Search

Strategic planning researchers need to explore the complexity of time and temporality beyond the straightforward clock-time view of temporal variation (linear, objective time). Both time and temporality are important to understand and theorize with regards to the practice of strategic spatial planning (Sandberg & Tsoukas, [32], p. 341). This short characterization of strategic spatial planning research leads us to three suggestions: Firstly, and not surprisingly, strategic planning researchers do I not i ignore time and temporality. Since past and present inevitably form the basis for the future distribution of activities in space, the time dimension is as essential for spatial planning as it is for any other type of planning. [Extracted from the article]

Research organizations in the spatial sciences face a demanding and changing context, characterized by multiple tensions and significant uncertainty. Increasingly, researchers are also asked to provide policy advice through method-driven processes, rather than ad hoc. In this policy advice context, the paper focuses on a specific tension: strategic planning and developing policy-oriented projects. Until now, little is known about how non-university research organizations deal with this tension as regards providing policy advice in the spatial sciences. Therefore, the paper analyzes the strategy development of the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER) in Dresden. Both authors are affiliated to the IOER. Hence, the paper is written from an “insider perspective” based on scientific concepts such as strategic planning. The paper analyzes project examples that refer to climate change adaptation in cities and regions. It shows that challenges, aims and practices of policy advice are important components of IOER's explicit strategy. The project examples show that projects with the aim of policy advice are implemented in various forms and with significant diversity in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, the paper argues for the development of project portfolios at the strategic planning level of research organizations in order to consider challenges and aims of policy advice in the spatial sciences. English title: Spatial Science and Policy Advice – Project Examples on Climate Change Adaptation in Cities and Regions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The meaning of the word resilience varies according to the social context. To enhance a dynamic understanding of resilience, the paper analyses its elusive character from a sensemaking perspective. Resilience is understood as a content of sensemaking processes in the context of a crisis. Four processes are explored in some detail using findings from a case study about dealing with an extreme flood event in a small town in Germany. These four processes are commitment to resilience, expecting resilience, arguing about resilience and resilience and manipulation. Implications for planning research and practice are thereby revealed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including social systems, social resilience and water resources management.

Often, discussions about improving long-term Flood Risk Management (FRM) refer to spatial planning as one of the most promising policy instruments (non-structural measures), especially after flood disasters like in Dresden in August 2002. However, up to now, evidence is limited that spatial planning is used intensively and systematically for long-term FRM, for instance, to reduce vulnerability in flood-prone areas by controlling developments on floodplains and providing development possibilities in non-hazardous areas (Burby et al., 2000). Based on the literature on strategic spatial planning (e.g., Albrechts, 2004a; Bryson, 2004; Healey, 2007) and risk management (e.g., Klinke & Renn, 2002), this paper presents normative conclusions from case studies conducted in Dresden and London on how to use strategic planning for improving long-term FRM. The twin hazards of uncertainty and disagreement form an essential context for plannings ambitions of shaping the future. In practice, planners may retreat to shorter-range decisions with more limited consequences. Or they may resort to public relations devices that may gain agreement in superficial ways. Still another response is to hide behind technical analyses that are not fully shared with the public, neither revealing the true level of uncertainty nor exposing judgements to potential disagreements. Better methods are clearly desired for professional leadership regarding the future. (Myers, 2001: 365) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building resilience is a core element of urban resilience that refers to both the (1) intended physical change of the building stock and the related blue, green, and grey infrastructure, as well as (2) the social process of increasing resilience through the goal-driven cooperation of scientists and practitioners. Building resilience at the interface of science and practice is characterized by tensions and a range of approaches to dealing with tensions. To specify this proposition, this research note adopts a strategic spatial planning perspective and introduces the typology of "motors of change" from organizational and management research. We focus on a goal-driven motor of change ("teleology") and highlight three approaches to dealing with tensions: developing a strategic focus of knowledge integration, setting priorities to enhance resilience as a pro-active ability of disaster risk reduction (DRR), and compromising in the management of trade-offs, such as those between the scales of resilience. For the purpose of illustration, this research note refers to examples of building resilience at a local level in Germany, dealing with heat stress in urban areas, managing the risk of extreme flood events, and analyzing the resilience of innovative infrastructure solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]