Collaborative,

Communicative
PLANNING
1 DEFINITION AND HISTORY.

CONTENTS

2 COMPONENTS AND
DISADVANTAGES.

3 STUDY CASES
(INDONESIA-ABROAD)
 DEFINITION

Collaborative / Communicative Planning

An approach to urban planning that

gathers stakeholders and engages them
in a process to make decisions together
in a manner that respects the positions
of all involved.
 DEFINITION
Collaborative / Communicative Planning

A planning approach where planners use

dialogue to help people involved in a
planning issue to gain a shared
understanding of the problem and to reach
consensus on what to do. Communicative
planning is positioned against systematic
planning, in which planners use the
expertise that they have been taught to
solve planning problems on their own
HISTORY

1970
1990

• Formed based on several key points:

- The notions that • Planning scholars began writing
communication and reasoning come in about a new orientation to urban
diverse forms planning theory that moved away
- Knowledge is socially from the prevalent rational
constructed approach to planning
- People’s diverse interests and • Juddith Innes (Planning Theory’s
preferences are formed out of their social Emerging Paradigm) offers
context consensus-building as a tool for
• Specific to a community and urban urban planners to create
planning context, communicative theory collaborative and engaging
acknowledges that planners' own actions, planning environments that allow
words, lived experiences, and different stakeholders to
communication styles have an effect on the participate
planning process the planner is facilitating
 Citizens

Politicians Contractors

Real Estate
Investors

Staff
Business

Stakeholders
AIMS

Involve all stakeholders in the

process of planning for achieving
consensual policy outcomes after a
debate under the conditions of
communicative actions
MAIN FEATURES
Mutual Construction
Interactive Process of Interests-
02 Knowledge Forms
01 Interaction among stakeholders is
All knowledge are valid. No perspective is
essential.
superior to others.
A way to coordinate good development
Knowing through experiments, local

Interaction a Knowledge, reading symbolic and non-verbal

Communicative Action evidence, contemplative and appreciative

03 knowledge. Respect for All
Interaction must follow conditions of Members
Stakeholders value other perspectives
communicative rationality.
04 “Every stakeholders has a voice and ear”
Discussion must be able to fulfil the ideal
(Ledwith, 1997).
of speech
MAIN FEATURES

Reflexive Capacity 07 A Plan of Discourses

05 Stakeholders can reflect on their own as well as

Others beliefs and views.

Capacity to evaluate their own and other

disourses

06 Helps Implementing
Master Plan
By including community-enchancing features in

each proposed project

By including the collaborative process in the

master plan as the implementation compnent

COLLABORATIVE &
COMMUNICATIVE
THEORY PLANNING
COMPONENT
 10 COMPONENTS OF
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
Collaborative Planning is fundamentally all-
inclusive (Healey, 1996)

The Grand aim of collaborative planning is to

involve all stakeholders in the processes of
planning for achieving consensual policy outcomes
after a debate under the conditions of
communicative action
 1
PLANNING AS
INTERACTIVE PROCESS

Interaction among the stakeholders is essenstial. All

planning knowledge is produced and reproduced
through interaction and interpretation (Giddeens,

2
1984, 1990)
FORMATION OF ARENAS
BY STAKEHOLDERS

Arenas for interactinand discourse are design and

redesigned by the stakeholders themselves with a view
of including all of them in a friendly supportive
environment (Bryson & Crosby, 1989, 1992, 1993; Healey,
1996)
 3 INTERACTION AS
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
Interaction must take place under the condition of communicative
rationality. Communicative rationality implies that the stakeholders in a
particular discussion situation must be able to fulfill the ideal speech
conditions of comprehensibility, sincerity, legitimacy and thruthfulness

4
(Habermas, 1984; Innes, 1996)

