Communicative planning

Communicative planning is an approach to urban planning that gathers stakeholders and engages them in a process to make decisions together in a manner that respects the positions of all involved.^[1] It is also sometimes called collaborative planning among planning practitioners or collaborative planning model.

Since the 1970s, communicative planning theory has formed based on several key understandings. These key points include the notions that communication and reasoning come in diverse forms, knowledge is socially constructed, and people’s diverse interests and preferences are formed out of their social contexts.^[2] Communicative theory also draws on Foucauldian analyses of power in that it recognizes that power relations exist in practice and have the ability to oppress individuals.^[1][2] Specific to a community and urban planning context, communicative theory acknowledges that planners' own actions, words, lived experiences, and communication styles have an effect on the planning process the planner is facilitating.^[2] Finally, communicative planning theory advances the idea that planning happens in everyday practice and social relations, and consensus-building can be used to organize people's thoughts and move past traditional ways of knowing and decision-making.^[1][3][4][5]

In the 1990s, a number of planning scholars began writing about a new orientation to urban planning theory that moved away from the prevalent rational approach to planning. Judith Innes is credited with coining the term "communicative planning" in her article Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice.^[6] Innes' tries to bridge the gap between planning theories and planning in practice, and offers consensus-building as a tool for urban planners to create collaborative and engaging planning environments that allow different stakeholders to participate.^[3][4][5][6]

Around the same time as this article was published, Patsy Healey also published a number of planning theory texts exploring communicative and collaborative planning. Drawing on the theory of Jürgen Habermas in particular, Healey's work focuses on the impact that communicative acts (which can be in spoken or written form) have on a community planning process.^[1][2]

The emerging field of therapeutic planning is closely related to communicative planning. Therapeutic planning operates on the basis that communities can experience collective trauma, including from past planning processes, and that carefully facilitated community engagement can act as catalysts for community-wide healing.^[7][8][9] Some planning practitioners use untraditional planning approaches, such as filmmaking and other artistic media, to engage community members in therapeutic planning processes.^[10]

This section provides a short list of works written by planning academics on the subject of collaborative planning.

In a communicative planning process, planning practitioners play more of a facilitative role. They often act as a ‘knowledge mediator and broker’^[1] to help reframe problems in order to promote more creative thinking about possible solutions.^[11]

Throughout this process, information should be produced collectively by the full range of stakeholders who may be affected by the outcome of the process.^[12] In particular, all of the stakeholders should be involved in negotiating both the problem definition and the solution together.^[1] In doing so, solutions to conflicts amongst stakeholders may be re-framed as ‘win-win’, as opposed to the ‘zero sum’ mindset which occurs when stakeholders are bargaining on the basis of their own fixed interests.^[11] Consensus-building is an important part of this collective meaning-making process, as information is discussed and validated within the group of stakeholders, resulting in information which holds more significance to the group.^[12]

To aid in consensus-building efforts, power should be distributed amongst the stakeholders such that they are equals in the process.^[1][11] Openness and trust are also crucial for building consensus.^[1] The objectives, underlying assumptions, and positions of these stakeholders should be considered along with the uncertainties about future conditions, such as population growth, and decisions which are linked to other decisions.^[13] It is important to have the stakeholders identify this information for themselves, as it will help reduce the biases present in both analyses driven by only one future and position-based discussions, as well as bring to the forefront any conflicts between the underlying values of the stakeholders.^[13] By considering this broad range of information, commonalities between different stakeholders may be identified, which can help build consensus. However, this cannot guarantee consensus, as positions might in fact be too different.^[13] In order to deal with the challenges that arise from positions being very different and the increasing complexity of analysis required, new models of collaboration are needed which build on various principles of conflict management, including engaging early and often.^[13]

The Neighbourhood Revitalization Program (NRP) - 1990

En 1990, la ciudad de Minneapolis , Minnesota, lanzó un programa de 20 años diseñado para empoderar a los residentes en la toma de decisiones locales y compartir las responsabilidades de planificación comunitaria entre los residentes, el gobierno y las partes interesadas privadas. ^{[ 14 ]} Para combatir el deterioro del nivel de vida en los barrios de Minneapolis, el NRP se concibió como un medio para involucrar a los ciudadanos en la priorización de los esfuerzos de revitalización. El gobierno de Minneapolis dividió 400 millones de dólares entre 81 organizaciones vecinales que utilizaron los fondos durante dos décadas para evaluar prioridades, llegar a un consenso e implementar proyectos de mejora vecinal. ^{[ 14 ]} Durante la primera década del NRP, el 48% de los fondos se utilizó para mejorar la vivienda y el 16% se destinó a la creación de empleo y el desarrollo económico. ^{[ 15 ]} Otras prioridades incluyeron la seguridad pública, la preservación de espacios verdes y la mejora de la infraestructura de transporte.

