Planning Theory and Planning Science in Practice: Everyday Work and Prospects for Regional Planners in Germany

Authors

  • Meike Hellmich Institut für Ländliche Räume, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut Braunschweig, Bundesallee 50, 38116, Braunschweig, Deutschland
  • Christian Wilhelm Lamker Fachgebiet Stadt- und Regionalplanung, Technische Universität Dortmund, August-Schmidt-Straße 10, 44227, Dortmund, Deutschland
  • Linda Lange Institut für Umweltplanung, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Herrenhäuser Straße 2, 30419, Hannover, Deutschland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-016-0464-x

Keywords:

Planning research, Planning theory, Planning practice, Theory-practice transfer, Regional planning, Survey

Abstract

Spatial planning challenges increasingly cross local boundaries. Statutory planning, which is organized along all different levels of government, is very complex and with its mix of informal and formal instruments difficult to put into fixed categories. It acts between local self-autonomy and large-scale spatial changes. Available empirical evidence about how and whereby planning is currently done, is often unclear or weak. This article is grounded on a survey of practitioners within regional planning administrations in Germany to investigate the development and use of theories and the perspectives of practitioners on these theories. Theories and their understanding prove to be as diverse as practice itself. The challenge to translate scientific evidence into working progresses of practitioners, the understanding of theories and the self-perception of planning practitioners has also been addressed. One main aim of this article is to show perspectives on the daily work in practice, the transfer of expertise between research and practice, the emergence and use of theories as well as the perception of planning theories by practitioners. Results reveal a highly diverse landscape of planning practices and a duality between a vested interest in research evidence and planning theories, but also deficiencies in communication and mutual understanding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alexander, E. R. (1997): A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the ‘planning theory-practice gap’. Commentary. In: Environment and Planning B 24, 1, 3‑6.

Alexander, E. R. (2010): Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how? In: Planning Theory 9, 2, 99-107.

Alexander, E. R. (2016): There is no planning – only planning practices. Notes for spatial planning theories. Essay. In: Planning Theory 15, 1, 91-103.

Allmendinger, P. (2009): Planning theory. Basingstoke.

ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (2014): Raumentwicklung 3.0 – Thesen zur Zukunft der räumlichen Planung. Hannover. = Positionspapier aus der ARL 95.

Beauregard, R. A. (2013): What Theorists Do. In: Urban Geography 33, 4, 474-487.

Blotevogel, H. H.; Wiegand, T. S. (2015): Zur Evaluation von Wissensgenerierung und Wissenstransfer in der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL) – Leibniz-Forum für Raumwissenschaften. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 73, 3, 155-165.

Davoudi, S. (2015): Research impact. Should the sky be the limit? In Silva, E. A.; Healey, P.; Harris, N.; van den Broeck, P. (Hrsg.): The Routledge handbook of planning research methods. London, 405-413.

Fainstein, S. S.; DeFilippis, J. (2016): Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory. In: Fainstein, S. S.; DeFilippis, J. (Hrsg.): Readings in planning theory. Chichester, 1‑18.

Faludi, A. (1973): Planning theory. Oxford, New York. = Urban and Regional Planning Series 7.

Gunder, M.; Hillier, J. (2009): Planning in ten words or less. A Lacanian entanglement with spatial planning. Farnham.

Hurley, J.; Lamker, C. W.; Taylor, E. J.; Stead, D.; Hellmich, M.; Lange, L.; Rowe, H.; Beeck, S.; Phibbs, P.; Forsyth, A. (2016): Exchange between researchers and practitioners in urban planning: achievable objective or a bridge too far? Interface. In: Planning Theory and Practice 17, 3, 447-473.

Küsters, I. (2009): Narrative Interviews. Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden.

Lamker, C. W. (2016): Unsicherheit und Komplexität in Planungsprozessen. Planungstheoretische Perspektiven auf Regionalplanung und Klimaanpassung. Lemgo. = Planungswissenschaftliche Studien zu Raumordnung und Regionalentwicklung 6.

Lord, A. (2014): Towards a non-theoretical understanding of planning. In: Planning Theory 13, 1, 26-43.

MacDonald, K.; Sanyal, B.; Silver, M.; Ng, M. K.; Head, P.; Williams, K.; Watson, V.; Campbell, H. (2014): Challenging theory: Changing practice: Critical perspectives on the past and potential of professional planning. In: Planning Theory and Practice 15, 1, 95-122.

Needham, B. (2004): John Friend: Advising and Theorizing. In: Planning Theory 3, 3, 237-247.

Peters, D. (2004): Zum Stand der deutschsprachigen Planungstheorie. In Altrock, U.; Güntner, S.; Huning, S.; Peters, D. (Hrsg.): Perspektiven der Planungstheorie. Berlin, 5‑18. = Reihe Planungsrundschau 10.

Porter, L. (2015): Unsettling comforting deceits. Planning scholarship, planning practice and the politics of research impact. Editorial. In: Planning Theory and Practice 16, 3, 293-296.

Renn, O. (2008): Anforderungen an eine integrative und transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung. In: Bergmann, M.; Schramm, E. (Hrsg.): Transdisziplinäre Forschung – Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt am Main, New York, 119-148.

Taylor, E. J.; Hurley, J. (2016): “Not a Lot of People Read the Stuff”: Australian Urban Research in Planning Practice. In: Urban Policy and Research 34, 2, 116-131.

van de Ven, A. H.; Johnson, P. E. (2006): Knowledge for Theory and Practice. In: Academy of Management Review 31, 4, 802-821.

Vogelij, J. (2015): Is planning theory really open for planning practice? Comment. In: Planning Theory and Practice 16, 1, 128-132.

Whittemore, A. H. (2015): Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory in a Survey of Practitioners’ Theories. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 35, 1, 76-85.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1973): If Planning is Everything, Maybe it’s Nothing. In: Policy Sciences 4, 2, 127-153.

Yiftachel, O. (1989): Towards a new typology of urban planning theories. In: Environment and Planning B 16, 1, 23-39.

Zierhofer, W.; Burger, P. (2007): Transdisziplinäre Forschung – ein eigenständiger Modus der Wissensproduktion? Problemorientierung, Wissensintegration und Partizipation in transdisziplinären Forschungsprojekten. In: Gaia 16, 1, 29-34.

Downloads

Published

2017-02-28

How to Cite

1.
Hellmich M, Lamker CW, Lange L. Planning Theory and Planning Science in Practice: Everyday Work and Prospects for Regional Planners in Germany. RuR [Internet]. 2017 Feb. 28 [cited 2024 May 24];75(1):7-17. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/474