KNOWLEDGE FORMS

All forms of the stakeholders knowledge are valid and no perspective is

superior than the other. There are six forms of knowledge apart from
instrumental reason. These are knowing through dialogue, knowing
through experience, learning from local knowledge, learning to read
symbolic and non-verbal evidence, learning through contemplative and
appreciative knowledge, and learning by doing or action planning.
(Sandercock, 1998, pp. 76-83)
5 CONCENSUS & THE
DIFFERENCE

Stakholders will not be able to achieve complete

consensus on all issues of concern. Differences are
discussed and not downplayed (Healey, 1997)

6
RESPECT FOR ALL
MEMBERS
Stakeholders value other perspectives. This means that
they listen and search forprobable meeting points
arising oout of different discourses. Every stakeholder
has a voice and ear (Ledwith, 1997)
7 REFLEXIVE AND CRITICAL
CAPACITY

The stakeholders can reflect on their own and others’ beliefs

and values in a critical manner. This means they have the
capacity to evaluate their own and others’ discourses
(Giddens, 1984)

8
MUTUAL CONSTRUCTIONS
OF INTERESTS

Interaction is aimed at mutual learning; that is, participants try to

jointly make sense of one another’s meaning systems. This is an
execise in ‘joint sense making’ (Tewdwr-Jones & Thomas, 1998)
9 A PLAN OF DISCOURSES

A development plan or any other policy document

prepared under the condition of collaborative planning

10
would contain discourses and related ‘systems of meanings’
of the stakeholders (Healey, 1997).
TRUST

Trust is vital for collaboration because only trusting stakeholders can

fruitfully begin interaction and commnication leading towards
colaboration.
The prime characteristics of cognition-based trust are Competence
(capability to perform particular tasks), Responsibility (Capability to act
wisth restraint), Reliability (consistently act as expected by other
participants) and Dependability (less likelihood of major behavioural
deviations)
 OTHER VIEW OF
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
COMPONENTS
Collaborative Planning is fundamentally all-
inclusive (Healey, 1996)
1. Arenas of discourse are produced and reproduced. Arenas
refers to the spaces where negotiations and re-negotiations take place.
Planning is an interactive and interpretive process drawing on the
multidimensional life worlds or practical sense rather than a single
formalised dimension as scientific rationalism. There is equality of
information with no withholding back of information required by every
one.

2. Production and reproduction of

knowledge which is required for the process of
decision-making. It is created by the interactions
between the different knowing subjects. All forms of
knowledge are used. The discussions can have moral
dilemmas.
3. Communicative rationality or communication between the
shareholders. The stakeholders can be individual (local population), group,
government, private of non govt organisations. Not just conventional forms of
communication but also presentation techniques like storytelling, using
metaphors, images and aesthetic illustrations of experiences, some of which
may be hearsay.

 Statistical analyses are employed along with poems and fables.

 All agendas deserve merit. Claims that certain issues are off-agenda are not
accepted. In collaborative planning there is ontological security i.e. people are
comfortable to contribute to the discussions without any fear of reprisals. It is very
important for the various participants to feel equal to one another and not that one is
wiser than the other
 A person should use his skills at argumentation to convince people and not his status
in society.
 All participants are given due respect by hearing them. This is especially relevant in
case where there are people from a very diverse background. In this context, there are 4
social constructs (gender, religion, caste & race (identity))
These parameters are important as they influence who will speak, how
much, why, when, about what. It also determines who will here and how
much with what degree of willingness.
 There are various non-verbal messages which are sent during a
course. Anthony Geddens feels that the subjects are learned and
competent enough due to their past experiences to interpret them and
critically reflect upon them.
 Critical intent is directed towards discourses and not individuals as that
might humiliate and discourage them to raise a point in future.
 The aim is to mutually understand one anothers view points. To
achieve this, questions such as ‘can you explain how your concern will
affect what we are discussing?
 Hence, the fluid and overlapping discourses do not aim at bargaining
around pre defined agendas but to together identify common issues of
concern.
 Body of knowledge i.e. preconceived ideas about how a discussion
should take place is discouraged.
 People try to shed their rigid preferences in order to be more open to
the thoughts and ideas of others.
Habermus gave 4 criteria for communicative rationality under
collaborative planning

 Sincerity: it helps in trusting the speaker.

