Coping with functional interrelatedness and stakeholder fragmentation in planning at the infrastructure-land use interface: The potential merits of a design approach
Keywords:planning, motorway infrastructure, integration, spatial design,
AbstractRoad infrastructure projects are increasingly placed in their wider land-use context because of the functional relationships they have with surrounding areas. These more inclusive area-oriented planning processes typically involve a complex of interdependent but institutionally fragmented actors. Effective operationalization of collaborative strategies therefore remains difficult. Various policies introduce spatial design efforts to the infrastructure planning processes as a strategy to deal with these issues. This paper explores experiences in the Netherlands that have placed spatial design in vital positions in the process. An exploration of literature from the fields of spatial design, planning, and geography teaches us that design approaches, in such cases, may be applied to serve as a communicative modus that fosters dialogue, creativity, and eventually an inclusive and shared story about an area’s future. We interviewed designers experienced in serving that role and asked them whether and how such objectives are achieved. Consecutively, in order to come to practical lessons for exploitation of the merits indicated by the interviewees, we studied two projects that the interviewees considered best practices. We conclude that a combination of technical and relational design can effectively help a fragmented group of actors to find a shared and meaningful story and make integral choices on infrastructure projects, framed within a wider area’s development. Ensuring effective iterations between technical and relational design requires institutionalization of the coordinative capacities of design, as well as the right mindset among participants. This way, the employment of such design approaches facilitates effective operationalization of collaborative governance at the infrastructure/land-use interface.
Allen, J., A. Cochrane, N. Henry, D. Massey, and P. Sarre. 2002, Rethinking the region: Spaces of neo-liberalism. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Allmendinger, P., and G. Haughton. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A 41(3): 617–633.
Amekudzi, A., and M. D. Meyer. 2006. Considering the environment in transportation planning: Review of emerging paradigms and practice in the United States. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 132(1): 42–52.
Amin, A. 2004. Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 86(1): 33–44.
Baccarini, D. 1996. The concept of project complexity—a review. International Journal of Project Management 14(4) 201–204.
Battarbee, K., and I. Koskinen. 2005. Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign 1(1): 5–18.
BBSR. 2011. Infrastruktur in der Landschaft: Eine baukulturelle Herausforderung. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung.
Bertolini, L. 2009. Planning Mobility. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Brenner, N. 2003. Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 10(4): 297–324.
Brenner, N. 1998. Between fixity and motion: Accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D 16: 459–482.
Boland, R., and F. Collopy. 2004. Design matters for management. In Managing as Designing, edited by R. Boland and F. Brown, pp. 3–18. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bulkeley, H. 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography 24(8) 875–902.
Busscher, T., T. Tillema, and J. Arts. 2015. Improving project delivery; Programs as the silver bullet? EJTIR 15(2): 163–183.
BZK et al. 2008. Een cultuur van ontwerpen: Visie Architectuur en Ruimtelijk Ontwerp. The Hague: Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Transport and Water Works, Ministry of Housing.
Castells, M. 2000. Towards a sociology of the network society. Contemporary Sociology 29(5): 693–699.
CRA. 2011. Architectuur Nu! Ambitiedocument toekomstig architectuurbeleid. The Hague: College van Rijsadviseurs [Board of National Advisors].
De Jonge, J. M. 2009. Landscape architecture between politics and science: an integrative perspective on landscape planning and design in the network society. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.
De Jonge, J. M., and N. Van der Windt. 2007. Doorbraken in het Rivierengebied: De levensloop van transformerende concepten en hun netwerken in het centrale rivierengebied 1970–2005. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Altera.
De Lille, C., E. Roscam Abbing, and M. Kleinsmann. 2013. A designerly approach to enable organizations to deliver product-service systems. Proceedings of the conference Leading Innovation Through Design, August 8–12, Boston.
Dobbins, M. 2011. Urban Design and People. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken.
Dorst, K., and N. Cross. 2001. Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies. 22(5): 425–437
Dorst, K. 1997. Describing design—a comparison of paradigms. PhD thesis, Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Eckstein, B. J., and J. A. Throgmorton. 2003. Story and Sustainability: Planning, Practice, and Possibility for American Cities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, and S. Balogh. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.
