1

2

36

910

Introduction What is collaborative planning?

What is a wicked problem?The argument for collaborative planning

The argument against collaborative planningConclusionReferences

2012

paul melenhorst

CollaborativePlanning and Wicked Problems

2

Collaborative Planning and Wicked Problems

Paul Melenhorst

The intersection of collaborative planning with wicked planning problems has seen success in areas such as resource and environmental management whilst less success in dealing with complex problems such as climate change and urban transportation. This paper considers the capacity for collaborative planning to address these problems and the reasons for apparent failure to achieve outcomes in some areas.

Collaborative planning, public participation, democratic decision-making* are all founded on the premise that those who are impacted by planning decision-making are entitled to engage in these processes in an informed and sustainable way.

The International Association for Public Participation defines collaborative planning as:

This paper investigates the application of collaborative planning approaches to the management of wicked problems. The study investigates definitions and applications of collaborative planning in the context of sustainability, as well as the salient features of a wicked problem. Arguments both for and against the management of wicked problems through collaborative planning are discussed. And finally, this paper mentions possible hybridized strategies that utilize collaborative approaches with rationalist synoptic planning typologies.

INTRODUCTION WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE PLANNING?

3

‘based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.’ (IAP2, 2012)

This is now a mainstream approach to addressing issues of sustainability and the planning literature makes frequent reference to the capacity of collaborative planning approaches to deal with complex problems. Healey (1992, 143) notes the value of democratic processes in ‘promoting social justice and environmental sustainability’. Weber & Khademian (2008, 334) refer to ‘networks’ and ‘network analysis’ as being a ‘flexible, efficient and innovative’ method in addressing complex problems. Watson and Floyd (2004, 4.10-1) describe community planning as ‘making democracy work’ in the ‘airing of views, possibilities and visions that can frame the terms to catalyze community-wide commitment’.

And as well as academic support, there is widespread professional advocacy for collaborative strategies. The American Institute of Architects (AIA, 2004, 1) emphasizes the significance of ‘results-driven community design programs based on the principles of interdisciplinary solutions, objectivity, and public participation’.

This collaboration may manifests as public comment, focus groups, surveys, public meetings, workshops, committees, participatory decision-making, citizen juries

(PIA, 2011, 4), design charettes, and direct collaboration between experts and the public, e.g. Urban Community Assistance Teams (UCAT) (MIT, 2001), and Regional/Urban Design Assistance Teams (R/UDAT) (AIA, 2004) .

And the collaboration may also differ in degree of participation, Watson and Floyd (2004) describe community collaboration as a ‘ladder of involvement’ (see figure 1), with the bottom rungs being low to modest involvement, ascending to the top rungs of high involvement.

What is similar with these approaches and where they intersect is in the belief that collaborative processes enable outcomes, particularly in dealing with ‘wicked problems’ that could not be achieved individually (Powell, 1998).

In order to understand the capacity of collaborative planning to address such problems, we must deconstruct what is a ‘wicked problem’.

WHAT IS A WICKED PROBLEM?

The term ‘wicked problem’ was first defined by Rittel and Webber in Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. In this paper they described a subset of problems that were not ‘definable, understandable and consensual’ – not ‘tame’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973, 156). These they called ‘wicked’. Whilst not wicked in the sense

4

of being evil, these multi-faceted, convoluted, chaotic problems could be so described because they were ‘so difficult to deal with that one is tempted to suspect that evil forces are at work to prevent solutions’ (Cullingworth and Cave, 2003, 410).

Wicked problems do not typically respond to rationalist, analytical expertise, as they display characteristics that are not only complex (‘tame’ problems can also be complex), but amorphous, changing and difficult to define (APSC, 2007, 3). Specifically, wicked problem exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Balint, et al. 2006)

Wicked problems are unstructured. These problems are slippery, having no central authority, legislation or jurisdiction that can be applied (e.g. social inequity).

Wicked problems are nebulous. Many wicked problem overlap with other related problems and inputs into one aspect of the problem will trigger consequences to related problems (e.g. using resources in national parks)

Wicked problems have no ultimate solution. Because the problem transmogrifies, it can never be solved (e.g. lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, some cancers, mental health issues)

Above Fig 1: This adaption of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation outlines how community stakeholders can take part in the planning process and their involvement in decision-making.Paul Melenhorst

5

Wicked problems are persistent. Because wicked problems cannot be definitively solved, they linger (e.g. commuting and road congestion).

