Who writes for Planning Theory & Practice and why?

Most weeks I am struck by the range and diversity of the articles that are submitted to Planning Theory & Practice journal. Contributions come in from all over the world, on a wide range of topics drawing on a wide range of theoretical frameworks and methodologies. There is no standard template for a Planning Theory & Practice article. Time moves quickly as a journal editor. The focus is on managing the flow of new and reviewed papers to maintain the production pipeline and ensure that authors do not have to wait too long for comment and feedback. But it is also important to stand back from time to time and take a longer perspective on the published output and what it represents. I have therefore used this editorial to analyse the geographical spread of published papers and the key themes as represented by keywords from the last three years (volumes 14, 15, 16 and the first two issues from volume 17). I was interested particularly to see whether the published output mapped onto the aims and scope of the journal as set out at the back of each hard copy journal (also available by clicking through the “About this journal” links on the journal website). The intention is that the journal should “provide an international focus for the development of theory and practice in spatial planning and a forum to promote the policy dimensions of space and place”. We also aim to be distinctive in our commitment “to publishing content which combines intellectual rigour with practical impact” and which can change practice and challenge theory.

A question that recurs is why authors should submit their work to Planning Theory & Practice rather than other journals. We would hope that authors are aware of the care and attention taken in supporting authors and also that authors value our commitment to intellectual rigour (which includes an insistence on three reviewers). We would also hope that authors are attracted by the international reach and reputation of the journal. But are there particular topics or theoretical commitments that are felt to be particularly suited to Planning Theory & Practice? Do our published papers end up cohering around particular concerns or approaches? My snapshot of published output over the last three years suggests that the journal is certainly international in reach (see Tables 1 and 2). The 70 full-length articles published over the three years of my snapshot survey were drawn from authors based in 19 countries. When Interface contributors are included, the international reach of contributors extends to 26 countries and the range of countries would be even wider if the analysis was based on nationality rather than the country in which the author was located at the time of publication. Interface has been valuable in involving authors from countries such as Japan, Mexico and the Dominican Republic, as well as providing space for important practitioner contributions. Inevitably there were a higher proportion of papers from countries where academics write primarily in English, notably the USA, UK, Australia and the Netherlands, but authors from many other countries were represented. There is work to be done to attract and especially to support authors from countries that are not mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1. Lead contributing author of full articles by country (volumes 14–16 & 17, nos. 1–2).

USA	18
UK	11
Netherlands	9
Australia	8
Canada, Israel	4
Finland, Norway	3
Italy, Sweden	2
Austria, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, South Africa, Switzerland	1

Table 2. Location of empirical research in full articles (volumes 14–16 & 17, nos. 1–2).

USA	13
Australia	8
UK	7
Israel	6
Netherlands	6
Canada, Finland, Sweden	3
EU	2
Italy	2
Norway	2
Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Switzerland, Zimbabwe,	1

Figure 1 presents a “word cloud” of all of the keywords from my three-year sample of journal articles. Keywords are also not always the best guide to the content of journal articles; nevertheless it is interesting to see what jumps out of the jumble of words. It is not surprising that “planning” figures strongly, whether simply as planning or strategic planning or urban planning. What is notable is the prominence of community development, collaborative planning, community, justice, deliberative planning, experiential learning and co-production. Would those terms be so prominent in any planning journal, or is Planning Theory & Practice seen by authors as a particularly good home for engaging with these topics?

Figure 1. Word cloud of key words from full length articles (volumes 14–16 & 17, nos. 1–2).

Looking forward, it would be good to see articles that continue to extend the international reach of the journal in terms of authors and empirical studies. It is to be hoped that the journal will continue to be at the forefront of scholarly development, for example by continuing the journal’s strand of articles on indigenous rights and planning (recent examples include Jackson and Barber, 2013; Galbraith, 2014; Webster, 2016). Meanwhile it is noticeable that reviewers are asking for greater transparency on the research methodology of empirical articles and also for greater rigour in empirical analysis. That “turn to methodology” is important in ensuring that theoretical claims are true to the nuance of practice on the ground. Most of all it hoped that Planning Theory & Practice will continue to offer a space for authors to pursue and publish work that is difficult and challenging in its implications for theory and practice. Some of that will come through empirically based research, but there is certainly scope for a wide range of review and ideas-based articles that open up new perspectives and different ways of seeing.

This current issue is a reflection of the diversity of context in the journal. The six articles are written by authors from Denmark, Israel, Ghana, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey and the USA. They cover a range of topics, from reflections on the role of law in shaping planning practice, critical assessment of the use of transport models, to the challenge of embedding knowledge and resources in area-based regeneration initiatives. Yet each article is linked by a shared concern with the implications of research for practice and practitioner communities. Practitioners are part of the writing team in the full length articles as well as in the Interface.

In the first of the six articles, Annika Agger, Parama Roy and Øystein Leonardsen develop frameworks for embedding (or “anchoring”) area-based regeneration initiatives in local communities. The problem they address is that the momentum created by regeneration projects is difficult to maintain when the initiative comes to an end. The paper draws on experience in Denmark to develop the concept of social capital as a diagnostic tool for identifying appropriate “anchors” for longer term sustainability. Philip Booth’s article on “Planning and the Rule of Law” uses England to make the case that legal frameworks permeate planning practice in ways that are often overlooked and underappreciated. The article shows how the common law framework continues to have profound implications for the conceptual basis of English spatial planning. The article is particularly valuable in highlighting potential tensions between principles of law, accountability and equitable planning outcomes that are of relevance beyond the UK. The article by Godwin Arku, Kenneth Mensah, Nil Allotey and Ebenezer Addo Frempong is also concerned with the rule of law but from a different perspective and in a different international context. The article explores the reasons why non-compliance with planning standards and regulations is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. This has had serious consequences in cases where building collapse has led to fatalities and serious injury. There are many reasons for non-compliance, including the limited capacity for enforcement. A key message is that the framework of rules and regulations are fundamentally out of step with local cultures and institutional capability.

The three articles that follow explore issues of transport and infrastructure planning. Moshe Givoni, Eda Beyazit and Yoram Shiftan draw on research in Israel and the UK to investigate the use of ever more complex quantitative transport modelling in planning policy. Their conclusion is that the complexity of modelling means that the models are less likely to be used in practice because of knowledge gaps and information overload. The challenge for transport modelling, they suggest, is to find ways of making information simpler and more accessible. The fifth article by David Lindelöw, Till Koglin and Åse Svensson also explores the role of transport knowledge in shaping planning outcomes. Drawing on experience from pedestrian-friendly cities in Sweden, the argument is that walking is marginalised within the instrumental rationality of transport policy because planners do not know what objectives or norms to apply or how to measure walking against other modes of transport. The final article by Niels Heeres, Taede Tillema and Jos Arts examines the factors that account for different levels of integration and fragmentation in linking infrastructure and land-use planning in the Netherlands.

The Interface returns to the longstanding concern in spatial planning with the gap between academic research and practice. Six academic and practitioner contributors from Australia, Europe and North America reflect on their experience of the barriers to “quality exchange”, and also some of the strategies and techniques that might be used to address the challenges of access, use and collaboration. The Interface is followed by a response from Marco Allegra to Cliff Hague’s commentary of issue 17.1. Allegra draws on his empirical research to reflect on the complexity of talking about the politics of “good planning” in Israel/Palestine. Issue 17.3 concludes with book reviews by Janice Barry and Nick Bailey, and Jill Grant’s reflection on two books published to mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Jane Jacobs’ The death and life of great American cities.

Aidan While
Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, UK
[email protected]