Evans, M. 2001 Empathizing with the future: Creating next-level generation products and services. The Design Journal 14(2): 231–251.
Fehrl. 2013. TIILUP Prologue: Transport Infrastructure Integrated with Land-Use Planning.
Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius, and W. Rothengatter. 2003. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berekeley, CA: University of California Press.
Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gloppen, J. 2009. Perspectives on design leadership and design thinking and how they relate to European service industries. Design Management Journal 4(1): 33–47.
Graham, S., and P. Healey. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies 7(5) 623–646.
Hajer, M. A., D. Sijmons, and F. Feddes. 2006. Een plan dat werkt-Ontwerp en politiek in de regionale planvorming.
Hartman, S., W. Rauws, M. Beeftink, and G. de Roo. 2012. The capacity to adapt: Regional development in an age of quality and dynamism, in Regions in Transition: Designing for Adaptivity, edited by H. Ovink and E. Wierenga, Uitgeverij 010, Rotterdam.
Healey, P. 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for our Times. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Heeres, N., T. Tillema, and J. Arts. 2012a. Duurzame planning van weginfrastructuur: Een internationaal perspectief. Groningen, the Netherlands: University of Groningen and Rijkswaterstaat.
Heeres, N., T. Tillema, and J. Arts. 2012b. Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From “line” towards “area-oriented” approaches. Transport Policy 24: 148–158.
Herder, P. M., I. Bouwmans, G. P. J. Dijkema, and R. M. Stikkelman. 2008. Designing infrastructures using a complex systems perspective. Journal of Design Research 7(1): 17–34.
Hulsker, W., M. Wienhoven, M. van Diest, and S. Buijs. 2011. Evaluatie ontwerpprocessen Ruimte voor de Rivier, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Ecorys.
I&M. 2013a. MIRT Projectenboek 2014. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.
I&M. 2013b. Onderzoek Commissie Schoof verbreding A27 Amelisweerd [Research report commission on capacity enlargement motorway A27], 26/3/2013. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.
I&M. 2012: Actieagenda Architectuur en Ruimtelijk Ontwerp [Action plan Architecture and Spatial Design]. The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Ministry of Defense.
Innes, J. E. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association. 62(4): 460–472.
Innes, J. E. 1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association 58(4): 440–453.
Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2014. A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 1473095213519356.
Kaufman, S., and J. Smith. 1999. Framing and reframing in land use change. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 16(2): 165.
Klijn, F., D. de Bruin, M. C. de Hoog, S. Jansen, and D. F. Sijmons. 2013. Design quality of Room-for-the-River measures in the Netherlands: Role and assessment of the quality team (Q-team). International Journal of River Basin Management 11(3): 287–299.
Lawson, B. 2006 How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford, Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural.
Lörzing, H. 2013. Kwaliteitsteam Infrastructuur Ring Utrecht en Knooppunt Hoevelaken. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Province of Utrecht.
Luck, R. 2012. Kinds of seeing and spatial reasoning: examining user participation at an architectural design event. Design Studies 33: 557–588.
Madanipour, A. 2006. Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of Urban Design 11(2): 173–193.
Madrid. 2011, Madrid Rio, City of Madrid. http://www.madrid.es/UnidadesDescentralizadas/ProyectosSingularesUrbanismo/MadridR%C3%ADo/J_Multimedia/FolletoMadridRio.pdf.
McDonnell, J. 2009. Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign 5(1): 35–50.
Murdoch, J. 2006. Post-Structuralist Geography. London: SAGE.
Neuman, M. 2006. Infiltrating infrastructures: On the nature of networked infrastructure. Journal of Urban Technology (13)1: 3–31.
OECD. 2014. Water Governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the Future? OECD Studies on Water, Organization for Economic Cooperative Development. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Peek, G. J., and E. Louw. 2008. A multidisciplinary approach of railway station development: A case study of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, in Railway Development, pp. 125–143. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Rauws, W. S., and T. van Dijk. 2013. A design approach to forge visions that amplify paths of peri-urban development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40(2): 254–270.
