Socio-spatial
learning:
A
case
study
of
community
knowledge
in
participatory
spatial
planning
Lucy
Natarajan
BartlettSchoolofPlanning,UCL,UnitedKingdom
1. Chapter1 1.1. Introduction
Thismonograph asks ‘how does learning withcommunities reframespatialknowledge?’Itbeginsfromtheunderstandingthat planningisaknowledge-basedprofessionconcernedwithspace and that claims about the value to planning of community engagementneedtoberelatedtospatiallearning.Ittakesan in-depthlookatthecommunicationbetweenplannersandthepublic through a unique embedded study of theknowledge(s) within collaborativeandparticipatorywork.Thefocusofrecentworkin thisfieldhasbeenontheimprovementofspecificoutcomes,the resolution of conflict and the search for consensus. This has contributedtocurrentthinkingwherelayparticipationinplanning isincreasinglyexpectedbutengagementexercisesarenotrelated specificallytoproducingknowledgeofspacefordecision-making.
Sincethenatureofany‘learningvalue’isyettobearticulatedwith anyspecificity,thevalueofcommunityengagementtolearning aboutspaceisuncertain.Thepossibilityofaproductiveinterface between lay and planningactors is eitherassumed or ignored, since community engagement in planning is justified on the groundsofhumanrightsanddignity,andincreasingamountsof planningresourcesarebeingtargetedatcommunityinvolvement. In any case the argument is consistently made that the involvementoflayactorsoughttohave animpactonplanners’ thinking.Thecentralconcernofthisstudyisthereforehowsuch ‘non-tokenist’participation,whereitexists,haslearningvaluefor understandingspace.
Thenexusofplanningtheoryaroundcollaborationandspatial planning is deeply concerned with the ‘outcomes’ of both participation and planning. Participation can be and often is justified on democraticprinciples alone;howeverplanninghas bothpoliticalandspatialpoweroratveryleastspatialaswellas political aspects. The empowerment value is fundamental to communityengagement,andthisauthor’sviewisthatcynicism will remain so long as the knowledge value of community ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received19March2013
Receivedinrevisedform22June2015 Accepted25June2015
Availableonline29July2015 Keywords: Participation Localknowledge Spatialplanning Communication Sociallearning ABSTRACT
Thismonographlooksatexperiencesofcommunitieswithspatialplanningandappliesthoseempiricsto anunderexploredareaofparticipatorytheory.Whileissuesofpowerandcommunicationhavebeenwell examinedthisworkrestsontheargumentthattheassociatedproductionofknowledgeneedstobe betterunderstood.Theoriesofengagementdrawonissuesof‘voice’andthemeanstoachievingdeeper democracy.Similarly,participatoryplanningtheoriesframe thedebatein termsofcommunicative processesorcompetingrationalities.Withinthatbodyofwork,howeverknowledgeisseenasanadjunct ofpowerandthereislittlefocusonthespatialparticularityofknowledges.Inparticulartherehasnotas yetbeenathoroughstudyofhowunderstandingsofspaceareproducedinaspatialplanningcontext thatincludeslayparticipants.Thismonographstartstobroachthatgap,conceptualisingapotential ‘socio-spatiallearning’wherecommunityengagementisframedasacollaborativelearningarenawithin spatialplanning.ThroughanEnglishcasestudyitunpacksthedynamicsbetweendifferenttypesof knowledgearound spatial planning wherethere is lay participation. This draws on two years of embeddedobservationwithinajointplanningunitandareviewoftheNorthNorthamptonshireCore Strategyof2008,whichculminatedinsubstantialcommunityengagementworkearlyin2011.Findings indicatethatlocalknowledgehasadistinctivespatialityandthatthereisaclearroleforlayknowledgein thecontext of spatial strategy-making.Itis hoped that this workcan helpin understanding the productionofplanningknowledge,helpidentifynon-tokenistengagementofthepublic,andinform interactionsbetweencommunitiesandpolicymakers.
ß2015TheAuthor.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E-mailaddress:[email protected].
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Progress
in
Planning
j ourn a lhom e pa g e :ww w . e l se v i e r . com / l oca t e / pp l a n
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.002
engagementtoplanning is unclear. Itis certainly anarea that planningliteraturehasnotas yetconsidered in anydepth. For these reasons, it is important to understand the effect of communityknowledgeonknowledgeofspace.
Planningknowledgeappearsasatheoreticalconstructwithin fieldsofvisionaboutplace,howtheseinteractandhowspaceis ‘constructed’.Asdiscussedinthefollowingsection,thereislittle focusonthelearningpotentialwithinpublicparticipation,yetthe implicationsforlearningaboutspacewithcommunitiesisoften alludedto.Theargumentputforwardis thatplanningneeds to more fully understand the interaction of different ways of understanding space and how different knowledges of space affectthe production of spatial policies.To introduce this it is useful to briefly examine the work of the French philosopher Lefebvre,whichcontinuestobeakeyreferenceintheorisingon spatialplanning(Holgersen,2015;Pollock&Paddison,2014)and socialjustice(Fainstein,2010; Røe,2014). Inhisseminal work, spaceispresentedasasocialproduct(Lefebvre,1991)ratherthana pre-existing ontological given, and therefore what constitutes ‘space’isnotfixedbutfluid.Thisimpliesthatthereisnouniversal truthaboutspace,onlyaseriesofoccurrenceswherespaceand society mutually constructeach other,affecting and producing each other. Consequently theories of society and space are presentedaspractically inseparable. Tounderstand spacethen, Lefebvre suggests that we need to understand the ways it is constructed.Threewaysaredescribed:howitisperceivedindaily life(spatialpractices);asconceivedby(e.g.)planners (representa-tionsofspace);andlivedspace(spacesofrepresentation)whichis life‘‘asdirectlylivedthroughitsassociatedimagesandsymbols, andhencethespaceof‘inhabitants’and‘users’’’(Lefebvre,1991,p. 39).Theimportanceofsocialproductionofsharedunderstandings isadominantthemeinthemorerecent,relationalapproachesto spatial governance. As discussed below, it is cast as a vital component of spatial planning and social justice being either criticallyornormativelyappliedbothtothesubstantiveoutcomes andtotheprocessesofstrategicspatialplanning.Yettheexistence oflay knowledge and theformative role of localcommunities’ experiences in knowledges of space, that are so prominent in Lefebrivan analyses, have not been fully explored in planning theory.Inresponse,thefollowingchaptersaddressthetheoretical territorywherelayknowledgeandspatialgovernanceconverge, thenpresentauniqueEnglishcasestudythatunpacksthelearning aspectsofparticipatorycontextswithandwithoutcommunities. The lay knowledge of communities is examined as a facet of collaborativespatialplanning.
2. Chapter2
2.1. Participationandtheusesofknowledge
Knowledge sits uncomfortably within planning theories of participation,fromconcernsaroundadvocacy,throughissuesof equity,deliberation,collaboration,and continuinguptocurrent reflectionsonformsandpracticethatmightconstitutea‘success’. As discussed here the focus of such work is on the close relationships within networks of power and on the effect of participation,intheformof deliberation, on institutionsrather than on knowledge. A central concern is that this primarily characterisesthegeneralpublicascommunitygroups differenti-atedbytheirrelationshipstodominantpowerstructures.Concepts ofcontrolarestronglyrelated tospace,where dominantactors govern and manipulate a particular area, and knowledge is analysed as a meansto disrupting and restabilising networks. Although this understanding has critical value, it hascome to obscurespatialrationalityanddominatedworkintheareatothe exclusionofconcernsarounditscognitivepurposeindecisionsfor
spatialstrategy.Participatoryplanningisconceivedasaformof sociallearningwiththepotentialforknowledgedevelopment,but theorising mainly relates to the structure, system and actors involved and knowledge in participatory planning is as yet underexplored. It overlooks thepower of spatial knowledgein relation to planningchallenges suchas housing shortages and spatial issues such as the relationship between public transit provisionandpatternsofdevelopment.
There is a powerful vision in current planning theory of participationastoolofliberation,inwhichspaceisasecondary considerationatbest.Criticalfocusfallsonthecloserelationships withinnetworksofpower(Booher&Innes,2002;Innes&Booher, 2004; Miraftab, 2004) and the effects of participation on institutions(Backlund& Mantysalo,2010;Rydin &Pennington, 2000). Early literature on participation focused on notions of ‘depth’andpresentedparticipationindecision-makingasameans to redistributing power within the existing social order. The relativeemancipatoryeffectofparticipationwasseentodepend onthedepthofparticipation,whichisclassicallydepictedusing the metaphor of a ladder. Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Arnstein,1969)hasbeentakenbymanyauthorsasthestarting pointforfurthertheorising.Itisbasedoneightprogressive‘rungs’ of participation (Citizen control, Delegated power, Partnership, Placation,Consultation,Informing,Therapy,Manipulation)alonga sliding scale of depth categories (Non-participation, Tokenism, Citizen power) to demonstrate the degree to which power is transferredfromprocessmanagerstothoseoutsidetheprocess. Otherladdershavesincebeenproducedandthecontinuingsearch for ‘21st century strategies’ (Innes & Booher, 2004) now also considerstheempowermentpotentialofnewtechnologiessuchas online(Kingston,2002; Kingstonetal.,2000)ore-participation (Balla,2012;Berryetal.,2011;Genc¸er&Oba,2011).Thebasesof theseevaluationsaretheextenttowhichindividualsanddifferent groupsofpeoplewhoareoutsidethedecision-makingprocesses areinvolved,andhowtheirinvolvementcanshapedecisions.The assessment considers barriers to having an input to decisions. Thesearefundamental considerations,buttheybracketoutthe spatialsubstanceofdeliberation.
The overarchingrationale of participatory planningis to re-workconventionsofsocialorder.Drawingheavilyonturnofthe centuryfoundations(Forester,1999;Healey,1997a;Sandercock, 1998),acollaborativemodeofoperationcontinuestobepromoted (e.g.Innes&Booher,2010)thatdoesnotassumethatpre-setsocial structures apply to all actors. It is premised on redistributing powertolesspowerfulactorsbyinvolvingtheminanewrelational model of governing with a distinctive, egalitarian ideology. Governance is distinguished from government with all its connotations of fixed classes of governed and governing. It includes not just the state but also political and territorial communities in complex interactions between the state, the publicrealmandprivatespheres.Thiswasaparticularconcernin theUKafterthereformsof2004,whichput‘‘heightenedemphasis on stakeholder and community involvement’’(Baker, Hincks,& Sherriff, 2010). Collaborative planning proponents embrace a strong role for thestate, even if it sitswithin a framework of reduced meta-governance, or dispersed networks of power. As Healeyputsit, ‘‘ifwelosefaithinourgovernancemechanisms, these conflicts will be resolved by the power of money and landownership’’ (Healey, 1997a). Participation is thus pitted againstaneo-liberalagendaofreducedstateinterventionoverall andseenasanalternativetolaissez-faireforms.Critiquestypically surroundMarxisttheorydrawingheavilyon Harvey(1973)and
Castells(1972).Elwood(2002)andSandercock(2004)forinstance argue that participatory processes canbe corrupted and easily alignedeitherwithregressivepoliciesofcapitalaccumulationor theobscuredretentionof centralisedcontrol,orboth. Fainstein
continuestoemphasisetheneedtobeawareofthispotential‘dark side’ofplanning(Fainstein,2014).
Despiteconcernsaboutthenatureofthenewsocialorderthat mightarise,‘meaningful’participationisstillseenasapotential meanstoliberatinglesspowerfulsocialactorsandprovidinganew way to empower communities. This draws on the original frameworksofcollaborativegovernance(mentionedabove)and onthedeliberativemodesofpolicymaking(Dryzek,1990,2002; Gastil&Levine,2005),where‘communicativeaction’opensupand providesa pointfordirectdialoguebetween policymakersand widersociety.Civicdialogueisunderstoodasreconstructingplace identitiesandsocialidentities,andtherebyliberatingcommunities from unwanted traditions and unconsciously or unwillingly adoptedstructures.Currentworknowtendstoexplorethesocial effectsofindividualisation(Middlemiss,2014),andtheminingof culturalimaginaries (Qian, Qian,& Zhu, 2012). These draw on sociological thinking that assumes existing institutions to be founded on knowledges that reify traditional hierarchies and excludenewknowledgesiftheyareincompatiblewithmemories oftheexistingknowledge,aprocesscharacterisedbyDouglasasa ‘filteringprocess’(Douglas,1987).Systemsofgovernmentthatare traditionallycloudedin‘obscurity’,wheretheirtruemeaningsare hidden,and‘abstractsystems’(Giddens,1984)havethusbecame centraltoconsiderationsofparticipatory planning.Theoriginal critiquesofcommunicativeandcollaborativetheoryhaveserved toreinforce a focus on power and its misuse (Flyvbjerg,1998; Forester, 1999; Yiftachel, 1998), and fed into post-political theorising(Oosterlynck&Swyngedouw,2010;Raco&Lin,2012; Swyngedouw, 2009). Such works have their roots in the sociologicalquest tointerpretand bring systemstolight using thestorieswithincultures(Beauregard,2003;Throgmorton,2003) andthemissionofbreakingdownthroughprotest(Miller,2003) theobscure ideologieswhich support unwanted systems. They seek to navigate thecomplexities of existing systems through communicativeactionandpublicparticipation,andthus theoris-ing around participation has come to focus on developing understandingsofsystems.Thelearningassociatedwith partici-pationisthereforeseenasanexerciseinreworkingpowerover existingnarratives.Learningaboutspacewithincollaborationsis understoodasanunderlyingfacetandfocusedonafundamental connectionbetween knowledgeand power. Yetknowledgeand power remain distinct entities within these critiques, and the searchformeaningfulparticipationcontinues(Brownill&Parker, 2010).
2.2. Networksandknowledgeproduction
Thenewparticipatoryvisionofgovernancereliesonknowledge buildingnetworksthatembracediversevoices(Sager,2003).The intendeddiscourseisadisruptiveonecreatedbyamultiplicityof actors with a variety of values, and it is premised on shared learningwithinnetworks.Theassociatedcharacterisationisthat institutionsareinsufficientlyadaptedtodynamicrealitiesof‘‘the relationalwebsornetworksinwhichweliveourlives’’(Healey, 1997a). As well as disrupting the very system of power distribution,new voices might address theerosion of personal and institutionalidentities. Itdraws on organisationallearning theory,particularlytheworkofScho¨nwhoseearlierworkhadset outhow‘‘theanchorsofpersonalidentityareeverywherebeing eroded’’(Scho¨n, 1973,p.22). Heexamined‘destabilising’ social trends,focusingonthirty-yeartrendsintheUSAwithincreasesin sectionaldissatisfactionandawarenessofinequityaswellasanew generationalwaveofpoliticalthinking,whichwaspittedagainst economicpolicydriversandthecentralisedstate.Paradoxically, thedisruptiveparticipatoryapproach, basedon newactorsand values,couldlendatypeofstabilityoratleastmeanstocontinuity
forinstitutions.Thisspeakstoaneedtobuildintellectualcapitalas wellasintroducereflexivityinpractice(Scho¨n,1983).
AsHealeypointsout(Healey,2008)andHoldendemonstrates (Holden, 2008), participation in planning, and civic dialogue particularly,is presented bypragmatist thinkers asa meansto social learning. This has become bound up, in participatory theories, with the notion of institutions embracing personal identities and values through communities of practice (see for instanceWenger,2000).Itsuggestsalearningprocessintendedto reconstitutevaluesofactorsandre-examinetraditionalhistories behindthenetworksofpowerinsuchawaythattheyresonate withcurrent experiences. Theknowledge involved withthat is value-related andcontingenton beingembedded incontext.In contrasttotheparadigmofthenaturalscienceswhereknowledge isnormative,predictiveandprovedbyexperiment,thetestofthis type of knowledge is accuracy and validity. In German the distinctionisGeisteswissenschaftratherthanNaturwissenschaft (seeFlyvbjerg,2001).Itiscreatedwithinnetworksandproduced within communities of practice and as such actorsare said to produceknowledgeincommunitiesor‘groups’oflearningandto produce planningpolicycollaboratively. Thismeansthat social learninggroupswouldbeopeneduptopreviouslyexcludedactors. Thepremiseofsuchknowledgeproductionisaconnectiontothis ‘site of production’and therelationalpower oftheactors.This interpretationgenerallypersists(e.g.Hudalah,Winarso,&Woltjer, 2010), althoughthere aresomechallenges over theconnection betweenspatialandrelationalproximity(Amin&Roberts,2008). Networks for meaningful dialogueare thereforeintended to establish newcontrolover potential‘instability’ and encourage reworkingofnewvaluesandidentities.Withthenewmorefluid conceptualisation of social order and the revealing of ‘hidden powerstructures’,itwasnolongenoughtoproposere-stabilising bye.g.reformingandimplementingnewpolicies.Todosowould perpetuate thepractices ofthecentre-peripherysystem.Recent studiesofradicalactorsandemergentprocesses(Holden&Scerri, 2014;Quick&Feldman,2011;Tironi,2015)continuetosupport suchreasoning.Thekeyargumentisthatgovernmentneedstobea perpetual ‘learningagent’withcontinuallyevolving self-aware-ness.Thisfollowsthelogicofcommunicativetheoriesthatcasts planning as an arena for social learning. Sandercock nicely summarises the new role for planning; ‘‘...to resolve certain apparent antimonies:The demand for security in situations of uncertaintyandanguishwhichthreatenthesecurityoftheself; Thedemandforconviction,andwithittherequirementthatbeliefs and values be recognized as ways of looking at the world; Engagement with others with ultimate reliance on the self recognized as theinternalization of others’’ (Sandercock, 1998, p. 237). Thisis the arena for what canbe described as a new ‘discursivedemocracy’(Dryzek,1990,2002;DelliCarpini,Cook,& Jacobs, 2004). Since no actor or group of actors hold central positioneachactorisperipheraltoagreaterorlesserdegreeand newcomersmaybelesscentralbutcanmovetowardsthecentreof thedeliberations.Animportantaspectofthisistherelationship betweendifferenceandequitywithinparticipatoryencounters(as expoundedforinstancebyWatson,2006;Beebeejaun,2006).
Theoriesof‘situatedlearning’theoryhavethreekeyinterlinked considerations:communitiesofpractice;theboundariesbetween actorsinvolved inshared practiceareas;and thewayin which identities are shaped by participation. Situated learning in planning is mostly explored with regards to the boundaries betweenactors,butknowledgeitselfisnotsowellexplored.The literature on participatory planning is pervaded with consider-ations of density or thickness of networks, connected through shared understanding of meaning. Analyses of the layers of meaning constructed about ‘things’, hark back to Foucault (Foucault,1970)and Latour(Latour,1993). Laurianforinstance
says,‘‘thelegitimacyofmodernandabstractinstitutionsdepends onsocialtrustbecausecitizensneedtotrustinstitutionswithout understandingtheirinnerfunctioning’’(Laurian,2009,p.375).This presentsthepurposesofsociallearningastappingintothetypeof communaltrustandspontaneouscoordinationtypicallyfoundin socialnetworks(Ostrom,1990)withoutcontrollingorco-opting them.Thereappearstobeagreementthattheshapeofthesphere ofplanningandlegitimacyoftheidentityofplanningauthorities arebeingreworkedandthattherelatedknowledgecanbetakento be contextual and emergent. However, the specificities of the production of knowledge for planning and the effects on the knowledgeinplanningareunclear.
Accordingto(Giddens,1984),thischanginginstitutionalworld needs to make recognise the existence of networks of inter-dependenciesandworkacrossthediversityofcivilsociety.That frameworkofparticipatorygovernancecontainsmanydimensions ofpublicpolicydecision-makingandcivilsocietyisitself‘‘subject tomultiplemeanings’’(Lovan,Murray,&Shaffer,2004). Negotia-tionandfacilitationreplacerigidauthoritysincegovernmentand non-governmentareco-dependentwithnosingleentityinsole charge.Insteadofhavingacentralauthority,theworldofpolicyis madeupofmultiple,overlappingnetworks,withnetworksrather thanindividualactorsattheheartofpolicymaking.Thosewho participatecanbringtheirissuestobearinshapingthenewsocial andinstitutionalidentitiesaswellasthepoliciesthemselves.All actorsincludingplannersalsobringtheirownvaluestothetable and all values are subject to scrutiny. In this ‘social learning’ context,rationalitiesofthegoverningpartiesarereconstitutedin light of lay participation.These pointssuggest that therole of collaborative knowledge production is to serve the needs of governance,ratherthanforanysubstantivepurposesofplanning, andthuseasilyappears‘tokenist’.Thereisnospecificinsightinto spatialgovernance,spatialrationalitiesorplanningknowledge.It isarguedthatconceptualor‘doubleloop’learningcanoccur,with internalisationofothers’valuesandtheconsequentadjustmentof rationalities,butthefocusofanysuchchangeisthenetworkof governance rather than spatial rationalities. This means that questionsremainaroundpublicparticipationinspatialplanning: howspatialplanningrationalitiesmightbereframed;andhowthis relatestoplanningcontentandassociatedspatialpolicyissues.
Most proponents of participatory planning describe ‘good’ conditionsforpraxiswhileacceptingthat,theyareunlikelytobe metfully.Thereasonforthissomewhatgloomystartingpointis that,asperHabermas’‘idealspeech’rules,theseconditionsare consciously unreal. Authors have studied and debated the requirementsforcivicdialogue(Kim&Ball-Rokeach,2006;Gastil &Levine,2005;Lowndes,Pratchett,&Stoker,2006),andsoughtto better understand the circumstances under which meaningful communication can happen. Communicative planning clearly requiresdepthofaccesstopower,widthofsocialnetworks,and highlevelsoftrustintheplanner’sroleinordertohavemeaningful communicationwiththepublic(Olsson&Hysing,2012;Tayebi, 2013) and other non-governmental actors (Deng et al., 2015; Faludi,2012).Itisarguedthatparticipationisunderminedbecause thenecessarytrustinthesystemislackingandthatparticipation shouldbebuiltontrustwithinthenetwork.Thisincludesmutual trust between the actors of a network, trust or buy-in to the process,andeachactor’strustorconfidenceintheirownabilityto meaningfully contribute.This echoes Senecah’s trinity of voice (Senecah,2004)wherethereisequalityofaccess,civicstanding, andinfluenceoverenvironmentaldecisions.Suchambitionstend towardsasearchforconsensusbetweenplace-basedgroupsand harmonioushumanrelationswiththenaturalworld(Carbaugh& Cerulli,2013;Milsteinetal.,2011).Whetherornotthosearethe goals of the participatory process, its legitimacy will hinge on perceivedcorruptionorotherwiseoftheprocess.Inanticipationof
limitedorlackofpowersharing,authorsfocusonrepresentationof society andsocietal groups(Van DerHeijden& TenHeuvelhof, 2012). This type of ‘representativeness’ differs greatly from statisticalandorpoliticalrepresentation.Presentedinsteadasa typeof‘networkdesign’,itaimstostructurenetworkparticipation accordingtovaluesor issues,withthecaveatthat thenetwork shouldremainopentounanticipatedcontributors(Eden, Donald-son,&Walker,2006).Concernsaroundmaterial,physicalabilities to participate persist, although new potential for outreach is perceived in new media and internet technology, which are increasingly common channels for example through online mapping (Carton & Thissen, 2009) and social networking capabilities (Rantanen & Kahila, 2009). Communicative and cognitiveissues areequally critical as demonstratein a recent UK example, where lay actors find the world of ‘‘policy-communities’’toocomplexand thereforeunresponsive (Gallent &Robinson,2012).Thesetypesofissuesaddtoanargumentfor inverting assumednotions ofauthority, echoingthepremise of challengingtraditionalhierarchies.Thusprocesses(for compari-son of modes see Cornwall, 2008) should depend on upward momentumfromgrass-roots(Lane&McDonald,2005;Weinstein, 2009)ratherthanbeconstructedastop-downinvitedspaceswith ‘‘governablesubjectsandgovernablespaces’’(Roy,2009).
Thequalityofcommunicativeplan-makingisdeterminedbyits capacitybothtomediateinterestsandhavemomentumforpolicy making by producing knowledge for planning. It is said to simultaneously affect relationships and the strength of the collaborative network (Rydin, 2007). Some authors directly addresstheperformance ofthenetwork interms of itsimpact on political knowledge building. Nyseth for example (Nyseth, 2008)arguesforcarefulscrutinyofpoliciestopreventanythreatto representativedemocracyandotherauthorssuggestthe introduc-tionofmeta-governancebyelectedpoliticianstosteerandcontrol participatory practice(e.g. Sørensen &Torfing, 2007). Eventhe theorisingaroundcommunicativeplanningis conceived specifi-callyasaforcetoaction(Campbell,2012;Sager,2009).
Tosumup,inplanningtheoryknowledgewithinparticipatory processesisboundupwithsecuringcommunicativenetworksand the potential for social learning, much as these represent a significantchallenge.Itisclearthatthereexistsnotjustasingular knowledgebutmultipleknowledges(Rydin,2007)butthepossible rolesofcommunities’layorlocalknowledges,beyond represen-tationofexistingsocialandplaceidentities,isunclear.Individuals’ values and subjective views of the world, lifestyle choices, preferencesandlocalexperientialknowledgeoftheenvironment aremainlyrelatedtoinstitutionalrenewalorculturalidentity,and only occasionally a practical role is envisaged in terms of the conceptionormanagementofprojects(Corburn,2007;Goldman, 2003).Inshort,avarietyofknowledgeclaimsexistinrelationto place identityyet thesearchfor thespecificity of whatcan be learned through public participation in planning and the relationshipofcommunicativeactiontotheparticularinstitutions thatgovernspaceisboththeoreticallychallengedandincomplete. 2.3. Spatialplanningandspatialknowledges
Participation is a highly context-dependent phenomenon in thatitisalwaysinsomething,andhereparticipationisnotjustina networkofdiversevoices,butformspartofthehighlydynamic nexusofparticipationinspatialplanning.Theworldofplanning practicehastakenthenotionofspatialplanningasthehallmarkof anewtrendandparticularlyinEurope,theprofessionhasusedthe expressiontosignalnewpurposesandintendedfuturedirections (RTPI,2001).Globallytoothetermseemstobeunderstoodasa newandimprovedpracticeform,replacingout-datedandheavily criticised forms of practice with new, more socially equitable
planning(UN-Habitat,2010).Theterm‘spatialplanning’isusedin adiverserangeofways,andthenotioniscomplex,contestedinthe worldof theoryand practiced in multipleways(Adams,2008; ECTP-CEU, 2013) all of which makes it hard to offer a unified definition.Asdiscussed here, commentators have definedit by whatitisnotandcontrasteditwithpreviousmodesofpractice ratherthananyexpectednorm.Howeverthereareseveralstrong interwoventhemesandmeta-discoursespervading spatial plan-ningliteratureaboutintegrativeforcesaroundpolicy,functionand scale.In lightofthese,spatialplanningischaracterisedhereas strategy-making that is based on knowledge of interactions between people and space, and of trends and patterns in the useofspace.
Integrativespatialplanningispartlypremisedontheideathat policymakingwaspreviouslyfracturedintopolicysilosandshould be more holistic. The literature on spatial planning portrays twentiethcenturyplanningasrigidlystructuredaroundisolated policyareas(Allmendinger&Haughton,2012; Tewdwr-Jones & Allmendinger,2006;Tewdwr-Jones,2012).Therationaleofthat so-called‘silo’approachtopolicymakingiscriticisedforfailingto producebeneficialoutcomes.ForexampleHaughtonetal.linkthe problems in Leeds, England to the economic focus of the City RegionStrategy(Haughtonetal.,2010).Theauthorsdescribethe resultssaying,‘‘thepoorarebeingmovedaroundthecitytomake wayfornewresidentialspacesclosetothecitycentre’’(Haughton etal.,2010,p.162)andarguingthatinthiswaylocalcommunities were disintegrating. By contrast, spatial planning is said to integratea rangeofpolicysectorsandtheiragendas(Albrechts, 2004).Theuniqueidentityofindividualelementsisnotofinterest toplanninginitself,butrathereachisseenfromtheperspectiveof howitinteractswiththeothers.Nohierarchyoftheimportanceof individualpolicysectorsisintendedbyspatialplanningtheory,but ratherholisticspatialpoliciesareunderpinnedbybroador cross-cuttingsocialobjectivessuchasqualityoflifeforlocal communi-ties.DavoudiandStrangeforinstancehighlighthowsuch cross-cutting objectives have been socially constructed through the Europeansocio-democratictraditions,welfareprinciplesandthe consequentpromotionofsocialandculturaldiversity(Davoudi& Strange,2009citingEsping-Andersen,1990).
