Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Planners become increasingly aware that they operate in a fuzzy, fragmented, volatile, and unpredictable world. For a couple of decennia they have tried to find new answers in a communicative turn, in collaborative or in coproductive planning. However, because of the ongoing fragmentations and complexities, such attempts have shown to be so time-consuming, vague, or framed by the regular suspects of planning that they hardly meet today's major challenges. We will demonstrate this by means of the planning process for the forthcoming Spatial Policy Plan for Flanders, the successor of the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders—a strategic plan on which the literature has extensively reported. In 1997 this latter plan was endorsed and accepted by most of the authorities concerned. More than fifteen years later, however, original commitments have eroded, and the ongoing process leading to the adoption of the new plan has failed to build broad support and credibility. Therefore, the new Spatial Policy Plan has turned to the promises of coproductive planning in order to include citizens and interest groups in the planning process. However, we will argue that in Flanders today this borrowed methodology of coproductive planning is insufficiently adapted to the Flemish context and is therefore mainly delivering an aura of optimism about sustainability to ongoing policies, while a variety of spatial developments that are recognized as very substantive or problematic are kept outside the process. To overcome this, we will finally discuss a preliminary design of a more contextualized process model, putting the stress on more concrete planning issues, involving independent stakeholders in strategic alliances, and taking a coevolutionary approach from the start.
Boussauw et al. (Thu,) studied this question.