Restemeyer, B., J. Woltjer, and M. van den Brink. 2015. A strategy-based framework for assessing the flood resilience of cities–A Hamburg case study. Planning Theory and Practice 16(1), 45–62.
Rijke, J., S. van Herk, C. Zevenbergen, and R. Ashley. 2012. Room for the river: Delivering integrated river basin management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management 10(4): 369–382.
Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences 4(2): 155–169.
Roggema, R. 2014. The design charette, in The design charette: Ways to envision sustainable futures, ed. R. Roggema, pp. 15–34, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Rosenzweig, C., and W. Solecki. 2014. Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: Lessons from a first-responder city. Global Environmental Change (28) 395–408.
RvdR. 2015. Ruimte voor de Waal Nijmegen: Doelen en Maatregelen. URL: http://www.ruimtevoordewaal.nl/nl/het-project/doel-en-maatregelen/.
RvdR. 2012. Room for the River: International Conference at WTC Rotterdam [Transcription], PD, Ruimte voor de Rivier, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RvdR. 2007. Kwaliteitsteam Ruimte voor de Rivier: Gevraagd en ongevraagd advies over ruimtelijke kwaliteit, PD Ruimte voor de Rivier, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RvdR. 2006. Planologische kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier. The Hague: Ruimte voor de Rivier.
RWS. 2014. Ring Utrecht A27/A12: Voorkeursvariant [preferred alternative]. The Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
RWS. 2012a. Kader ruimtelijke kwaliteit en vormgeving. The Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
RWS. 2012b. Planstudie Ring Utrecht fase 2a: Ruimtelijke verkenning deel 2—ruimtelijke beoordeling hoofdvarianten. The Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
RWS. 2011. Ontwerpen in het MIRT. The Hague: Rijkswaterstaat.
Stumpf, S. C., and J. T. McDonnell. 2002. Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyze and support experiential learning in early design episodes. Design Studies (23): 5–23.
Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public administration 87(2): 234–258.
Teisman, G. R., and J. Edelenbos. 2011. Towards a perspective of system synchronization in water governance: A synthesis of empirical lessons and complexity theories. International Review of Administrative Sciences 7(1): 101–118.
Throgmorton, J. A. 2003. Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory 2(2): 125–151.
TK. 2007. Planologische kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier. The Hague: Ruimte voor de Rivier.
Torfing, J. 2005. Governance network theory: Towards a second generation. European political science 4(3): 305–315.
V&W. 2012. MIRT Projectenboek 2013. The Hague: Ministry of Transport and Environment.
van Assche, K., R. Beunen, M. Duineveld, and H. de Jong. 2012. Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems. Planning Theory 12(2): 177–198.
van Assen, S., and J. van Campen. 2013 Ruimtelijke kwaliteitsteams in Nederland (december 2013).
van Bueren, E. M., E. Klijn, and J. F. Koppenjan. 2003. Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(2): 193–212.
van Dijk, T. 2011. Imagining future places: How designs co-constitute what is, and thus influence what will be. Planning Theory 10(2): 124–143.
van Dijk, T., and H. Ubels. 2015. How Dutch professionals conduct interactive design sessions to foster “shared understanding.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 0265813515617658.
van Twist, M., E. ten Heuvelhof, M. Kort, M. Olde Wolbers, C. van den Berg, and N. Bressers. 2011. Tussenevaluatie PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Berenschot/Erasmus University.
van Zelm van Eldik, D., ed. 2008. Routes! The Hague: Steunpunt Routeontwerp van Snelwegen.
VERDER. 2010, Utrechtse Ring wordt gerond. http://www.ikgaverder.nl/home/nieuws/0000/00/0136/Utrechtse-ring-wordt-gerond/.
Vos, L. 2014. The design charette. InThe design Charette: Ways to envision sustainable futures, edited by H. Ovink and E. Wierenga, pp. 35–59, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
VROM. 2007. Zo kan het ook! Stedelijk ontwerpen met oog voor lucht en geluid. The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment.
Williams, T. M. 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project Management 17(5): 269–273.
Wiltschnig, S., B. Christensen, and L. Ball. 2013. Collaborative problem-solution co-evolution in creative design. Design Studies 34: 515–542.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with JTLU agree to the following terms: 1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.