Mediante la elaboración y adopción de 66 planes vecinales únicos, las partes interesadas de diversas organizaciones, incluyendo el público en general, la Biblioteca Pública de Minneapolis , el Departamento de Parques y Recreación de Minneapolis, Obras Públicas, el Departamento de Inspección de Vivienda y el Condado de Hennepin, se unieron para articular y acordar directrices vecinales factibles y mutuamente beneficiosas. ^{[ 16 ]} Con énfasis en la participación ciudadana, los planificadores municipales asumieron un rol de asesoramiento y ayudaron a las organizaciones de planificación vecinal a fomentar la participación, involucrar a un público diverso y revisar los planes terminados desde una perspectiva técnica. ^{[ 16 ]}

A pesar de la creación de Acuerdos de Participación que representaban compromisos formales para llevar a cabo un proceso de participación inclusivo, el NRP ha sido criticado por la falta de representación de todos los miembros del vecindario. ^{[ 16 ]} Si bien el NRP ha sido elogiado por sus valores comunicativos y colaborativos, los críticos señalan los casos de exclusión y la enorme cantidad de tiempo y energía continuos necesarios para su éxito como sus principales inconvenientes. ^{[ 15 ]}

Programa de Planificación Vecinal de Seattle - 1994

En 1994, Seattle desarrolló el Programa de Planificación Vecinal (NPP) en respuesta a la protesta del público en general por la falta de participación en un plan integral recientemente completado. ^{[ 17 ]} El NPP tenía como objetivo construir una asociación entre los residentes y el gobierno local y brindó a los vecindarios la opción de crear su propio plan local único o continuar con el plan integral. Si bien estos planes vecinales debían ser coherentes con los objetivos generales del plan integral, los vecindarios participantes tuvieron la oportunidad de identificar sus propias prioridades y proporcionar una lista de recomendaciones a la ciudad. ^{[ 17 ]} Inicialmente, cada vecindario participante recibió 10 000 dólares para iniciar un proceso de participación comunicativa e identificar una visión para su comunidad local. ^{[ 18 ]} No se otorgaría financiación adicional para la etapa de planificación hasta que la ciudad considerara que suficientes partes interesadas y representantes de la comunidad habían sido incluidos en el proceso. ^{[ 19 ]} Una vez que el proceso de visión se consideró inclusivo y riguroso, la ciudad proporcionó a cada vecindario entre 60 000 y 100 000 dólares para desarrollar un plan. ^{[ 17 ]}

En total, 38 barrios participaron y desarrollaron su propio plan vecinal para que el municipio lo siguiera. ^{[ 19 ]} Antes de aprobar cada plan vecinal, el municipio celebraba audiencias públicas en el barrio para compartir el plan y asegurar que hubiera consenso entre todos los residentes de la zona. ^{[ 18 ]} Para 1999, la ciudad había adoptado estos planes y comenzó a implementar las visiones compartidas de cada barrio. ^{[ 19 ]} Cada plan variaba significativamente, ya que cada barrio tuvo la oportunidad de contratar a su propio planificador o consultores para que les ayudaran en el proceso. ^{[ 17 ]} Los profesionales de la planificación participaron en el proceso principalmente como mediadores que ayudaron a guiar las sesiones participativas y facilitaron el proceso de creación de consenso. ^{[ 17 ]}

Entre 20 000 y 30 000 residentes participaron directamente en el NPP. ^{[ 17 ]} El programa ha sido reconocido como un ejemplo exitoso de planificación comunicativa y gobernanza colaborativa debido al alto nivel de participación y la frecuencia con la que se alcanzó un consenso genuino. ^{[ 18 ]}

Las críticas a Innes, Healey y la planificación comunicativa se centran en los procesos y resultados de la planificación.

Older critiques of communicative planning theory question whether the theory they find idealist can translate a consensus-based process into authentic outcomes.^[20] They also question whether consensus is a valuable goal when they see critical planning decisions as being made gradually.^[20] Additional critiques relate to power: who has the power to exclude and include stakeholders and whether stakeholders will use their power to manipulate the consensus building process (given that consensus must be reached).^[20] Older critiques of communicative planning practice also see a lack of real world outcomes from the communicative planning processes because deeper political and institutional change is needed first.^[20]

Judith Innes directly responded to these critiques in her article Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics.^[21] Additionally, she expanded her description of the consensus building process and communicative planning's roots.^[21]

Newer critiques argue collaborative planning is a way to maintain larger political and institutional systems while creating a process that only seems to better represent the public.^[22] They see collaborative planning as a way to keep neoliberals in power and political systems stable, rather than creating real changes to the governing system.^[22]