There is a strong rationality of integrating policy domains within spatial planning, but not without concerns about the balanceofpolicyareas.Critiquesofspatialplanningfocusonthe continuingpowerofstructuresofcapitalandonthedominanceof theeconomicpolicydomain,particularlyneoliberalones(Olesen, 2013)whether ornottheyareboundupwithgrowthor ‘‘non-marketcriteria’’(While,Jonas,&Gibbs,2004).Thrivingcapitalist economies are still an objective for spatial planning but their dominanceinthestrategicagendahasbeenexplicitlychallenged. Authorspaycloseattentiontotheinfluencesonplanningpolicy development from different sectors and the possible re-homo-genising effect of overarching guiding principles that could dominatea spatial strategy. Allmendinger and Haughtonargue thatsustainabilitycouldbesuchapositive integratingforcefor policy,characterisingitas‘‘acentral-governmentinterpretationof sustainable development which emphasises it as a way of addressingsimultaneouslyeconomic,social, environmental,and resource-efficiencyobjectives’’(Allmendinger&Haughton,2007, p.1492). Morecommonlyspatialplanningliteraturefocuseson concernsabouthoweconomicissuesmightdominateotherpolicy areasimplyingthatplanningmaybethreatenedbynothavingits ownpolicyboundary.Theseconcernsliebehindthecallforfurther investigationaroundthescopeofplanningand sector‘porosity’ (Amin,2004).
Withits‘broadpolicy’approachtogoverningphysicalspace, spatialplanningisseentotake anintegratedviewoffunctions acrossspace.Ratherthansimplyassumingthatadministrativeor
political boundaries are appropriate, it seeks to determine functional coherence, for instance across multiple levels of governance(Faludi,2012).Justaspolicysegmentationissaidto beremotefromtherealitiesofdailylife,so‘singleareaapproaches’ aresaidtooverlookfunctionalrealitiesofspace.Indoingso,they aresaidtobefailingtounderstandpatternsinlandusethatare constantlychangingandhavewidersocialcontingencies(Healey, 1997b).Theeffectsofpiecemealapproacheswhichlack‘strategic vision’includetheinappropriatepositioningofserviceprovisionin humansettlements, which leadstoincreasedrisk fromnatural disasters(Pelling,2007).Bycontrast,spatialplanningwouldlook strategically at how space is used. As Healey (1997a, 1997b)
describesit,spatialplanningisanactiveforcetowards‘‘patternsof landuse’’ratherthanisolatedorspecificfunctions.Theintegrated patternapproachisgroundedinnotionsoffunctionalefficiency through coordinating spatial impacts (Harris & Hooper, 2004), especiallyinthecontextofsocio-economicdivisions.Zhu(2010)
makesthecasethatpatternsofusemustberecognisedindealing withveryhighandincreasingpopulation densitiesin cities.For example in Jakartathe strugglingeconomy and weak planning powersresultedinfragmentedparcelsofinformaldevelopmentin the centre of town,and this subsequently encouraged isolated privatedevelopmentsinthesuburbs.‘‘Asaresult,asocialdivideis createdbetweenthepoorcityandtherichsuburbs,whileother economic inefficiencies and environmental costs reduce the liveability and sustainabilityof urban life’’(Zhu,2010, p. 278). So, a normative pictureof ‘planningfor functionally integrated spaces’ appears, where spatial planning is the point of policy coalescenceforaddressingeconomic,transport,andother ‘func-tions’ofanareaandmanagingthedistributionofsocialimpacts acrossspace.
Complexitiesofscaleareinherentintheintegrativerationality ofspatialplanningandpresentpoliticalconcerns.Therearestrong post-politicalcritiquesaroundenablingforeclosureofthepolitical in suggestingconsensuson largescale neo-liberaldevelopment decisions(e.g.Swyngedouw,Moulaert,&Rodriguez,2002).There is also a perceived risk around having the ‘wrong’ scale of governance for a particulararea of policy. For examplePugalis (Pugalis, 2009) argues that regeneration is being incorrectly treatedasa subsetofnationaleconomicthinkingandtherefore local regeneration needs are being overshadowed by national prioritiesofeconomiccompetitivenesswiththeendresultthatthe areasmostinneedofinvestmentarenotspecificallytargetedby thepolicies butonly allocateda ‘trickle down effect’.Theorists examine themoves asa relationally networked formof gover-nance,lookingatlocal,regional,nationalandsupra-nationalactors incontestoverspace.Allenforinstance(Allenetal.,1998)says thattheglobalpoliticalcontextisintrinsicallylinkedtotheriseof theregions,whichareincreasinglycompetingwithininternational markets. Whatever meanings are attributed to the various configurations, scalar and administrative complexities are an accepted partof spatial planning. AsAmin puts it, planning is undertaken acrossa ‘‘topology marked by overlapping near-far relationsandorganisationalconnectionsthatarenotreducibleto scalar spaces’’(Amin,2002, p.386). Thenationalidentities and relativepositionsofthedifferentactorsarepartofthiscomplexity whetherlocal,regional,national,supra-national,globalorother scalarconfiguration.Mostquerieshavebeenaroundhowwider geographicareascanbespatiallycoherentorlegitimate( Waterh-out, 2008) as the locus of planning authorities. The ‘Localist’ manifestationofplanninginEngland(TSO,2011)istestamentto the wave of challenges around expanding scales of spatial planning, as it removed regional planning strategies and took instead the local scale as an intrinsically legitimate scale of strategy-making empowering a new neighbourhood scale of planningwithsomestatutorypowers.
Irrespectiveofthescaleofoperationofstrategy-makingthere aresomeepistemologicalimplicationsofmovingbeyondarational comprehensive approach (Healey, 1997b; Adams, 2008). From whathasalreadybeenestablished,spatialplansareexpectedto provideanoverarchingstrategicframeworkfordifferenttypesof policyandfunctions,bynetworksofactorsat‘appropriate’scales. AsJonesneatlydescribesit‘‘spaceisfrequentlybeingimaginedas a product of networks and relations, in contrast to an older topographyinwhichterritorialitywasdominant’’(Jones,2009). This suggests a highly dynamic field of contextual and social knowledge,whichiscontingentonwhereandwhenitissituated andwhoisinvolvedincreatingit(Upton,2012).Theplacesspatial planningseekstomanagearecontinuallymadeandre-made,and therefore cannot be understood through universal principles (Popper, 1963) experiment or theory testing. Spatial planning theoryrecognisesthisandemphasisesthatthereisnosinglestatic ‘BigAtom’,sayinge.g.‘‘theglobeweliveonwithitsman-made environment ruled by complex socio-cultural, economical, and political effects, are confronted withthe abilityof mankind to adaptitsbehaviourandtoinventnewtechnologies’’( Kohlschret-zenmayr,Keiner,&Nussbaumer,2004).Thehumanconstructionof placepresentsarelentlessstateofdisagreement,wherelearningis expected to happen and different voices should contribute to shared visions of space. Gunder and Hillier highlight this underlyingtensionsayingthatitstretchesplanningtothepoint whereitis‘everythingandnothing’(Gunder&Hillier,2009).For thepresentenquiry,itbringstwokeyareasofuncertainty.Firstly, thereisapotentiallyinfinitebasketofspatialknowledgesthatis expectedto somehow contribute to a spatial vision. Secondly, coalescenceinspatialplanningmightsomehowresolvemultiple knowledgesintoatypeofco-ownedknowledge.
