Solving the wrong problems?
Speech Draft June 2003
Paper presented at the ACSP-AESOP Third joint congress,
July 8 – 12, 2003,Leuven, Belgien
Track 12 Planning Process, Administration and Law
Moderator/Discussant:
Howell Baum, University of
Maryland College Park
Walter Schönwandt, Prof. Dr.-Ing., Dipl.-Psych.
(AESOP Associated Member)
Institute for Planning Fundamentals
University of Stuttgart
Keplerstr. 11, 70174 Stuttgart
Tel.: +49-711-121-3328 Fax: +49-711-121-2790
schoenwandt@igp.uni-stuttgart.de
Wolfgang Jung, Dipl.-Ing.
Institute for Planning Fundamentals
University of Stuttgart
Keplerstr. 11, 70174 Stuttgart
Tel.: +49-711-121-3322 Fax: +49-711-121-2790
jung@igp.uni-stuttgart.de
Method of analysis
The authors made a probe for the German ARL (Akademie für
Raumforschung und Landesplanung – Academy for Spatial
Research and Planning) about methods and instruments of
spatial planning. The goal was to identify at which
points the cooperation between practice and science does
not work properly, respectively where practice is not
properly supported by science. The main focus was on the
regional level, but municipal and state level of
planning– as the neighbouring planning levels – were also
taken into account.
A team of ARL-members – experienced practitioners,
politicians and scientists- created a set of hypothesis
with a set of related questions. To prove the hypothesis,
twelve interviews were undertaken with directors of
planning institutions in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg.
These planers are from the municipal, regional and state
level of planning institutions.
The answers of the interviewees were aggregated to the
different planning levels.
The hypothesis included amongst others:
 image of (regional) planning in the eyes of citizens
 clearness of plans and programmes of spatial
planning
 deficits in planning education
 definitions of concepts
 empirical evaluation of planning instruments
 planning approaches
 strategies in planning
This paper deals with - at a first glance - obvious tasks
in planning: planning is meant to solve spatial problems
by using various methods or "tools" about which one knows
or assumes that they have the desired effects and solve
the problems. These tasks seem to be so obvious that a
reflection of these topics seldom arises.
We hence concentrate on three topics:
 empirical evaluation of planning instruments
 definitions of concepts
 planning approaches
2
Findings
Before talking about the main topics, we want to mention
some points of the public virtue of spatial planning.
Being asked about the image of planning, most
interviewees stated a “non-image” of planning – that
means most citizens do not know spatial planning at all.
This can be a result of the fact that most planers think
the citizens themselves are not the addressees of spatial
planning, even not on the municipal level.
Not having the citizens in view, the contents of plans
and programmes are thought to be understandable while the
illustrations are still lacking – even for the “experts”.
In addition, in the plans there are no comprehensible
definitions of methods, instruments, aims and
descriptions of the actual situation, so the clearness of
plans is hindered even for the interested citizens (see
also “concepts”).
1. Evaluation
hypothesis
In the hypothesis we assumed, that the instruments of
spatial planning and therefore the outcomes or the
processes of planning are seldom evaluated.
The planning profession has the possibility to learn by
evaluating ongoing or completed planning processes - with
this one could have the chance to achieve better planning
outcomes.
results
This chance is hardly ever used. Out of the 12
interviewees no one could quote an empirical study which
evaluates planning instruments.
Nevertheless they state – one can say they believe – that
the instruments they use have the implied impacts:
protecting the landscape by greenbelts etc.
Most of these assumptions are based on personal
experiences of the interviewees – especially negative
experiences: the reason why the implied impacts of an
instrument did not arise is often easily found (for
instance political resistance). The reasons, why and if
an instrument worked are hard to mention.
consequences
This is not to be seen as to blame the practitioners but
rather the planning science: One reason that nobody could
quote an empirical study is they did not know
one...another, such studies simply do not exist. We have
come to believe the later one.
3
In a announcement of the ARL referring to the State
Development Plan of Baden-Wuerttemberg is stated, that in
future no instruments and concepts should be adopted
without explaining their outcomes and impacts. This would
lead to a total erasure of all instruments of spatial
planning out of the State Development Plan.
To summarize:
a) There are hardly any empirical studies on the impacts
of spatial instruments. (This result is also confirmed by
a review of German planning magazines of the past twenty
years.)
b) As the use of spatial instruments certainly has
important impacts, e.g. could make some people rich and
hinder others. Hence one should know about the specific
impacts of our spatial instruments.
c) We think, the planning science has therefore the “debt
to be discharged” to do such empirical studies to support
planning practice.
2. Concepts
hypothesis
The hypothesis was, that most concepts in spatial
planning are not or not sufficiently defined.
Concepts are an important part of the contents of a
planning task. We have to realize, one is not dealing
with “reality itself”, but with descriptions of realty,
hence one has to use concepts to describe the situation,
problems and actions to be taken.
