The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory's Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes

Abstract

Healthy community engagement must acknowledge conflict as a permanent and necessary part of collaborative planning. Using agonistic conflict in debating and deciding about site-specific projects and strategies offers new ways of reviewing and practising community engagement. Agonistic planning is conceived as a mechanism whereby interested parties might engage with planning decision-making that promotes on-going trust and buy-in for contested site-specific decisions and strategic directions. Disputes may produce opportunities for meaningful disagreement that may, if harnessed productively, avoid unproductive or even intractable disputes. Specifically, an agonistic approach offers an ability to modify and recast the initial ‘problems’ that urban projects are intended to address, and facilitates ‘better’ solutions sensitive to locally particular processes and contexts. The article tests key elements of agonistic theory using a high-profile planning dispute in Victoria, Australia. We show how an agonistic recasting of problems within legitimate planning processes is integral to meaningful engagement and progressive outcomes.

健康的社区参与须视冲突为合作规划中的常态和必要部分。在特定地点项目和策略的争论和决策中使用竞争性冲突，为评估和实施社区参与提供了新途径。竞争性规划可用作一种机制，使利益相关方参与规划决策，促进各方信任和接受具体地点存在争议的决策和策略方向。争论能产生有意义的不同意见，这样的分歧如果能得到有效管理，就能避免无效的甚至惹出麻烦的争议。具体地说，竞争性路径培养出一种能力，对城市建设项目试图解决的问题进行修订或改造，并有助于改善与具体地点的过程和环境相适宜的方案。本文利用澳大利亚维多利亚一项知名规划方案，检验了竞争理论的主要因素，试图说明在竞争中对合法的规划过程中问题进行改造，是有意义参与和良好结果的应有之义。

Keywords:

• Agonistic theory
• planning disputes
• community engagement
• collaborative planning
• St Kilda Triangle

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to respectfully thank the participants of this research, the peer reviewers, along with Raine Mäntysalo, and Rebecca Leshinsky for their constructive feedback on ideas in this article. As usual, final responsibility rests with the authors.