Spatial planning needs to encompass knowledge that can interpolatebetweenmultiplecomplexinteractionswithin devel-opment.Togiveamorepracticaldemonstrationoftheknowledge sought for spatial planning, planners trying to understanding ‘urbansprawl’mustlookbeyond thesprawlitself andtowards associatedhuman values. Theyneed knowledgeof behavioural patternsandthechoicesassociatedwiththem(e.g.caruseand houselocation),aswellasanappreciationoftheunderlyingvalues andwhatmightaffectthem(Hopkins,2001).Valuesareseenas demonstratingthedeeperworkingsofcomplexsystemsofsociety andspace.Thisimpliesthatspatialplanningknowledgerelatesto theways in which development is embedded in human lives, ratherthanseeingdevelopmentasanentity.Flyvbjergbroaches this issue arguing for phronesis (the somewhat forgotten of Aristotle’sthreeintellectualvirtues),where‘‘practicalrationality andjudgmentevolveandoperateprimarilybyvirtueofdeep-going caseexperiences’’(Flyvbjerg,2001).Thisoffersanewapproachto planning knowledge based on a search for context-sensitive learning. In practical terms, the integrative aspects of spatial planningimplythattheknowledgerequiredforanyspatialplan willinvolveadiversegroupof‘stakeholders’andthatspatialplans shouldbecreatedwiththeparticipationofawidecommunityof interests.Itrequiresplannerstounpackthesocialmeaningbehind spatialpatterns,ratherthanthematerialvaluesassociatedwith site-specific,one-offdecisions.Thissuggeststhatspatialplanning mightbeanexusof‘sociallearning’aboutspace,andrequiresan investigationoflayparticipationinstrategicspatialplanning. 3. Chapter3
3.1. Socio-spatiallearningasaresearchapproach
As set out in Section 2 participatory and spatial planning theories both rely on the spatiality of knowledge and social learning. Where critiques centre on planning processes and
economicpowerimbalances,theimplicationsareonlydiscussed asformsofdominionoverknowledgesandthespatialpower of learningthroughparticipatoryprocessesarebracketedout.This unexplored aspectis referredtohere as‘socio-spatial learning’, drawingontheterm‘sociallearning’(asexplainedintheprevious chapter) and combining that with planning’s distinguishing epistemicfeature–aconcernforunderstandingspace. Collabora-tioninplanningtheoryhasprovidedthreefocusareas: communi-cative processes; dealing with conflict; and relative power positions of actors. Socio-spatial learning offers a fourth area, which is particularlyrelevant to communityengagement. Con-ceptsofsocial learningoverarch thenotion, whichrestson the relationalandcommunicativeaspectsofknowledgeestablishedby participatoryplanningandspatialplanning.Ittakesa relational approachtosocialorder,wheresocietyisunderstoodtobe‘plural’, andprocessesofplanningshouldbeopentovariedstakeholders.It is therefore proposed that socio-spatial learning occurs within spatialplanningnetworks–thosethatincludelocalcommunities inameaningfulway.Such‘non-tokenist’layparticipationinpolicy making is a means for spatial planners to learn but, more importantlyhere, it implies a productthat relates tospace. As such,knowledgeisafactorofcommunityempowerment,whenlay knowledgereworksplanningknowledgeinanarenaofconceptual learningaboutspaceinpublicparticipation.
Simplyput,‘socio-spatial learning’rests onthepremisethat spatial planning knowledge is reworked or reframed upon communityengagement.Thecurrentchallengeistoestablishits existence,andsoaconfigurationofnon-tokenistparticipationthat holdspromisefortheproductionofknowledgeforspatialplanning isprovidedhere.Sixareasareunderstoodfromparticipatoryand spatial planning theories. (1) Learning primarily concerns the (re)constitutionofvalueswithinagroup.Thereforeperspectives onmajorissues,suchasoverarchingpolicydirectionsorpolitically contestedchoices,arecriticalandchangesinoutlookmaysignal whenconceptuallearninghasoccurred.(2)Actorsandscalesare also a central pillar since the scalar nature of networks and individual actors will have a bearing on the communication. Additionallythespatialconfigurationofrelationshipsandactors’ scalar priorities will contain ‘spatial values’. (3) Community engagementisapointoffocus,andentailsparticipatoryprocess, artefactsandculture.(4)Planningevidencemaycompriseavariety of rationalities and approaches to establishing knowledge,and derivedirectlyfromstakeholders,andlocalcommunities.(5)The subjects of communicationbetween actorsor ‘shared planning subjects’mustbedistinguishedfromkeyplanningissuesormodes ofcommunication.Theyarethepracticalpointswhichspark or shapedialogueandenablecollaboration.Theymaybeliteralrather than symbolic but, if supported by a common language and communicativeartefacts,mayalsoconveyvaluesandthusenable sociallearning.(6)Finally,itisunderstoodthatarangeofpolicy domains may be involved and co-ordinated as components of spatial policy. Different perspectives on policy areas and their relationshipwithspatialpolicyarethereforethefinalelementof socio-spatiallearning.
Toexplorethesesixelements,giventheabstractandcontested natureofthesubjectmatter,this researchgroundstheworkin substantialempirics.Itusesanembeddedcasestudytoexplorethe existenceof thephenomenonthrougha detailedpicture ofthe dimensionsofsocio-spatiallearning.Acasestudywaspurposively selected that could give a full picture of the phenomenon of interest.Thismethodissaidtoenableexplorationofa phenome-non,withdetailedandlayereddata(e.g.Yin,2009).Proximityto thecasewascriticalasparticipantobservationwouldallowfor in-depth,insituobservation.However,forthisstudyanembedded positionwouldprovidetheessentialperspectivefromwithinthe communityofpractice.Framesofactorswouldbetacitandonly
broughttolightthroughpersonalexperienceofthelivedcontextof theirpractice.Likewise,inordertobeawareoflearningit was necessarytobepartof it,rather thanpassivelyobserving itor scrutinisingmaterialsfromadistance.Byexperiencingthecontext directly it is possible to more accurately interpret references withincasematerials.
Acompleteandpotentiallysuccessfulprogrammeofworkwas neededwith someform ofdialogue between plannersand lay participants.Thesamplingcriteriathusincludedcoverageofallsix partsofthesocio-spatialconceptualframeworkandfeasibilityin terms of timing and location and access for embedding. Other potential cases included English core strategies and ‘visioning’ processesintheLondonBoroughsofTowerHamletsandEaling,as wellasChelmsford,andtherevisionoftheNationalConceptPlan ofSingapore,1buttheNorthNorthamptonshirecasewasselected asthebestfittothesamplingcriteriaandsinceitofferedamore spatiallycomplexinstanceofplanning(seebelow)andpotentially the richest seam of data. Embedding involved attending and contributingtodebates,eventsandmeetings.Theresearcherwas buildingdatathatincludedplanningandparticipationmaterials together with embedded field notes and records of personal reflections.
Whilethistypeofpersonallyinvolvedresearchpositionallows ‘wholeperson’investigationhasitmethodologicalchallenges.It challengesorthodoxiesofsubjectivity(Kouritzinetal.,2009)and embracestheimpossibilityoffullobjectivity,insteadaimingfor maximum accuracy through rigour in process with added validationthroughtriangulationofsources.Inordertoovercome potential subjectivity, triangulation was recommended (e.g.
Hakim,1987)andachievedthrough theuseof multiple,varied datasourcesasfollows.Allcaseinteractionswererecorded,every iterationofdraftingwasbroughtintothedataset;andalldatawas recordedinmultiplewaysthroughtheresearcher’sworkingnotes, field notes, photographs, videos. A variety of perspectives was ensuredwithinthisasdatagatheredincludedplanningmaterials notes,recordedmeetings,workingconversationsandreflectionsin emailsproducedbyothersfromwithintheauthorityandoutside ofit,andconversationsandreflectionsfromthecommunityactors, and community organisers. Qualitative software (Atlas-TI) was usedtomanage,trackandcatalogueallthematerial,subjecting eachdayofworktopost-fieldworkreflections.Eachstageofdata wasanalysedagainsttheconceptualframework,andreducedto producethefindings,whicharepublishedforthefirsttimehere withthehopeofon-goingdeliberationaspartoftheinvestigation. The case selected was theReview of the 2008Core Spatial StrategyforNorthNorthamptonshire,whichsetoutthedirection ofdevelopmentandistheprimarystatutoryplanningdocument forthearea.The2008‘corestrategy’wasastrategicspatialplan and covered the period up to 2021. It would guide the more detailed policies of four contiguous local authority areas in Northamptonshire,England;theBoroughCouncilsareasofCorby, East Northamptonshire, Kettering, and Wellingborough (see
Fig. 1). In practical terms, the embedded case comprised the review work between mid-2009 and mid-2011 and the public participation in that. A cross-borough planning authority, the NorthNorthamptonshireJointPlanningUnit(JPU),wasestablished in 2004 to re-develop the strategic vision for North North-amptonshire.Thesub-regionofNorthamptonshireislocatedatthe centreofsomeofEngland’smajortransportlinks.In2009when thereviewbegan,thecorestrategywasrequiredtobeinlinewith theRegionalSpatialStrategyforthewiderregion,i.e.the‘Milton
Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy’. While a furtherversionofthecorestrategyhasbeenpublishedforfurther consultation(www.nnjpu.org.uk),therearemultipleotherfactors initsproduction,thusitisthecommunicativeactionwithinthe participatoryencountersthatprovidesinsightintolearningwith communitiesandlayknowledge.
Thefollowingchaptersexamineseparatestagesofthereview (showninFig.2),todistinguishtheaspectsoflearningwithand withoutthepublic.Atthefirststage,‘settingupthereview’from MaytoJune2009,thebasicpremisesandconditionsofthereview wereestablished.Thesecondstage,‘learningwithcollaborators’ fromJuly2009toMarch2010,precedescommunityengagement andcoverstheintensivecollaborativeworkofprofessionalswho werereviewing thecore strategy. Themostcritical partof the researchwasthethirdstage,fromApril2010toJune2011,where there was substantial direct face-to-face, planner-community dialogue as partof theNorth Northamptonshire Core Strategy Review. The following chapter very briefly summarises the developmentoftheplanningknowledgebaseforthecorestrategy review(Stages1and2)togiveapointofcomparisonforlearning withcommunities,thenaddressesthepublicparticipation(Stage 3)toexaminethelearningeffectsoflayknowledge.
