In 1973, Horst W Rittel and Malvin A Webber introduced the term ‘wicked problem’ in planning theory. They describe spatial planning as dealing with inherent uncertainty, complexity and inevitable normativity. This contribution picks up the concept of wicked problems, reflects on it from a planning-theoretical perspective, and proposes the use of Cultural Theory’s concept of clumsy solutions as a response to wicked planning problems. In discussing public participation processes in spatial planning, it is then shown what clumsy solutions mean for spatial planning. The four rationalities of Cultural Theory are then used to explain why public participation in planning can become wicked, and how these rationalities provide a response that copes with this wickedness.
AllmendingerP (2002) Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory1(1): 77–99.
3.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal35(4): 216–224.
4.
BaumHS (1977) Toward a post-industrial planning theory. Policy Sciences8(4): 401–421.
5.
BertoliniL (2010) Complex systems, evolutionary planning? In: de RooGSilvaEA (eds) A planner’s encounter with complexity. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp.81–98.
6.
BilléR (2008) Integrated coastal zone management: Four entrenched illusions. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society1(2): 75–86.
7.
DakeK (1992) Myth of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues48(4): 21–37.
8.
DavyB (1997) Essential injustice: When legal institutions cannot resolve environmental and land use disputes. Wien: Springer.
9.
DavyB (2004) Die Neunte Stadt: Wilde Grenzen und Städteregion Ruhr 2030. Wuppertal: Müller+Busmann.
10.
DavyB (2008) Plan it without a condom!Planning Theory7(3): 301–317.
11.
DavyB (2009) Land thrift as sustainable development: The case of Germany’s 30 hectares goal. In: van der ValkAvan DijkT (eds) Regional Planning for Open Space. London: Routledge, pp.279–300.
12.
De RooGSilvaEA (eds) A planner’s encounter with complexity. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate pp.81–98.
13.
DouglasM (1999) Four cultures: The evolution of a parsimonious model. GeoJournal (47): 411–415.
14.
EllisRJThompsonM (eds) (1997) Culture matters: Essays in honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
15.
EtzioniA (1967) Mixed scanning –. A ‘third’ approach to decision-making. Public Administration Review27(5): 385–392.
16.
ForesterJ (1996) Argument, power, and passion in planning practice. In: MandelbaumSJ (ed.) Explorations in planning theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp.241–262.
17.
ForesterJ (2004) Reflections on trying to teach planning theory. Planning Theory and Practice5(2): 242–251.
18.
FrankS (2006) The European Union and the European cities: Three phases of the European urban policy. In: AltrockU (ed.) Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.39–56.
19.
GunderMHillierJ (2009) Planning in ten words or less: A lacanian entanglement with spatial planning. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
20.
HartmannT (2011) Clumsy floodplains: Responsive land policy for extreme floods. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
21.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–123.
22.
HealeyP (2009) In search of the ‘strategic’ in spatial strategy making. Planning Theory and Practice10(4): 439–457.
23.
HeinzW (ed.) (1993) Public Private Partnership – Ein neuer Weg zur Stadtentwicklung?Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
24.
HendriksF (1999) The post-industrialising city: Political perspectives and cultural biases. Geo-Journal (47): 425–432.
25.
HillierJ (2010) Introduction: Plannikng at yet another crossroads? In: HillierJHealeyP (eds) The Ashgate research companion to planning theory. Conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, pp.1–34.
26.
HuxleyM (2000) The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research19: 369–377.
27.
KurthDScheuvensRZlonickyP (1999) Laboratorium Emscher Park. Blaue Reihe 99. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund.
28.
LeinoHLaineM (2011) Do matters of concern matter? Bringing issues back to participation. Planning Theory1–15.
29.
NeedhamB (1988) Continuity and change in Dutch planning theory. Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research3(1): 5–22.
30.
NeedhamB (2006) Planning law and economics: The rules we make for using land. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
31.
OstromE (ed.) (2007) Understanding knowledge as a commons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
PatersonJ (2007) Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle. Natural Hazards42(3): 515–528.
33.
RawlsJ (2005, c1971) A theory of justice (Original edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
RennO (2008) Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.
35.
RipplS (2001) Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement. Journal of Risk Research5(2): 147–165.
36.
RittelHWWebberMA (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4: 155–169.
37.
SchmalsKM (ed.) (1999) Was ist Raumplanung?Blaue Reihe 89. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund.
38.
SchröerT (2010) Mehr Öffentlichkeit in der Bauleitplanung!Neue Zeitschrift für Baurecht2010(1): 36–37.
39.
SchwarzMThompsonM (1990) Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
40.
SelleK (2000) Freiraum, Siedlung, Kooperationen. Dortmund: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur.
41.
SelleK (2010) Something went wrong: Vom langen Weg zur lokalen Beteiligungskultur. Available at: www.planung-neu-denken.de (accessed 13 February 2012).
42.
SorensenADDayRA (1981) Libertarian planning. Town Planning Review52(4): 390–402.
43.
ThompsonM (1997) Rewriting the precepts of policy analyses. In: EllisRJThompsonM (eds) Culture matters. Essays in honor of Aaron Wildavsky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.203–216.
44.
ThompsonMEllisRJWildavskyAB (1990) Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45.
van CoenenFde RobPJohanW (2001) De evolutie van inspraak in de Nederlandse planning. Beleidswetenschap15(4): 313–332.
46.
van EetenM (1999) Dialogues of the deaf: Defining new agendas for environmental deadlocks. Delft: Eburon.
47.
VerweijMThompsonM (eds) (2006) Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and plural perceptions. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
VerweijMDouglasMEllisREngelCHendriksFLohmannS. (2006) The case for clumsiness. In: VerweijMThompsonM (eds) Clumsy solutions for a complex world. Governance, politics and plural perceptions. Houndmills: Palgrave, pp.1–27.
49.
WegenerM (2012) Government or governance? The challenge of planning for sustainability in the Ruhr. In: HartmannTNeedhamB (eds) Planning by law and property rights reconsidered. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