Concepts therefore bear our knowledge, hence concepts
determine our actions in planning. If one uses concepts
not precisely in regard to the contents there is a lack
of knowledge. Not or only partly defined concepts often
lead to wrong "solutions".
results
Having asked about the definitions of the concepts (e.g.
greenbelts, axis and so on) there were several findings:
a) no definition, or no definition wanted
Several interviewees did not define the concepts they are
using. Often they even do not want to define, as a vague
definition offers the possibility to summarize different
aspects in a single concept, implying, they are open to
interpretation by the planers and others.
4
b) negative definitions
Especially greenbelts are defined negative, as a piece of
land on which development should not take place, or the
strip of land in-between settlements. But defining
negative it not a sufficient definition for a concept.
c) functions
Concepts are often defined by the functions which are
related to them, like protection of the micro-climatic
situation, recreation, protection of the landscape,
agriculture, ecological functions or – specially for
greenbelts – the so called multi-functional open space.
To define concepts by their functions just refers to what
the space is used or “good” for. It does not say, how the
space should be, in order to serve such functions.
d) designation without semiotic interpretation
Another definition is done by designation, like a
greenbelt is open space or serves specific qualities of
open space.
Another type of non-definition is doing only designations
this means the word is only spoken or written down – but
the contents the substance, what is meant by it is not
described.
consequences
It is not sensible and even impossible to have THE last
and only definition for a concept. For example,
greenbelts will differ in Belgium, Denmark or Germany.
They will differ in Northern and Southern Germany, in
rural or urban areas. But as concepts are the basic
building blocks of knowledge it is important, if a
concept is used in a plan, that the planer can exactly
state what is meant by this concept.
Planning schools should hence train how concepts,
proposition and contexts are built and used, in order to
enhance the handling of concepts.
3. Planning approach
hypothesis
We evolved the thesis, that most planers do not
concentrate on the existing problems in their region but
on the instruments/methods or theories they are used to,
although these instruments/methods or theories might not
fit the existing problems.
One either plans in order to improve unwanted situations
or to conserve favourable situations.
To define whether a situation is to be improved or to be
conserved, one always uses at least one specific
5
approach. Such approaches consist of a bundle of four
elements: (background-) knowledge, problems (or rather
views of problems), aims and methods.
Depending on the approach planers start with, there are
only specific results they can achieve, while others are
“out of sight”:
 Starting with the knowledge of the standard theories
(in this case of the planning profession) one is not
able to see problems and/or solutions which are
outside these theories. Planers prefer primarily
spatial solutions, economists economical solutions
(e.g. tax legislation), lawyers legislative
solutions and so on.
 Starting with specific aims, one “automatically”
achieves specific solutions or methods, e.g. the
goal to plan bottom-up rather than top-down
automatically leads to methods of communication and
participation.
 Starting with methods or instruments of planning can
only achieve solutions which can be handled with
those methods or instruments: using the instruments
referring to the Central Place Theory can only solve
such problems implied by this theory, like
distribution of infrastructure or retail within
growing regions. Problems indicated by shrinking
regions or towns cannot be solved with this theory.
 Problems are not “given”, but determined by the
knowledge, aims an methods (see above).
results
Only two out of twelve interviewees did the analysis of
the region or city with the focus on problems to be
solved. The majority just did “the normal planning
process”: collecting data of inhabitants, traffic,
economy and so on; analysing this data; defining aims;
taking measures (“the typical stuff” as one of the
interviewees said).
On the other hand, only a third (four of twelve) of the
interviewees thought that the instruments of planning
were able to solve the problems of their region or town.
More to the extreme, two had to handle typical spatial
problems, like traffic and attainability. Another
interviewee had a very close view just on spatial
problems, instead of others.
consequences
Most planers have a narrow spatial approach, based mainly
on “typical methods” of their profession. Hence, their
day-to-day job is determined by the planning skills they
6
have learned. This day-to-day job hampers the planers to
concentrate on the main problems.
Although many planers agree that the mainly spatial
approach they - respectively the planning profession uses is not suitable to solve the very problems they have
to handle, they nevertheless focus on spatial problems.
Most regions or towns we surveyed have problems which
cannot or can hardly be solved only by focussing on
spatial aspects. Planers nevertheless focus on the
(secondary) spatial problems as their instruments / tools
are not suitable for others.
Hence, a different approach seems more suitable – as
long as planers operate mainly with planning problems,
political support is not likely. If the profession is
willing and able to identify and solve the main problems
of the specific region, its political background will be
strengthened. Therefore we suggest a problem-based
approach rather than dealing with “the usual suspects”
(Capitaine Louis Renault in “Casablanca”).
Summary
As the focus of the probe was to identify at which points
the cooperation between planning practice and science
does not work properly, respectively where practice is
not properly supported by science, we thought the
following three topics important for planning schools and
research:



Planning science should support practice by
delivering empirical studies about the impacts of
planning instruments.
Planning schools should train why concepts and the
comprehensible building of concepts are crucial for
planers and how this can be done properly.
Besides basic skills and background knowledge, we
should teach problem-based approaches in order to
solve the primary problems of the towns and region
first.
These three suggestions could help the planning
profession to improve and hence strengthen their backing
in politics and in society. And thus help a bit to
improve its image respectively loose its “non-image”.
7