A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory

Sandercock, Leonie; Forsyth, Ann

doi:10.1080/01944369208975534

Cited by 138 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the ideas of Mitchell (2008) and Wilber (2001, we can draw the following conclusions with consideration of the three topics from the Sandercock & Forsyth (1992) gender agenda in order to embed them in a first approach to create an integrated planning theory in respect to gender (and diversity) equality: practical needs and strategic interests, balance between multiple differences and equality and learning from case studies and practice.…”

Section: What Does This Mean For Planning Theory and Practice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feminist theory and practice in particular have much to contribute to both planning theory and planning practice (e.g. Schneider 1989, 1998, Sandercock, Forsyth 1992, Ritzdorf 1992, Campbell, Fainstein 1996, Wotha 2000, Damyanovic 2007. On this basis, we will first debate 2 if and how feminist and gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On this basis, we will first debate 2 if and how feminist and gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory. The starting point for the analysis is the article of Sandercock and Forsyth 'A gender agenda -new directions for planning theory' (Sandercock, Forsyth 1992). We will deal with the question of how gender issues are received in the European mainstream of handbooks on planning theory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is there still gender on the agenda for spatial planning theories?:Attempt to an integrative approach to generate gender-sensitive planning theories

Damyanovic¹,

Zibell²

2013

disP - The Planning Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The objective of this article is to emphasise the importance of integrating a gender perspective in the planning sciences to advance planning theories. We will first debate how gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory. At the beginning we refer to the article of Sandercock and Forsyth 'A gender agenda -new directions for planning theory' (Sandercock, Forsyth 1992). We will deal with the question of how gender issues are received in the European mainstream of handbooks on planning theory. Furthermore, we will discuss why and how gender perspectives are to be integrated into planning to bridge the gap between gender-sensitive and mainstream approaches to planning theory. We outline why gender planning has to be an integrative planning approach by linking to the integrative approaches of Mitchell (2008Mitchell ( , 2009 and Wilber (2001Wilber ( , 2011. In particular, we want to highlight that integrative thinking is a basic idea of gender planning. Furthermore, we describe how gender planning can be a catalyst for valuable integrative approaches in planning which, up to hitherto, have been less recognised than the mainstream approaches. IntroductionThe objective of this article is to promote the integration of a gender perspective in planning sciences 1 (gender planning) as a necessary approach to build up comprehensive spatial planning theories. Assuming gender planning to be an integral part of spatial development requires a more explicit consideration of gender […] in both how planning is delivered and in its wider impact' (Burgess 2008:112). Especially, it means building an understanding of the different perspectives and interests of women and men as users and user groups, considering gender, as well as age, life situation and ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds, as an analytical tool to balance multiple differences and equality. In this regard, it focuses on the integration of gender equality as well as equity in all stages of the planning process reaching from the formulation of objectives via the planning of measures to their implementation and evaluation. In addition it is crucial to question the planning models and the values and attitudes underlying the planning philosophy and planning culture with 1 The planning sciences are understood to be the following disciplines, which are usually separated from each other: architecture and urban design, civil engineering, environmental planning, geography, landscape architecture and planning, spatial planning, town and country planning, traffic planning, urban planning (definition according to Dörhöfer 1994). Feminist theory and practice in particular have much to contribute to both planning theory and planning practice (e.g. Schneider 1989, 1998, Sandercock, Forsyth 1992, Ritzdorf 1992, Campbell, Fainstein 1996, Wotha 2000, Damyanovic 2007. On this basis, we will first debate 2 if and how feminist and gender issues are integrated into planning practice and theory. The starting point for the analysis is the article of Sandercoc...

show abstract

Section: What Does This Mean For Planning Theory and Practice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is there still gender on the agenda for spatial planning theories?:Attempt to an integrative approach to generate gender-sensitive planning theories

Damyanovic¹,

Zibell²

2013

disP - The Planning Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, despite the attention given to participation, groups which are not formally organised would have little voice in the process. Those working in planning and participation in South Africa and elsewhere (Sandercock, 2004;Sandercock & Forsyth, 1992;Watson, 2003) have highlighted the need to actively and consciously include those on the margins of formal processes of resource allocation and distribution, such as stakeholder groups like foreign nationals, the elderly, women and child-headed households, in this instance.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond master planning? New approaches to spatial planning in Ekurhuleni, South Africa

Todes

Karam

Klug

et al. 2010

Habitat International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tTraditional master planning has been criticised, but continues in various forms. This paper critically assesses an initiative by a South Africa metropolitan municipality to develop 'local spatial development frameworks': comprehensive integrated plans, dealing with 22 sectors, for some 103 areas, to guide land use decisions and to provide a framework for development. The paper concludes that despite some innovative aspects, several elements of traditional master planning were evident. New approaches to spatial planning were being shaped by older thinking, but also by the impact of a traditional land use management system. The findings point to the need for greater attention to debating alternative forms of spatial planning and their appropriateness in various contexts.

show abstract

“…They may poorly understand the relationship between gender and poverty or between zoning ordinances and lack of social support for women and families (Sandercock and Forsyth 1992;Netter (Catlin 1993a (Goldsmith and Blakely 1992). In large part, the true &dquo;urban problem&dquo; facing today's metropolitan areas is old-fashioned racial and income segregation (Rusk 1993; Massey and Denton 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%