4. Chapter4
4.1. Introductiontothecase
Knowledge is seen as a factor of empowerment within participatoryplanning,whethercollaborativeplanningorpublic participation and, as set out in the preceding chapters, this assumesthatlayknowledgecanreworkplanningknowledge.The casestudyproducedarichseamofdatagivinginsightintolocal knowledge, planning knowledge and the dynamics of social learning when communities participated in deliberations on spatialplanningin theirsub-region.Asrelatedin thefollowing sections, learning with communities and with professional collaborators was examined for lessons around reframing and knowledgeproduction.AcrosstheperiodofreviewfortheNorth NorthamptonshireCoreStrategy,whichincludedsignificantpublic engagementexerciseswiththreeseparate‘stages’.Thefirsttwo, both precedingcommunity engagement,arepresentedtogether andprovideapointofcomparisonforthepublicparticipation,as follows.
4.2. Learningwithincollaborativeplanning 4.2.1. Contextanddata
The Review of the 2008 Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshireaimedtorevisea20-yearspatialstrategy for thecontiguouslocalauthorityareasoffourboroughsinEngland. Theresearchcasecomprisesallofthereviewworkbetween mid-2009 and mid-2011. During those two years several intensive periodsofplanningactivitieswereorganisedbyacross-borough planning authority called the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (JPU),centring on Collaborative Workshopswith professionalstakeholdersandadvisers.Animportantparticularity ofthiscaseistheprevailingcultureofcommunityengagementin North Northamptonshire. However, the exact premises for community engagement were evolving and preparatory work wasunderway.Thissectionconsiderstheprofessional collabora-torsandcommunitiesareexaminedinthenextsection.
Theprofessionalcollaboratorsinvolvedduringthereviewwere asfollows.TheJPUor‘jointplanningunit’comprisedtheplanners whoworkedonapermanentbasisonallaspectsofproducinga corestrategyforNorthNorthamptonshire.Togethertheyformed thecoreactorandnexusofdailyworkonthereview.TheCouncil 1
ThemajorrevisionoftheNationalConceptPlanatthetimewasseekingpublic deliberationthroughincreasedfocusgroupsandfeedbacksessions,butintheevent theseofferedlowlevelsofface-to-facetimeandtheextremelytightlymanaged processdidnotallowforsufficientembedding.
Membersrepresentedthelocalboroughsaselectedmembersfrom local authorities and Northamptonshire. They would provide fundingandsupporttotheJPU,sitonthereviewsteeringgroup andactasthedecisionmakingcommittee.TheJPUandCouncil Members were joined by Technical Stakeholders, who were representatives of local and regional bodies, including public, privateandthirdsectororganisationsaswellascouncils.These peoplewouldparticipatein technicalexercisesandhelp source data.AdvisoryCollaboratorsfromregionalandnational organisa-tionsalsotookpartinthetechnicalexercisesanddecision-making committees.TheywouldworkverycloselywiththeJPUtoprovide independentadvicethroughoutthereviewandoccasionallyalso technical assistance. External Influences is the final group
considered here, and comprises central government, and those inthenationalprofessionalplanningorganisationsandregional media.Theirrepresentationsonplanningingeneralandspecific plansforthelocalareafedintothereview.
BetweenJuly2009andMarch2010,thereweretwoworkshops. Collaboratorsfocusedonthestrategicissuesforthesub-regionin the first workshop, and considered the spatial options in the second.Theplannerswereworkingtowardscommunity engage-ment,whichwouldbeconductedinearly2011.Thepurposeofthis exercise wasexplicitly for theplanners tolearn togetherwith policystakeholdersanditformedpartofthereviewofthecore strategy. This was a period of intensive collaborative work of professionals who were reviewing the core strategy, and the Fig.1.TheNorthamptonshireregion,andlocalauthoritieswithinit.ContainsOrdnanceSurveydataßCrowncopyrightanddatabaseright
Ma
y
-Jun
2009
STAGE1Sengup thereview - corestrategy 2008 -briefing for contractors -reviewtermsof referenceJul
'09
-Mar
'10
STAGE2Learningwithprofessional collaborators -2workshops -workshop evidence bases
-workshopreports
Apr
'10
-Jun
'11
STAGE3Learning throughpublic engagement -issuesconsultaon report -public roadshow -onlinequesonnaireembeddedpositionoftheresearcherallowedtheprocessestobe verycloselyobserved.Thefollowinganalysisofthatdataprovides a point of comparison for learning with local communities. It focusesonthelearningcontextandpullsouthowplannersand others learned as well as difficulties experienced in moving towardsanewstrategy.Whileotheranalyseshaveacentralfocus onthesubstantiveissuesheretheyareconsideredasonefactorin learningforspatialplanning.
4.2.2. Learningwithprofessionalcollaborators
The planners and their collaborators were interacting in a particular thecontext, thecontext of thecore strategy review. Generatingnewideaswascriticalinachieving‘review’ratherthan reproducing the old strategy and for that reason the constant nurturing ofdifferent collaborationswas a highpriority. Colla-boratorshad different meansof producing and communicating ideas,soembeddingnewknowledge,gettingittotakeroot,was important.Through jointworking, strategy wouldbeproduced, butalsobriefsforfurthercollaborations.
A type of knowledge culture existed where relationships provided a basis for shared learning. Physical presence was importantforrelationshipbuilding,butknowledgealsoneededto be framed as relevant to regional strategy. For instance the ‘localisation’optioncame toanimpasseandwasinterpretedas ‘fragmenting’.Discussionsattemptedtobuildtheideasbehindthe agenda of ‘localism’into thegroup thinking and there was no representativeofthatpolicytodeliberateorhelpframeitforthe group.Bycontrastotherpolicieswereexplicitlybroughtintothe conversationsandmappedoutinideasmaps(seeFig.3)tohelp articulatethemasapotentialstrategyfortheregion.
Therelationalconstructionofknowledgefuelleda streamof meetingsandthenotionofsharingknowledgeunderpinnedthe multipleworkshops.Italsostrengthenedthebriefforoutreachto thelocal‘NorthNorthamptonshirecommunity’asacollaborator. Familiaritywiththesub-regionofNorth Northamptonshirewas
criticalfortheplanningworkbut‘localgeneralknowledge’was alsoimportantasameanstorelationshipbuilding.Whileprocess knowledge brought people into the task at hand and analytic devicesdissectedrelationshipslocalknowledgebroughtwarmth andasenseofauthenticityandcommitmenttointeractions.This was about knowing thearea ‘as a local resident’, or a general qualitative appreciationoflife inthearea andwhat itwaslike ‘fromtheinside’.Ittouchedon explicitpracticaldetailssuchas inconveniencesindailyroutinessuchastrafficpinchpointsthat caused congestion, and involved fluencyin ‘hot’ topics suchas conspicuousbuildingsinasettlement.Thecollaborators empha-sisedintheir workthattheyneededtounderstand the‘‘locally specific issues that need to be addressed as critical to that community’’ (Team Outcomes Report Options Development Workshop, 2009, p. 3). They established relationships through local general knowledge and technical knowledge, and they bonded through a common modus operandi. Local general knowledge evoked lay knowledge prior to formal community engagementanddistinguishedpotential‘outsiders’,i.e.a-scalaror operatingattoo‘high’ascale.
Therewas,however,atensionbetweenrelatingtothewhole area and to local areas. Different goals were associated with different scales, for example local interests or sub-regional agendas. Local authority collaborators had particular difficulty and demonstratedconflictingaffiliations.Inprincipletheywere workingonasub-regionalprojectwhentheywereinvolvedinthe review but were alsothinking about potentialexternalities for their localities. For example, when discussing the merits and demeritsofgrowthinthesub-regiontheirargumentsfrequently centredonadiscourseof‘‘falsegrowth’’(ResearcherFieldNotes, Workshop123–25September2009),whichrelatedtothenature of growth withinlocal areas and the validity of the drivers of growthmoregenerally.Thescaleofinstitutionaloperationsdid notnecessarilydeterminethescaleoftheirmembers’insight,and by the second workshops planners and collaborators stopped Fig.3.IdeasmapforWellingborough,draftproducedbyAlanBaxterLtd.ßCrownCopyrightanddatabaseright2015,OrdnanceSurvey0100055322
fulfillingtheir scalar roles. Local actors saw national and sub-regionalsynergies,and regionalandnational actorshighlighted localimpacts.Regionalactorswouldreferenceissuesforthewider than sub-regional area. For example, funding was seen in conceptual terms of ‘supply and demand’ and as part of the generaleraof‘‘difficulttimesaheadwithfunding30–40%cutin budgets’’(ReviewTeamRecordofOptionsDevelopmentWorkshop 2, 2010, p. 2). Collaborators were effectively disassociating themselves with the scalar identity of their institutions, and presentingaspartnerstotheJPU,inordertolearn togetherfor strategy.
Turning totheperceivedrole ofthecommunity, thereview processwasconceivedinpartasameanstoimprovedcommunity engagement,whichwouldtrytobridgeagapbetweenthecore strategyandlocalresidents.TheJPUcontinuedtoassertthatinfact the‘‘technicalworkshopswouldbepartofawiderprocessoflocal engagement’’ (Review Team Outcomes Report Place Shaping Workshop,p.3).Morepracticallythereviewteamhadspecified fromthestartthat‘‘workshop1outputneedstobesetofquestions toaskwidercommunity’’(ResearcherFieldNotes,SteeringGroup MeetingJuly2009,p.2).Itappearedatfirstthatthereviewteam werehopingtogleanspecific,almosttechnical,informationfrom thecommunity.Indeed,communityengagementoperationswere initiallydeterminedbyconsideringthepertinentquestions and possiblepublic reactions to particular policy directions. Actors madereferencetopubliccommentsfrompreviouscorestrategy consultation and recounted anecdotes from other studies to substantiatethosepoints.Asthecollaborativegroup conceptua-lisedit,theworkwouldconsiderthelikely‘‘communityeffects’’ (researchernotes,passim)ofthestrategy onresidents ofNorth Northamptonshire.Understanding theseimpacts wasseen as a waytolearnthe‘real’valueofstrategy.
