Inclusive planning holds the promise of enhancing collaboration to support disadvantaged groups. Drawing on the example of efforts to implement inclusive planning in building a more robust urban food system in Chiang Mai, Thailand, we explore why improving the well-being of marginalized communities through such planning remains challenging in practice. Although a rights-based initiative was introduced for the most disadvantaged groups, unequal power dynamics persisted – especially given that the country’s food system is dominated by a few powerful actors operating within neoliberal and hierarchical structures. While strong collaborative efforts are essential to advancing inclusive planning, the success of such efforts depends on both informal horizontal deliberation and formal vertical negotiation within the broader collaborative ecosystem. We explore ways in which this collaborative ecosystem can be encouraged.
AnsellCGashA (2008), “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”, Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 18, No 4, pages 543–571.
2.
AnsellCSørensenETorfingJ (2022), Co-Creation for Sustainability: The UN SDGs and the Power of Local Partnership, Emerald Publishing, Bingley.
3.
AnsellCSørensenETorfingJTrondalJ (2024), Robust Governance in Turbulent Times, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
AytugR (2023), “Inclusive urban planning and public space for refugee youth in pursuit of a just city in Amman, Jordan”, in De BackerMHopkinsPvan LiemptI, et al. (editors), Refugee Youth: Migration, Justice and Urban Space, Bristol University Press, Bristol.
6.
BharathyM (2025), “Democratising inclusive planning: insights from the people’s plan campaign in Kerala, India”, Critical Policy Studies, pages 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2025.2488803.
7.
BoonmavichitTBoossabongP (2022), “Approaching foresight through critical realism: lessons drawn from Thailand”, Journal of Futures StudiesVol 26, No 4, pages 41–54.
8.
BoossabongP (2018a), “Community-based food production”, in PadawangiR (editor), Routledge Handbook of Urbanization in Southeast Asia, Routledge, Abingdon.
9.
BoossabongP (2018b), “Neo-liberalising higher education in the Global South: lessons learned from policy impacts on educational commercialisation in Thailand”, Critical Policy StudiesVol 12, No 1, pages 110–115.
10.
BoossabongP (2019), “Governing Bangkok’s city food system: engaging multi-stakeholders for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”, Journal of City, Culture and SocietyVol 16, No 1, pages 52–59.
BoossabongPChamchongP (2020), “Public policy in the face of post-truth politics and the role of deliberation”, Critical Policy StudiesVol 15, No 1, pages 107–124.
13.
BoossabongPChamchongP (2024), “Hope, fear and public policy: towards empathetic policy process”, Critical Policy StudiesVol 18, No 3, pages 389–407.
14.
BoossabongPFischerF (2022), “Policy design as deliberative practice”, in PetersGFontaineG (editors), Research Handbook of Policy Design, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
CabannesYGöralÖ S (2020), “Land disputes on the outskirts of Istanbul: a unique case of legalisation amidst demolitions and forced evictions”, Environment & UrbanizationVol 32, No 1, pages 69–88.
17.
ChamchongPBoossabongP (2021), “Innovative city index and its application for stimulating inclusive, sustainable and connected innovative city development”, Journal of Housing and the Built EnvironmentVol 36, pages 191–213.
18.
Chiang Mai City Lab (2023), “Annual report of innovation promotion in Chiang Mai City 2022” [in Thai], Thailand National Innovation Agency, Bangkok.
19.
CurrieGTivendaleK (2010), “Inclusive planning process for citywide bus network restructuring: experience and impacts”, Transportation Research RecordVol 2145, No 1, pages 21–28.
20.
DurnováA (2013), “Governing through intimacy: explaining care policies through sharing a meaning”, Critical Social PolicyVol 33, No 3, pages 494–513.
21.
DurnováA (2019), Understanding Emotions in Post-Factual Politics: Negotiating Truth, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
22.
FischerF (2021), Truth and Post-Truth in Public Policy: Interpreting Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23.
FischerF (2024), Critical Policy Inquiry: Interpreting Knowledge and Arguments, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
24.
ForesterJ (2013), Planning in the Face of Conflict: The Surprising Possibilities of Facilitative Leadership, Routledge, Abingdon.
25.