 Legitimacy: this is not a given but has to be constructed through
discourse because what might be legitimate for one person may
not be for someone else. This happens because different people
have different experiences and different understandings of the
same context.
 Truthfulness: helps the public know the real intentions of the
speaker
 Comprehensibility : speaker should talk in a language which can be
understood by the listeners and vice versa.
4. Trust is an essential part of collaborative planning without which
people will not be able to communicate productively with one another and
no fruitful results would be obtained.

 The fact that different stakeholders have decided to meet one another is
based on some pre-existing trust.
 Over time, trust can grow and become more mature. It can also decrease
if a person makes repetitive mistakes or misrepresent information.
 Trust means that people do not expect others to behave in a way which
can be harmful for them. People have faith in one another’ s
competence, reliability and capabilities.
 planner plays the role of an enabler.
 It can be carried out along or without the state.
THE DISADVANTAGES OF
COLLABORATIVE &
COMMUNICATIVE
PLANNING THEORY
• Fundamental issues of pluralist theory. Avoid dealing with the classic
topic of what to do when open processes produce unjust results.
• Do not consider the possibility that paternalism and bureaucratic modes
of decision making may still produce desirable outcomes.
• The measures for ensuring health and security were generated by state
officials with little reference to interested publics.
• These measures need supportive constituencies
• The threat of oppositional social movement
• The actual formulation of policy (planning of it) was highly insulated from
stakeholders inputs.
THE DISADVANTAGES
 Example of
Implementation
Implementation
in Indonesia:

Deals between
Surakarta
Government
and PKL in
order to control
PKL in the
sidewalk
 Surakarta, Indonesia
The Implementation of Collaborative Planning in Indonesia: Surakarta

AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT
DIALOGUE

GOALS DEAL
 Surakarta, Indonesia
The Implementation of Collaborative Planning in Indonesia: Surakarta

Authentic
Dialogue
The first of meeting,
there was no
dialogue between
the government and
PKL. The government
build trust and
AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT
obedience with PKL. DIALOGUE
Mutualism
relationship occur
at the 54th meeting.
The government
offered PKL a
PROMOTE DEAL
better location,
widened the road,
promoted, opened
public transport
lines, and only
withdrew fees of
IDR 2,600 / day.
 Surakarta, Indonesia
The Implementation of Collaborative Planning in Indonesia: Surakarta

Commitment
The commitment occurs
AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT when there is a dialogue
between stakeholder and
DIALOGUE community. PKL are
problems that must be
resolved together,
openness to explore the
shared benefits of problem
solving, as well as building
shared values has been
GOALS DEAL carried out. The PKL's
movement with a march of
parade was the planting of
shared values as Javanese.
 Surakarta, Indonesia
The Implementation of Collaborative Planning in Indonesia: Surakarta

AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT
Goals
the mayor had trouble when DIALOGUE
he was moving PKL. Even
though the mayor does not
guarantee traders lose
customers, but the purpose
of moving the PKL along
with promotional efforts GOALS DEAL
and road widening and the
manufacture of transport
routes, can ultimately be
accepted by PKL. Those act
indicate that there is an
effort to sharing existing
problems to gain a mutual
better solution.
 Surakarta, Indonesia
The Implementation of Collaborative Planning in Indonesia: Surakarta

AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT
DIALOGUE
Deal
A huge effort from the
Government to persuade
PKL was succesful. In the
GOALS DEAL end, PKL agreed with the
agreement. The best deal is
when both of them have
mutual agreement
REFERENCES
Ashok Kumar and Ronan Paddison (2000) Trust and
Collaborative Planning Theory : The Case of The Scottish
Planning Systems , Internatinal Planning Studies, Vol 5 , No.
2, 205-223, 2000
Susan S. Fainstein (2000) New Directions in Planning Theory ,
Articles in Urban Affairs Review