ordination, making and mediation of space’ (Gunder and Hillier 2009, 4). Current (and historic) discourses in spatial planning, such as incrementalism (referring to Lindblom 1959), post-positivism (as described in Allmendinger 2002), communicative planning (amongst others: Habermas 1987, 1993; Healey 1997; Innes 2004), agonism (see: (Mouffe 1993, 2005; Hillier 2003; Pløger 2004), reflexive planning (Beck et al. 2003; Lissandrello and Grin 2011) or even the actor network approach (Boelens 2010) do have considerable difficulties to deal with wicked problems, or solutions, or fail to take wicked problems as the subject of planning. Hence, the need for an alternative theory emerges. In this paper this theory, Swarm Planning, is explored and developed.	en_US
dc.publisher	Springer	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Swarm Planning	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/978-94-007-7152-9_3	en_US
dc.title	Developing a planning theory for wicked problems: Swarm planning	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	Germany	en_US
utslib.for	1205 Urban and Regional Planning	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Architecture
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Germany	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

Climate change adaptation is seen as a wicked (VROM-raad 2007; Commonwealth of Australia 2007) or even a superwicked (Lazarus 2009) problem. A wicked problem is accurately defined in the seminal paper of Rittel and Webber: ‘‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’’ (Rittel and Webber 1973). Wicked problems are defined as being dynamic, they do not know a final solution, are ‘‘a one shot operation’’ and essentially unique. As planners, we do not have the right to be wrong. Spatial planning is defined in many different ways. Dror for example (1973) describes planning as a process: ‘‘Planning is the process of preparing a set of decisions for action in the future, directed at achieving goals by preferable means’’. In the course of this paper spatial planning is defined as the ‘co-ordination, making and mediation of space’ (Gunder and Hillier 2009, 4). Current (and historic) discourses in spatial planning, such as incrementalism (referring to Lindblom 1959), post-positivism (as described in Allmendinger 2002), communicative planning (amongst others: Habermas 1987, 1993; Healey 1997; Innes 2004), agonism (see: (Mouffe 1993, 2005; Hillier 2003; Pløger 2004), reflexive planning (Beck et al. 2003; Lissandrello and Grin 2011) or even the actor network approach (Boelens 2010) do have considerable difficulties to deal with wicked problems, or solutions, or fail to take wicked problems as the subject of planning. Hence, the need for an alternative theory emerges. In this paper this theory, Swarm Planning, is explored and developed.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/119994