Complexity theory and planning: Examining ‘fractals’ for organising policy domains in planning practice

Abstract

This article examines selected methodological insights that complexity theory might provide for planning. In particular, it focuses on the concept of fractals and, through this concept, how ways of organising policy domains across scales might have particular causal impacts. The aim of this article is therefore twofold: (a) to position complexity theory within social science through a ‘generalised discourse’, thereby orienting it to particular ontological and epistemological biases and (b) to reintroduce a comparatively new concept – fractals – from complexity theory in a way that is consistent with the ontological and epistemological biases argued for, and expand on the contribution that this might make to planning. Complexity theory is theoretically positioned as a neo-systems theory with reasons elaborated. Fractal systems from complexity theory are systems that exhibit self-similarity across scales. This concept (as previously introduced by the author in ‘Fractal spaces in planning and governance’) is further developed in this article to (a) illustrate the ontological and epistemological claims for complexity theory, and to (b) draw attention to ways of organising policy systems across scales to emphasise certain characteristics of the systems – certain distinctions. These distinctions when repeated across scales reinforce associated processes/values/end goals resulting in particular policy outcomes. Finally, empirical insights from two case studies in two different policy domains are presented and compared to illustrate the workings of fractals in planning practice.

Emergency Management and Tourism Stakeholder Responses to Crises

“…These arguments are supported by critical realism ( Sayer 1984 ; Yeung 1997 ; de Roo, Hillier, and Van Wezemael 2012 ) which argues that inherent limitations in the ability of the human brain make it difficult to understand all outcomes, so we have a filtered knowledge upon which to make decisions. Hayek argued that because one does not know the law, one cannot predict the outcome ( Chettiparamb 2013 ; Gilpin and Murphy 2008 ; Sayer 1984 ; Yeung 1997 ), and because in practice it might be impossible to test all possible combinations of factors involved, the observation of complex facts will not lead to the invention of new hypotheses from which one can predict outcomes. Deleuze and Parnet (2002) add a further twist to this debate, by arguing that complexities exist because of the alternating relationships between entities (e.g., variables and individuals).…”

Exploring the usefulness of structural–functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems

“… The planner or policy maker is often only one of many semi-autonomous stakeholders in the system (Even-Zohar, 1979;Innes and Booher, 2003;McLoughlin, 1969).  Planning systems are often highly dynamic rather than static (Althaus et al, 2007;Chettiparamb, 2006;McLoughlin, 1969;Ostrom, 1990);  Planning and policy making may be operationalised across a number of interconnected institutions across multiple scales (Almond and Powell, 1966;Chettiparamb, 2006Chettiparamb, , 2014Forester, 2012;McLoughlin, 1969;Ostrom, 1995).…”

“…The use of complexity theory to understand planning practice (Byrne, 2003;Chettiparamb, 2014;McLoughlin, 1969), emerged following its inception in the natural sciences (Gleick, 1987;Gribbin, 2004), and later applications in the social sciences (Byrne, 1998;Gribbin, 2004;Luhmann, 1995). More recent discussions of planning systems in the literature are both implicit and explicit in their use of systems theory to conceptualise and understand planning practice.…”

“…More recent discussions of planning systems in the literature are both implicit and explicit in their use of systems theory to conceptualise and understand planning practice. Few of these revivals of systems theory, however, including complexity theory, have retained or emphasise some of the most useful characteristics of structural-functional approaches suggested by theorists in the 1950s-1970s (Chettiparamb, 2006(Chettiparamb, , 2014. In fact, these approaches draw on ideas from old and new systems theories, and are often hybrids of modernist and post-modernist approaches to conceptualising or analysing planning processes and governance arrangements (E. Alexander, 2000;Chettiparamb, 2006;Cilliers, 2000;Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).…”

Methods and Measures for Analyzing Complex Street Networks and Urban Form

“…Real-world chaotic and fractal systems span the spectrum from leaky faucets (Suetani et al 2012), to plants (Singh et al 2012;Walker 2012), to heart rates (Glass 2009;Hoshi et al 2013;Babbs 2014), to cryptography (Hong and Dong 2010; Makris and Antoniou 2012). Many scholars have studied the implications of nonlinearity, chaos, and fractals for the social sciences, including sociology (Richards 1996;Guastello 2013), urban studies (Batty 1991;2008b;Batty and Longley 1994;Batty and Xie 1999;Benguigui et al 2000;Shen 2002;Chen and Zhou 2008), economics (Rosser 1996;Oxley and George 2007;Chen 2008;Guégan 2009;Puu 2013), architecture (Hamouche 2009;Ostwald 2013), and city planning (Cartwright 1991;Innes and Booher 2010;Batty and Marshall 2012;Batty 2013c;Chettiparamb 2014;Narh et al 2016).…”