Wicked problems are unique. The complex combination of factors makes each wicked problem idiosyncratic. Because of this, there is no chance to apply previous case studies or

prior outcomes for managing wicked problems (e.g. peak oil)

And finally, wicked problems make planners look incompetent (or more incompetent!). Because of the above issues, they do not respond well to synoptic planning (e.g. urban sprawl).

Above Fig 2: How wicked are some major sustainability issues? This infographic suggests the extent to which problems are unique, unsolvable and tied to other issues of sustainability. Paul Melenhorst

6

THE ARGUMENT FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

Doubts about the ability of planners, holed up in their musty council offices, to single-handedly tackle the intractability of complex development problems first appeared in the late 1960s with the unfolding of post-modernist planning typologies. These approaches made central pluralism (Turner, 1996, 7), communitarianism and collaboration in the planning process and the shift from an ‘individualized, subject-object conception of reason to reasoning formed within intersubjective communication’ (Healey, 1992, 237).

The argument for contemporary collaborative approaches extends this position, founded on the notion that the synoptic approach to complex problems with changing parameters and actors is misguided. Rather, these problems should be ‘re-solved’ as conditions change. And it is here that collaborative planning approaches, with the emphasis on legitimacy and equity, rather than definitive solutions, is seen as the best approach to negotiating a way through wicked problems.

There is significant support for the application of collaborative planning processes in the resolution of wicked problems. Cullingworth and Cave, 2003, 411), note that parallel, analogue approaches to problem solving, rather than the linear, algorithmic approach of rationalist planning, ultimately lead to better outcomes when dealing with impenetrable problems.

Balint, et al. (2006, 6) extends this position, noting that ‘in the absence of decisions-making processes that have broad public support’ there can be no progress in tackling wicked problems. And Peterson (2008, 11) postulates that this support must include the transfer of knowledge sets between ‘supply chain participants establishing collective action and transformation’.

With such widespread support for collaborative planning, I shall more fully investigate arguments against collaborative planning.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

There are well documented criticisms of participatory planning (Sample 1993; Steelman 2001). This includes resource commitments (such as cost, time and human resources), multilateralism, decreased stakeholder trust, conflict and disagreement, and a ‘diminished likelihood of successful outcomes’ (Balint, et al. 2006, 12). Many of these issues are surmountable. However, there is another set of theoretical spanners that threaten the well-oiled machinery of collaboration. Power Dynamics and Habermasian Communicative TheoryPost-modern communicative theory, the underpinning of collaborative, consensus-seeking processes, has been criticized for limiting the contribution that power dynamics

7

plays in planning processes in general and to wicked problems, specifically. Flyvberg & Richardson (2002, 10) note the limitations of the communicative process, which is ‘restricted to a vocabulary of communication’, with Habermas (1990, 209) himself accepting that collaborative discourse is not necessarily sufficient to ‘guarantee discourse ethics and democracy’. Collaborative planning can be seen to fail in acknowledging and address complexities of power dynamics, particularly when applied to wicked problems and ‘bitterly fought disputes, with which planning is well supplied’ (Flyvberg & Richardson 2002, 8).

Group TheoryPart of the process in managing wicked problems is to ‘gain greater understanding of the problem itself’ (Hudson, 1979, 397). And, as mentioned previously, this doesn’t work well with standard synoptic planning processes that utilize rationalist ‘algorithms’ to dissect and process problems linearly. Hudson notes that what wicked problems require are creative leaps of faith and counter intuitive judgements based on challenging, rather than accommodating the established constructs of a situation.

However, in analysing the group dynamics of collaboration, the opposite appears to hold true. The psychology of groups, known as Group Theory, suggests that the fundamental group dynamic that operates in a collaborative planning context does not support this requirement. Groups (and the larger they are the more pronounced is the result) are compellingly shaped by group norms – the familiar peer group pressure – which is good for encouraging stability and the regulation of society but not good

Below Fig 3: French student poster which translates; “I participate, you participate, he participates, we participate, you participate...they profit.” and captures the notion that participation without equal power dynamics is empty for powerless minorities. courtesy of www.lithgow-schmidt.dk/

8

for incubating the creativity that is needed for solving wicked problems (Adarves-Yorno et al. 2007; Why Group Norms Kill Creativity, 2012).