Inpreparationforthereview,therewereideasaboutimportant cohortsofthecommunity.Peoplewereencouragedto‘gettheir agendasonthetable’,whichmeantbeingclearandopenabout issuesofthepeopletheyrepresented.Electedrepresentativesfor eachofthefourlocalauthoritydistrictsattendedtheworkshops and made strong statements about their constituents’ views. Developing an understanding of the relevant community was difficultasitwasanotionalfuturepopulation.Inconstructinga visionofthetheoreticalcommunitythepolicywouldserve,they mainlylookedatthepresentstructureofthepopulation.Factsand statistics were disseminated, and visually represented. For instance,thevarietyof thesizesofsettlements wasconsidered important,as‘‘settlementpopulationsrangefrom20to9000’’in the rural areas (Review Team Outcomes Report Place Shaping Workshop2009,p.14).Evenprojectionsofthefuturepopulation sizewereprimarilyderivedfromthepresenttrends.Conversations andothermoreinformalfeedbackfromworkshopexercisesalso informedthepicturethatwasemerging. Workshopdiscussions frequently, involuntarily turned to discussing communities. Information about local people’s ‘lifestyles’ and ‘what the communitywants’werepointsofgreatinterest.Manyanecdotes fromlocalprofessionalandpersonalexperienceswereshared. 4.2.3. Learningforspatialplanning
Here weconsidertheinputfromcollaboratorstoreworkthe corestrategyduringtheworkshops.Theinitialaimwastoidentify themostimportantissuesandpotentialdirectionsofchangefor NorthNorthamptonshireat thefirstworkshop,whichwasheld overthreedaysinSeptember2009attheHolidayInninCorby. Outputfromthis‘UnderstandingPlaces’workshopwasreported formallyasaseriesofissuestotakeforwardtothesecond‘Place Shaping’ workshop, another three-day workshop, held at the HolidayInn,KetteringinMarch2010.FromOctober2009onwards theJPUwastryingtodefinepossibleelementsof‘spatialoptions’.
Thesewouldbedrawntogetherintosub-regionalscenariosand fleshedoutwithsubstantialdetail.Fourskeletonoptionsbuiltat thefirstworkshopwereputforwardforconsiderationandusedto producemoredetaileddraftoptionsatthesecondworkshop.A furthertwooptionsemergedduringthesecondworkshop.Atthe endoftheworkshops,fourofthesixoptionswereselected.These wouldbetakenforwardand furtherreworkedwithcommunity input.
4.2.3.1. Subject matter. The core strategy is a highly wrought document,whichcoversmanycross-cuttingissuesandprovidesa setofseventeenpoliciesbuiltaroundthem(Fig.4).Thesepolicies giveinsightastosevensharedplanningsubjectsthatmanifested themselves in the policy thinking, as follows. The first shared planning subject was ‘economic prosperity’, and in the core strategythiswasmostlyconnectedwithincreasingtheprovision oflocalemploymentandcapitalisingonnaturalassets.Thiswas saidtobeimportantinviewofthegrowthtargets,whichimplieda largerthan naturalincrease in thesizeof thelocalpopulation. Large amounts of out-commuting might turn the area into a dormitorytown,relyingonexternalprosperitywithlower ‘self-sufficiency’andeconomicprosperitythereforeinvolved facilitat-ingavibrant,mixedjobofferwithinthesub-regionitself.Thecore strategymadelandavailable for‘highervalue’sectorsandtook particularnoteofthecategoriesB1(offices),B2(manufacturing) andB8(warehousinganddistribution),andencouragedlocalskill development.
Thesecondsubjectof‘viableurbancentres’guidedmuchofthe strategywiththeaimofsub-regionalcoherenceandthatthe sub-regioncouldcompeteinthewiderregionforbusinessandretail investment.Developmentwasthereforetobe directedtowards havingthreewell-functioningandattractivecoretownswithgood urbanfabricandhighlevelsofservices,thatdidn’tunderminebut complimentedeachother.Anotherassociatedissuewascreatinga ‘strongnetworkofurbancentres’todisperseurbandevelopment acrossthecoretowns.
Thethirdsubjectwas‘improvedconnectivity’,internallyand externallytoNorthNorthamptonshire.Thepatternofsettlements andconnectionsbetweenthemwascriticaltoachievingtheaims of promoting a strong internal market of jobs and sufficient services for an increased population. The sustainability of the currentroadnetworkwasthereforeanimportantassociatedissue andtherewastobeanincreasedchoiceoftypesoftransportto servicesandjobs.Investmentwasneededinlocalpassengerrail
Policies in the Core Spaal Strategy, 2008
Policy 1 Strengthening the Network of Selements
Policy 2 Connecng North Northamptonshire with Surrounding Areas Policy 3 Connecng the Urban Core
Policy 4 Enhancing Local Connecons Policy 5 Green Infrastructure
Policy 6 Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contribuons Policy 7 Delivering Housing
Policy 8 Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 Distribuon & Locaon of Development Policy 10 Distribuon of Housing
Policy 11 Distribuon of Jobs
Policy 12 Distribuon of Retail Development Policy 13 General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construcon Policy 15 Sustainable Housing Provision
Policy16 Sustainable Urban Extensions Policy 17 Gypsies and Travellers
androadroutesandin widerones,whichcouldnotbedirectly tackledbythestrategy.
‘Ensuringadequatehousing’wasthefourthplanningsubject. Adequate housinginvolved greater numbersand sustainability, which meant a mix of types, sizes and tenures, including the provisionof‘lifetimehomes’,goodarchitecturalandurbandesign, andenergyefficiency.Affordabilitywasalsoanissue,especiallyin rural areas. The strategy would encourage the upgrading of housing stock and allow self-build opportunities, as well as promoting ‘appropriate densities’. Housing distribution would follow the pattern of any increase in prosperity, with most developmentinthelargersettlements.
Fifthly, ‘green infrastructure’ was an important planning subjectin itself. Theidea wastomaintain a networkof public and privately owned environmental assets. The strategy also supported the green-link role of sub-regional corridors and promotedtheuseofopenspacesforleisureandothersocialuses. The sixth planning subject was ‘improved infrastructure’. Increasedpopulationand activitiesrequiredextrainfrastructure andservices.Therewasaverywidedefinitionof‘infrastructure issues’.‘Local infrastructure’includedutilities,publicamenities, open space, public transport and affordable housing, while ‘strategic infrastructure’ includedwider transport, higherorder communityfacilitiesandutilities(i.e.hospitalsratherthanclinics, highereducationratherthan schoolsetc.), aswellastransport, economicdevelopmentandgreeninfrastructure.Social infrastruc-turewouldalsoneedtobeprovidedalongthesamephasingas otherdevelopmentssuchasjobsandhomes.
Climate change and its associated energy considerations constituted the final shared planning subject ‘climate change and energy’. ‘Sustainability rhetoric’ expanded to community needs but the main definition of sustainability was distinctly ‘Brundtland’,i.e.notcompromisingfuturegenerations.Renewable sources of energy would beencouraged particularlywithlocal supply, recycling provisions were specified, and eco-building assessment levels wereraised.2 Housing and transport policies
werelargelyinfluencedbythese.A‘modalshift’awayfromcars andencouragingsustainablemodesoftransportweregivenalotof emphasis.Inthesamevein,havingmuchofthenewbuildhousing in Sustainable Urban Extensions would allow environmental constructionstandardstobecontrolled.
The seven planning subjects described above were clearly associatedwithcontemporarychallengesandthepolicyobjectives theyimplied.No objective wassetin stone, and each decision would becontingent on current stateof affairs, suchas policy contextandeconomicclimate.Thecollaboratorswouldneedto re-adjusttheirfocusovertheperiodofthecore strategyreviewas theyconsideredthecurrentissues.Eachoftheseplanningsubjects overlaidanotherandanychangewouldneedtomakesenseacross themall.
4.2.3.2. Policydomains. Inparticipatory theories,planningspans manydifferentdomains,whichfeedintoa‘holistic’spatialpolicy. Intheworkshops,thedomainsappeartocontainstronginternal ‘drivinglogics’suchashealth promotionoreconomic progress. Theirpurposeswerenotdirectlylinkedtospatialconsiderations buttheinternallogicofthosedomainscouldserveasjustification inspatial discussionsmore easilythanthose ofotherdomains. Mostpolicydomains (employment,economy,ecology, environ-ment,heritage,health,housing,industry,etc.)affectedplanners’ thinkingabouttheuseofspaceandphysicalresources,andsome evenbecamepartofspatialpolicy.Culture,healthandtransport fedeasilyintoafewotherpolicyareasprovidingnewideasandor
spatial insight to an issue. By contrast environmental and economic domains were very broad, touching on most issues and dominatingtheoverallapproachtostrategy. Theeconomic domain tendedto divert fromphysical spatiality. The environ-mentaldomainwasfrequentlyreferencedinordertoaddweightto ideasemanatingfromotherdomains.Thesedomainsoverlapped and thus knowledge was introduced from one domain into another, although theoverlaps tendedtorequire moreexplicit explanation in order to be useful in strategy-making. The environmental and economic domains provided knowledge for eachoptionbeingbuilt.However,thisdidnotnecessarilyhelpthe groupunderstandthevalueofanoptiontothesub-region,onlyas arelativetradeoffforlocalauthorityareasorenvironmentalgoal. Plannersandtheircollaboratorsusedabstractedterminologies fromdifferentpolicydomains,andabstractedconceptualviewsof space. In these situations, terminologies lost the contextual knowledge that would normallyaccompany them withintheir originatingpolicydomains.So,forexampletransportknowledge directedthinkingtowardslargestructuralissuesand conceptua-lised patterns. These were lacking policy detail from the originatingdomainanddidnotincludeasenseoflivedexperience. Knowledgeoflocalvalueshelpedtosubstantiatediscussionsand knowledgeof localexperience helped todebatetheimpacts of policy. To continue with the example of transport, ‘choice of transport’ indicated provision of different multiple types of transport,rather thanadetailedlookatthenatureof transport choices,suchastheroutestakenbypassengers.Theabstracted discussionsweresometimesmademoreconcrete.Agoodexample wasthediscussionofthebusinesslogisticscorridorsalongtheA14 andA45.Theseroutesprovidedanopportunityforthestrategic distribution industry,which wasgrowing in thesub-region.As discussedearlierthestrategicdistributionindustrywasamajor issue and therefore associated with jobs potential and local concernsabouttheaestheticsofwarehousing.Itcouldnotsimply beseenasatransportnetworkbuthadtobeunderstoodasa‘lived space’withhistoricalandlocallayersofmeaning.
4.2.3.3. Evidence. Thestartingpointforplanningevidencewasthe information used to explain the policies in the adopted core strategy.Thiscameinmanyforms,suchasstatisticalinformation, models, maps, targets, opinions, advisory statements, guidance and even general information such as train timetables. Spatial policiescitedvarioussourcesfortheevidence,including:central government policy and guidance documents; advice and maps fromotherauthorities;dataprojectionsandscenariomodelling;as wellasdatasetsandresearchfindings.Thecorestrategyhadtofit with other strategies, mainly nationally determined regional targets in the Regional Spatial Strategies and local strategies’ prioritiesandsothesewereprominent.Italsodrewonmultiple datasets,whichgavemoreopportunityforrelatingtocollaborators butalsohadserioustechnicallimitations.Itcreatedavarietyof data formats within subject matter, which required multiple computationsinordertobeapplicabletothecorestrategy.For example,regionalgrowthtargetsforthearea fromthe govern-ment’sregionalstrategyweregiven inhouseholdsize,whereas demographicmodellingfromNorthamptonCountyCouncilgave estimates (Northamptonshire Demographic Model v2.0: 2004-based Population Projections 2006) of what the target would probably mean for population figures and settlement patterns. Suchdataissuesresultedingapsinunderstandingforsomeofthe mostcentralconcerns.The‘housing-jobsbalance’wasparticularly problematic, as the core strategy notes; ‘‘monitoring this relationship is complicated, not least because of the poor availabilityofrelevantdata’’(NNJPUCoreStrategy2008,p.74). Workingtogetherforajointevidencebasewouldbealargepartof thereviewwork.
2
BREEAMratingofatleast‘verygood’fornon-residentialandCHScodelevels from4upwardsforresidential.
Inthecollaborativeworkshopsformalisedknowledge contin-uedtobeimportanttostrategybuilding.Evidencewasinitially conceived as ‘all forms of documented proof’, that could establisheda jointrationale.Thisevidence-basedjointrationale is where the collaborative group shared a position and is characterisedasbeingbuiltonknowledgethatwassub-regionally relevant,explicitand systematised.Thereviewteam’s‘‘storeof knowledge’’,toborrowHealey’sterm(Healey,1997a),wasmade availablethrough:asetofbriefingnotesonpreviousworkthathad beencreated by collaborators; ideas maps from thefour local authoritiesprominentlydisplayingareasofinterestfordifferent types of development in their areas; and various other sub-regionaldataandmapsatan‘informationcorner’.Suchharddata i.e.factsandfigures,wereusefulbutneverontheirown;andsofter datasuchaspoliciesandadvicewereneededtointerpretcodified information and build scenarios. ‘Softer’data such as example policiesordescriptiveaccountsforinstanceofearlierdevelopment experiences were considered useful evidence that a course of actionmightbeworthwhile.Forexample,‘evidence’oftransport optionsdrewonideasabouttheend-userexperiences,orwhere rapid train systems and comprehensive ticketing could be effective.Implicitknowledgewasalwaysmadespatiallyexplicit withmapsandthesevisualmaterialswerehelpfulindiscussing theimpactsofdifferentstrategiesForinstance,focusing develop-mentononearea,eithernorthorsouthNorthNorthamptonshire, positive and negative aspects of changes were enlarged and thereforemoreobvious.Forexample,thepotentialagglomeration and loss of rural space stood out more vividly. The implicit experientialformsofknowledgewereabsent(Fig.5).
4.2.3.4. Major issues.Major issues signify points of conflict betweenactors.Theyincludethestatedgoalsofthereview,and otherhighprofileorpoliticalissues.Assuch,thesemajorissues were deeply important to the key actors; they could produce controversialoutcomes and had thepotential to dominate the planningagenda.Thesecouldcausepoliticaldifficultiesamongst thecollaboratorsandtheywerewellembeddedwithinthecore strategy,albeitimplicitly.Fivemajorissueswereopenedupfor debateanddeliberationwithprofessionalcollaborators:growth; agglomeration;warehousing;greenliving;andself-sufficiency.
Thecollaboratorswereineffectdiscussingtheiraspirationsfor the area and bringing their own specialist knowledge and perspectives tobear on thethinking oftheplanners. However, thereweresomeareaswherestronglyrootedvaluesweremore importantwhichisdemonstratedinthedevelopmentofthegreen agenda. There were difficultiesin understanding how to oper-ationalisea‘modalshift’fromcarsto‘greener’transportoptions
andsomedoubtswereraisedaboutwhetheran‘eco-town’wasa realistic option. Collaborators asserted that the new financial commitments, behavioural change and infrastructure work required were too onerous. This gave rise to some hesitations aroundthegreenlivingagenda,whichwasstillfrequentlyreferred to as an ‘aspiration’, however it seemed that thelow level of operational knowledgewas overcome by the traction of green values.Eveninthemosthighimpactscenariotheystillplacedthe ‘‘emphasison areastoprotect’’(ReviewTeam OutcomesReport OptionsDevelopmentWorkshop2010,p.38).
Thecollaboratorsinsistedthattheir decisionswere indepen-dentofexternalpoliticalmotivationsortargets.Inretrospect,the growthtargetswereabouttoberemovedbythenew Conserva-tive-Liberal Democrat coalition government, but the planners made no such assumption. Instead they were attempting to understandthedifferentscenariosthatwouldbeusefultospatial coordination acrosstheboroughswhatevertheeventualfuture planningsystem.Thisestablishedtheideathattheywerelearning aboutwhatlevelof growthwould beinternallyorcontextually ‘rational’. In fact the discussions touched on relational and technicalaspects,producinganattitudeof‘contextualrationality’ that helpedbuildtrust betweenthecollaborators andcommon groundfortheirdiscussions.
Further learning was a key theme in the conversations particularlyaround growth.Hesitationin expressing a viewon theoptionwasoftenexpressedas‘needingmoredata’forbetter confidence.EvenwithinthesmallerruralandLAworkshopsthe participantsfeltthatfinergranularitywasneeded,andknowledge ofrelationshipsatthesmallerscalewouldbeneededforadecision. For exampletheysaid that moreworkwould benecessary‘‘in order to understand which villages may form‘clusters’ and to informabottomuppictureofdemand’’(ReviewTeamKettering VisioningSessionReport2010,p.9).Thistypeofdebatewasleft hanginganddidnothelptoclarifytheoptions.
4.3. Learningwithcommunities 4.3.1. Contextanddata
Embedded researchinvolved theresearcher working within publicdeliberations.Soonaftertheinstallationofthenewcoalition government,theJointPlanningUnit(JPU)beganpreparationfor communityengagementfocusedonissuesandpossibledirections foroptions.Thedataprovidedatthisstagecontinuedtoinclude diversematerialsfromworkingdocumentationfromtheplanning teamand reflectivefield records, butnow alsotherecordsand notes of the deliberative encounters. All quotations from the communityaretakenfromtheresearcher’sownfieldnotes,and have been anonymised by removing potential identifiers and occasionallyexcludingreferencestothevenueofparticipation.It shouldbenotedhoweverthatallrespondentswereverypositive aboutengaginginthework,andgaveverbalconsenttohavetheir commentsrecorded.
Themainstrandofcommunityengagementwasa‘RoadShow’ heldacrossthesub-regionatatravellingstallmannedbytheJPU Representatives and designed for all membersof the publicto participate.Initialworktargetingyoungerpeoplehad identified ‘nextgenerationissues’andthesewerealsofedintotheroadshow. An‘Issues Report’and a setof questions wereused in various formatsandavailableonline.Peopleattheroadshowhadtheir feedback recorded on the stall posters to stimulate further discussionsandtherewasa‘postcardsfromthefuture competi-tion’forchildren.
Theresearchusedthegeographicalspreadoftheparticipative workasaproxyforspatialdiversity.Thecommunityengagement activitiessoughttoreach publicparticipantsfromtowns where developmentwasproposed,markettowns,andcentresthatserved