How to Engage Reflexively with Messy Presents and Potential Futures: An Audio Walk for Planners

References

• Adam, B., & Groves, C. (2007). Future matters: Action, knowledge, ethics. Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Bartholomew, K. (2006). Land use-transportation scenario planning: Promise and reality. Transportation, 34(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-9108-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackman, L. (2016). Researching affect and embodied hauntologies: Exploring an analytics of experimentation. In T. Knudsen & C. Stage (Eds.), Affective methodologies: Developing cultural research strategies for the study of affect (pp. 25–44). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, A., Kaza, N., Knaap, G.-J., & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.582394
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty, A., & Macmillan, A. (2015). Scenario planning for urban planners: Towards a practitioner’s guide. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1038576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dang, S. R. (2005). A starter menu for planner/artist collaborations. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(1), 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000335029
   Google Scholar
• Degen, M., & Rose, G. (2012). The sensory experiencing of urban design: The role of walking and perceptual memory. Urban Studies, 49(15), 3271–3287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012440463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikeç, M. (2015). Space, politics and aesthetics. Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunman, A. (2017). Talking ghosts: Affect, anticipation and interruption in the yet-to-exist city [unpublished paper].
   Google Scholar
• Gkartzios, M., & Crawshaw, J. (2019). Researching rural housing : With an artist in residence. Sociologica Ruralis, 59(4), 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (2005). Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society, 36(6), 624–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399704270586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2008). Plan(e) speaking: A multiplanar theory of spatial planning. Planning Theory, 7(1), 24–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (2016). Utopia, scenario and plan: A pragmatic integration. Planning Theory, 15(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213518641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holsen, T. (2020). A path dependent systems perspective on participation in municipal land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 29(7), 1193–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1709416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holston, J. (1998). Spaces of insurgent citizenship. In L. Sandercock (Ed.), Making the invisible visible (pp. 37–56). University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hookway, B. (2014). Interface. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inch, A. (2010). Culture change as identity regulation: The complex politics of producing spatial planners. Planning Theory and Practice, II, 11(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2010.500133
   Google Scholar
• Jupp, E., & Inch, A. (2012). Introduction: Planning as profession in uncertain times. The Town Planning Review, 83(5), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2012.31
   Google Scholar
• Lejano, R. P., & Gonzalez, E. R. (2017). Sorting through differences : The problem of planning as reimagination. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16634167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundman, R. (2016). Bringing planning to the streets: Using site-specific video as a method for participatory urban planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(4), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1217345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (eds.). (2012). Inventive methods. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marcuse, G. (1978). The aesthetic dimension. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Marotta, S., & Cummings, A. (2019). Planning affectively : Power, affect, and images of the future. Planning Theory, 18(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218802317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D. (2005). For space. Sage Publications Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, J. (2010). Strange spaces: A rationale for bringing the arts and artists into the planning process. Planning Theory, 10(3), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210389653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, J. (2013). Placing the stakes: The enactment of territorial stakeholders in planning processes. Environment and Planning A, 45(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. (2003). Politics and aesthetics an interview. Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 8(2), 191–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725032000162657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics. (G. Rockhill, trans). Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. (2007). Art of the possible: Fulvia Carnevale and John Kelsey in conversation with Jacques Rancière. Artforum International, 45(7), 256–266. https://www.artforum.com/print/200703/fulvia-carnevale-and-john-kelsey-12843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rannila, P., & Loivaranta, T. (2015). Planning as dramaturgy: Agonistic approaches to spatial enactment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, G., Degen, M., & Melhuish, C. (2014). Networks, interfaces, and computer-generated images: Learning from digital visualisations of urban redevelopment projects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(3), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13113p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs Olsen, C. (2017). Socially engaged art and the neoliberal city. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (2002). Practicing utopia: Sustaining cities. dis-P the Planning Review, 38(148), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2002.10556791
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L., & Attili, G., eds. (2010). Multimedia explorations in urban policy and planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives 7. Springer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3209-6
   Google Scholar
• Sarkissian, W. (2005). Stories in a park: Giving voice to the voiceless in Eagleby, Australia. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000334994
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, A., & Moles, K. (2016). Following or forging a way through the world: Audio walks and the making of place. Emotion, Space, Society, 20, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2016.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Speight, E. (2013). ‘How dare you rubbish my town!’ Place listening as an approach to socially engaged art within UK urban regeneration contexts. Open Arts Journal, 1(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.5456/issn.5050-3679/2013s04es
   Google Scholar
• Tyszczuk, R., & Smith, J. (2018). Culture and climate change scenarios: The role and potential of the arts and humanities in responding to the ‘1.5 degrees target’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31(5), 6–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.007
   Google Scholar
• Vasudevan, R. (2020). The potentials and pitfalls of ‘art in research’ methodologies : Foregrounding memory and emotion in planning research the potentials and pitfalls of ‘art in research’ methodologies . Planning Theory & Practice, 21(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019.1699595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar