Multiple Dimensions of Strategic Spatial Planning: Local Authorities Navigating between Rationalities in Competitive and Collaborative Settings

References

• Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Balducci, A., & Hillier, J. (2017). Situated practices of strategic planning. An international perspective. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrects, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. DisP – the Planning Review, 49(3), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2013.859001
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education & Research, 19(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (2001). The planner-prince: Interdependence, rationalities and post communicative practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 2(3), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350120096848
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(3), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. (1988). Strategic planning for public and non-profit organisations. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• City of Turku. (2018). Turku 2029. Pohjoisen Itämeren kiinnostavin kaupunki [Turku 2019. The most interesting city in the Northern Baltic Sea area]. https://www.turku.fi/sites/default/files/atoms/files/kaupunkistrategia_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1973). Planning theory. Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice. State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1981. The theory of communicative action Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans). Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1981. The theory of communicative action Vol. 2. Critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans). Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1992. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg., Trans.). The MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/b230217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Towards relational planning of our times. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009). In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903417191
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power. An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2003). ’Agon’izing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ’real’? Planning Theory, 2(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005
   Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J., & Alhqvist, T. (2019). Emerging vacuums of strategic planning: An exploration of reforms in Finnish spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 27(7), 1350–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1580248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hytönen, J., Mäntysalo, R., Peltonen, L., Kanninen, V., Niemi, P., & Simanainen, M. (2016). Defensive routines in land use policy steering in Finnish urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413490424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095204042315
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity. An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. (1991). Habermas on strategic and communicative action. Political Theory, 19(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591791019002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas, O. (1994). Rationaalisen valinnan teoriat [Theories of rational choice]. In R. Heiskala (Ed.), Sosiologisen teorian nykysuuntauksia (pp. 63–87). Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Kangasoja, J., & Mattila, H. (2018). Facing up to finnish planning pathologies. A contextual interpretation of planner capabilities and a call for a change. In T. Tasan-Kok & M. Oranje (Eds.), From student to urban planner. Young practitioners’ reflections on contemporary ethical challenges (pp. 182–197). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. L., & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A public planning perspective on strategic planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368708976632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2011). Strategy as performative practice. The case of Sydney 2030. Strategic Organisation, 9(2), 136–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127011407758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapintie, K. (2002). Rationalities revisited. From human growth to productive power. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 15(1), 29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Local Government Act 410/2015. (2015). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2015/20150410
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (theories of institutional design) (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Tuomisaari, J., Granqvist, K., & Kanninen, V. (2019). The strategic incrementalism of Lahti master planning: Three lessons. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(4), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1652336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markell, P. (1997). Contesting consensus: Rereading Habermas on the public sphere. Constellations, 3(3), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1997.tb00066.x
   Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. (2016). Can collaborative planning go beyond locally focused notions of the “public interest”? The potential of Habermas’s concept of “generalizable interest” in pluralist and trans-scalar planning discourses. Planning Theory, 15(4), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216640568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. (2020). Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning, 141, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazza, L. (2013). If strategic “Planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing”. DisP – The Planning Review, 49(3), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2013.859006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyerson, M., & Banfield, E. C. (1956). Politics, planning, and the public interest: The case of public housing in Chicago. Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Minzberg, H. (1994). Rise and fall of strategic planning. Recognising roles for planning, plans, planner. Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/226311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, P. (2008). Strategic spatial planning: Collective action and moments of opportunity. European Planning Studies, 16(10), 1371–1383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802420078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen, K. (2014). The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory, 13(3), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213499340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen, K. (2020). Infrastructure imaginaries: The politics of light rail projects in the age of neoliberalism. Urban Studies, 57(9), 1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019853502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, C. (2019). Perform or conform? Looking for the strategic in municipal spatial planning in Sweden. European Planning Studies, 28(6), 1183–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1614150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapoport, A. (1989). Decision theory and decision behaviour. Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory. Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sartorio, F. S. (2005). Strategic spatial planning. DisP – The Planning Review, 41(162), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2005.10556930
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics. Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hertzen, G. (1993). The spirit of the game. Fritzes.
   Google Scholar
• White, S. K., & Farr, E. R. (2012). ’No-saying’ in Habermas. Political Theory, 40(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591711426854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1754–1788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziafati Bafarasat, A. (2015). Reflections on the three schools of thought on strategic spatial planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412214562428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar