IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v47y2015i1p209-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Crystal Legacy

    (Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University Melbourne, Vic 3001, Australia)

  • Ryan van den Nouwelant

    (City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

Strategic planning can begin as a deliberative and inclusive process of plan making, but then transition into a decisive and exclusive process of investment and priority setting at the stage of implementation. Citizens who once participated in the formal plan making process through government-designed engagement events fade into the background in this critical latter part of strategic planning. At this point they must invent avenues to influence investment priorities. In the context of bicycle infrastructure planning and delivery in Sydney, Australia this paper examines how strategic plans that embrace cycling as an important transport mode translate into decisions to commit to some projects over others. The paper explores four ways community groups seek traction in a highly contentious and transitional space of planning through a process we call ‘guerrilla governance’. Evoking aspects of advocacy and insurgent planning, guerrilla governance broadens how the term ‘governance’ is used within urban planning scholarship, by incorporating such ‘legitimised’ agitation from beyond government.

Suggested Citation

  • Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:1:p:209-226
    DOI: 10.1068/a140124p
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a140124p
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a140124p?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation," Politics & Society, , vol. 34(4), pages 571-602, December.
    2. Phil Allmendinger & Graham Haughton, 2013. "The Evolution and Trajectories of English Spatial Governance: 'Neoliberal' Episodes in Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 6-26, February.
    3. Crystal Legacy & Alan March & Clare M. Mouat, 2014. "Limits and potentials to deliberative engagement in highly regulated planning systems: Norm development within fixed rules," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 26-40, March.
    4. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Morgan, Edward A. & Osborne, Natalie & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Evaluating planning without plans: Principles, criteria and indicators for effective forest landscape approaches," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Muhammad Taufiq & Suhirman & Benedictus Kombaitan, 2021. "A Reflection on Transactive Planning: Transfer of Planning Knowledge in Local Community-Level Deliberation," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    4. Mace, Alan & Holman, Nancy & Paccoud, Antoine & Sundaresan, Jayaraj, 2015. "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    6. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    7. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    8. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    9. Christoph Niessen, 2019. "When citizen deliberation enters real politics: how politicians and stakeholders envision the place of a deliberative mini-public in political decision-making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 481-503, September.
    10. Davies-Colley, Christian & Smith, Willie, 2012. "Implementing environmental technologies in development situations: The example of ecological toilets," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-8.
    11. Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Moulaert & Jan Schreurs & Konrad Miciukiewicz, 2014. "Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 393-411, August.
    12. Füg, Franz & Ibert, Oliver, 2020. "Assembling social innovations in emergent professional communities. The case of learning region policies in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 541-562.
    13. Peter Munthe-Kaas, 2015. "Agonism and co-design of urban spaces," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 218-237, July.
    14. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Andy Inch & Richard Dunning & Aidan While & Hannah Hickman & Sarah Payne, 2020. "‘The object is to change the heart and soul’: Financial incentives, planning and opposition to new housebuilding in England," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 713-732, June.
    16. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Corianne Payton Scally & J. Rosie Tighe, 2015. "Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 749-769, July.
    18. Derk Jan Stobbelaar, 2020. "Impact of Student Interventions on Urban Greening Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    20. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:1:p:209-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.