Responding to a complex world: Explorations in spatial planning

Abstract

This article discusses three aspects in relation to Complexity Theory. First, from an understanding of time and space specificities in the rise of theories, it discusses the wider socio-political reasons that may account for the rise of complexity theory and its interest for planners today. The rise of the third sector in governance, the decentralisation of the nation state, the rise of informality, the exponential rise of information and knowledge in every sphere of human and non-human activity and the rise of new normative ideologies are argued to provide the social context for interest in complexity theory. Second, this article positions complexity theory within general social science theories and argues that complexity theory best suits the second-order realm of social science theorisation. Third, this article positions complexity theory within planning theory and suggests that complexity theorists within planning might engage with the theory in three ways. These are by suggesting new ways of ordering of society and space by configuring or re-configuring planning systems in the first order, unravelling new opportunities for actors to work in society and space with largely self-organised entities and finally by searching for and discovering new dynamics for systems in the first order in society and space.

On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

“…Today, “Planning Theory (is) positioned between day-to-day practice…and higher levels of theory,” with planning defined as linking knowledge to action. “Real practice needs theory that can inform action; higher levels of theory can contribute concepts and analytical categories to practitioners’ understanding” (Chettiparamb 2019: 441). This position suggests a body of Planning Theory made up of several kinds of planning theories.…”

Ontological diversity in urban self-organization: Complexity, critical realism and post-structuralism

“…While the limited focus of each of these directions is an inevitable part of the scientific endeavor, it turns problematic when it leads to limited exchange and hampers knowledge accumulation (de Bruijn and Gerrits, 2018). Moreover, committing to one single narrative reduces the ability to address the multidimensionality of today’s spatial challenges (Bechara and Van de Ven, 2011) and, as we think, impedes the development of complexity-informed planning approaches from being applied in planning practice (Chettiparamb, 2019; Rauws, 2016).…”

Towards healthy urbanism: inclusive, equitable and sustainable (THRIVES) – an urban design and planning framework from theory to praxis

“…Systems theories have seen a resurgence since Barton introduced the Health Map, with new proposed applications in urban planning and public policy (Cairney 2012, Price et al 2015, Chettiparamb 2019. Early urban systems modelling approaches were largely dismissed by planners, and Barton noted these limitations (e.g.…”