ForesterJ (2023), “How planners might improvise in the face of power: waking up theory for practice”, Planning Theory & PracticeVol 24, No 2, pages 147–150.
InayatullahS (2008), “Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming”, ForesightVol 10, No 1, pages 4–21.
28.
InnesJ EBooherD E (2018), Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy, 2nd edition, Routledge, Abingdon.
29.
KrishnanV SSoliemanHMoslemSPillaF (2025), “Inclusive sustainable transportation planning: a qualitative analysis involving diverse stakeholders perspectives”, Case Studies on Transport PolicyVol 19, 101393.
30.
LemaireXKerrD (2017), “Inclusive urban planning: promoting equality and inclusivity in urban planning practices”, UCL Energy Institute and SAMSET, London, 34 pages.
31.
McGranahanGSchensulDSinghG (2016), “Inclusive urbanisation: can the 2030 Agenda be delivered without it?”, Environment & UrbanizationVol 28, No 1, pages 13–24.
32.
MintromMLuetjensJ (2018), “Design thinking in public policy”, in HowlettMMukherjeeI (editors), Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, Routledge, Abingdon.
33.
MoghadamS TLombardiPTardivoG (2024), “Inclusive urban planning for upgrading an informal settlement”, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, pages 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2024.2328356.
34.
MorrellM (2010), Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking and Deliberation, Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania.
35.
National Science and Technology Development Agency (2018), “Food Innopolis: Thailand’s comprehensive food innovation hub”, available at https://www.foodinnopolis.or.th/en/about-us/.
36.
NewmanA (2008), “Inclusive planning of urban nature”, Ecological RestorationVol 26, No 3, pages 229–235.
37.
NohrTLangsetE K (2016), “Inclusive planning: paramount in today’s Norway”, Studies in Health Technology and InformaticsVol 227, pages 199–206.
38.
PinedaV SMeyerS WCruzJ P (2017), “The inclusion imperative: forging an inclusive new urban agenda”, The Journal of Public SpaceVol 2, No 4, pages 1–20.
39.
PoocharoenOPBoossabong (editors) (2023), Policy Analysis in Thailand, Policy Press, Bristol.
40.
PorterDOnyach-OlaaM (1999), “Inclusive planning and allocation for rural services”, Development in PracticeVol 9, No 1–2, pages 56–67.
41.
PykeCWiltonR (2020), “Planning for inclusion? An assessment of Ontario’s emergency preparedness guide for people with disabilities”, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionVol 49, 101888.
42.
RebernikNMarušićB GBahilloAOsabaE (2019), “A 4-dimensional model and combined methodological approach to inclusive urban planning and design for ALL”, Sustainable Cities and SocietyVol 44, pages 195–214.
43.
SacramentoN JBoossabongP (2023), “Technocratic and deliberative nexus in policy analysis: learning from smart city planning in Chiang Mai, Thailand”, Journal of Asian Public PolicyVol 16, No 3, pages 271–287.
44.
SevciucI (2014), “Analytical framework for inclusive policy design: of what, why and how”, International Social Science JournalVol 65, No 215–216, pages 109–132.
45.
SkelcherCSullivanH (2002), Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services, Red Globe Press, London.
46.
SrivetbodeeSIgelB (2021), “Digital technology adoption in agriculture: success factors, obstacles and impact on corporate social responsibility performance in Thailand’s smart farming projects”, Thammasat ReviewVol 24, No 2, pages 149–170.
47.
StickdornMHormessMLawrenceASchneiderJ (2018), This is Service Design Doing, O’Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.
48.
UngsuchavalTBoossabongPHartleyK (2022), “Public policy education in Thailand: from caged pedagogy to disciplinary Independence?”, Journal of Asian Public PolicyVol 16, No 1, pages 75–95.
49.
VanderschurenMNneneO A (2021), “Inclusive planning: African policy inventory and South African mobility case study on the exclusion of persons with disabilities”, Health Research Policy and SystemsVol 19, No 1, pages 1–14.
50.
WilińskaMBűlowP H (2020), “Emotion ability: practices of affective citizenship in the work rehabilitation process”, Critical Policy StudiesVol 14, No 1, pages 38–66.