Goncalo and Staw (2005, 2) test this hypothesis of greater group creativity and find the opposite is true, that individuals, unencumbered by the pressures to conform, are more creative. In fact, when a group is asked to think creatively, even if it is heterogenous, it often fails because the implicit norms controlling the group ‘will constrain them in the most explicit ways’ (ibid, 4). This is confirmed by Hodgson (2005, 150) who notes that ‘many technological and institutional innovations depend on the promotion of a minority view that is not widely supported or acknowledged at the outset’

So rather than originating ideas to deal with wicked problems, groups are much better at evaluating solutions that are initiated by minorities (Goncalo & Staw, 2005; Hodgson (2005, 149).

Interestingly, even supporters of the collaborative approach admit to the need for individual input. Weber & Khademian (2008, 335) note the requirement of a ‘collaborative capacity builder’ – an individual whose ‘efforts ensure that knowledge can be sent, received and integrated as part of a broader effort to build sustainable collaborative capacity for addressing a wicked problem’.

Super Wicked ProblemsSome problems, such as climate change, have

been referred to as ‘super wicked problems’ in that they pose three additional features to standard wicked problems; there is a time limit so the longer it takes to action the harder it is to manage; there is no central authority with adequate jurisdictional reach to equal the scope of the problem; and those promoting resolution to the problem are also contributing to the problem (Levin et al, 2010, 6; Lazurus, 2008, 1160. With regard to collaborative planning, this third conundrum is salient.

In this context, it is also possible (and seemingly contradictory to this paper) that collaborative planning strategies, themselves, maybe vulnerable to exacerbating, rather than resolving sustainability problems. Mahjabeen, Shrestha and Dee (2008, 167) note that community participation often includes the ‘voices of the traditionally voiceless’ controlled by the politics and bureaucracy of the powerful – collaborative approaches do not guarantee collaboration. Arnstein (1969, 217) points to this in her Ladder of Citizen Participation outlining conditions under which participants can be disempowered in collaborative processes by tokenism and placation.

In this context, the collaborative process becomes a wicked problem itself, with amorphous issues of language and communication, cultural dominance, as well as political leverage and bias. But with the addition of actors (such as planners) inside the participatory process, contributing to these less than ideal outcomes, collaboration

9

now reveals characteristics of a super wicked problem – ‘those promoting resolution to the problem are also contributing to the problem’. It is a case of the Foucaltian wolf dressed in collaborative sheep’s clothing.

Situation on the GroundWhilst it can be clearly demonstrated that there is widespread consensus in academic and institutional planning arenas as to the veracity of collaborative planning in negotiating outcomes to wicked problems, the view from the frontline can be more ambivalent. Some planning practitioners may still hold to the opinion that synoptic rational planning, based on irrefutable scientific and technical knowledge, and centrally managed by experts is the primary weapon in the planner’s artillery when dealing with wicked problems such as transport infrastructure or urban sprawl (Vasu 1979; Alexander, 1984).

This has been described as a ‘post-post modernist theory’ of planning (Turner, 1996, 8) which reinstates the expert as pivotal (Faludi, 1987, 52; Alexander, 2000, 244) in the planning process and places participation of the citizenry in an additional role.

CONCLUSION

Sustainability issues are often wicked problems. And whilst the literature supports collaborative typologies in managing these intransigent, complex, indeterminate situations, there are

clearly shortcomings in both the substantive underpinnings of participatory planning theory (group theory, super wicked problems, etc) as well as the procedural implementation of these approaches (prohibitive costs, time limitations, etc).

In the light of the above criticisms, it is worth considering that there are alternative, or at least complimentary, strategies for dealing with wicked problems. Whilst this not the place to critique these approaches, they include a Transdisciplinary Systems Methodology (Palmer et al. 2007); Scenario Planning and Resolution Mapping (Horn & Weber, 2007); Adaptive Management (CCPA, 2008); Progressive Incrementalism and Applied Forward Reasoning (Levin et al, 2010), as well as the Precautionary Principle, and various interactive forms of rationality such as communicative, hermeneutic and dialectic rationality. In this context it is possible to consider hybridized models such as adaptive collaborative planning, or participatory scenario planning.

From this brief overview it would seem that collaborative planning is a valuable strategy – rather than the only strategy – to be used in conjunction with other complimentary strategies in managing wicked problems.

10

Adarves-Yorno, I., T. Postmes, S. Alexander Haslam. 2007. Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43: 3, 410–416. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103106000436 (accessed May 20, 2012)

AIA (American Institute of Architects). 2004. R/UDAT: Planning Your Community’s Future. http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias077994.pdf (accessed 23 May, 2012)

Alexander, E. 1984. After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown. In Journal of the American Planning Association, 50:1, 62-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944368408976582 (accessed May 19, 2012)

Alexander, E. 2000. Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-Postmodernist Perspective. http://pantologi.com/pgist/03-RationalityrevisitedPlanningparadigmsinapost-postmodernistperspective.pdf, (accessed July 4, 2011)

APSC (Australian Public Service Commission), 2007. Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.pdf (accessed May 19, 2012)

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35, 4: 216-224. http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html (accessed May 19, 2012)

Balint, J., R. Stewart, A. Desai, L. Walters. 2006. National Convention of the Society of American Foresters, October 25-29, 2006: Managing Wicked Environmental Problems: Integrating Public Participation and Adaptive Management. Pittsburgh, PA. http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/3467361/SAF-2006.pdf? (accessed May 19, 2012)

CCPA (Cities for Climate Protection Australia) 2008. Local Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit. http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Global/Progams/CCP/Adaptation/Toolkit_CCPA (accessed May 7, 2012)

Cullingworth, B. & Caves, R.W. 2003. Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. Routledge: London

Flyvberg, B. & T. Richardson. 2002. Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. In Philip Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr-Jones, eds., Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London and New York: Routledge. http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/DarkSide2.pdf (accessed July 2, 2010)

Goncalo, J. A. and B. M. Staw. 2005. Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity. Faculty Publications – Organizational Behavior. Paper 1.ILR School, Cornell University. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/obpubs/1 (accessed May 20, 2012)

Habermas, J. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. In Flyvberg & Richardson. 2002, 5.

Healey, P. 1992, Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. The Town Planning Review. 63, 2: 143-162 Liverpool University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40113141 (accessed May 21, 2011)

Hodgson, G. 2005. The limits to participatory planning: a reply to Adaman and Devine. In Economy and Society, 34,1:141-153. http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/particplanning.pdf (accessed May 26, 2012)

Horn, R. & R. Weber, 2007. New Tools For Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and Resolution Mapping Processes. http://www.ipcp.org.br/References/wickedSolutions/New_Tools_For_Resolving_Wicked_Problems.pdf (accessed May 19, 2012)

Hudson, B. M. 1979. Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal of American Planning. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ summary?doi=10.1.1.124.2335 (accessed July 2, 2011)

IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation). 2012. IAP2 Core Values. http://www.iap2.org.au/resources/cid/1/parent/0/t/resources/l/layout (accessed May 18, 2012)

Lazarus, R. J. 2008. Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. In the Cornel Law Review, 94: 1153-1233. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/ (accessed April 19, 2012)

Levin, K., B. Cashore, S. Bernstein, G. Auld. 2010. Playing it Forward: Path Dependency, Progressive Incrementalism, and the “Super Wicked” Problem of Global Climate Change. http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/0-9/2010_super_wicked_levin_cashore_bernstein_auld.pdf (accessed May 25, 2012)

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 2001. Interactive Community Planning: Urban Community Assistance Team. http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issues-tools/tools/RUDAT.html (accessed May 23, 2012)

Palmer, Jane, Tanzi Smith, Juliet Willetts, and Cynthia Mitchell. 2007. Creativity, Ethics and Transformation: Key Factors in a Transdisciplinary Application of System Methology to Resolving Wicked Problems in Sustainability. In 13th ANZSYS Conference, ed. J Sheffield and K Fielden, 1-10. {ISCE} Publishing.

Peterson, C. 2008. Transformational supply chains and the “wicked problem” of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership. http://www.adsa.org/discover/19thDiscover/Sustainability_WickProblems_Peterson2.pdf, (accessed May 19, 2012)

PIA (Planning Institute of Australia). 2011. Public Participation. http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/2866 (accessed May 18, 2012)

Turner, T. 1996. CIty as Landscape: A post-postmodern view of design and planning. London: Chapman and Hall.

Vasu, M. 1979. Politics and planning: A national study of American planners. University of North Carolina Press (Chapel Hill). In Peterson 2008.

Watson, D. and C. Floyd, 1996. Community Design Charettes. in Donald Watson (Ed), 1996. Environmental Design Charrette Workbook, Washington, DC: AIA Publications

Weber, E. & A. Khademian. 2008. Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. In Public Administration Review. 334-349. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x/asset/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x.pdf? (accessed May 19, 2012)

Why Group Norms Kill Creativity, 2012. http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/why-group-norms-kill-creativity.php (accessed May 20, 2012)

References