Abstract
Urban planning is, in many countries, increasingly becoming intertwined with local climate ambitions, investments in urban attractiveness and “smart city” innovation measures. In the intersection between these trends, urban experimentation has developed as a process where actors are granted action space to test innovations in a collaborative setting. One arena for urban experimentation is urban testbeds. Testbeds are sites of urban development, in which experimentation constitutes an integral part of planning and developing the area. This article introduces the notion of testbed planning as a way to conceptualize planning processes in delimited sites where planning is combined with processes of urban experimentation. We define testbed planning as a multi-actor, collaborative planning process in a delimited area, with the ambition to generate and disseminate learning while simultaneously developing the site. The aim of this article is to explore processes of testbed planning with regard to the role of urban planners. Using an institutional logics perspective we conceptualize planners as navigating between a public sector—and an experimental logic. The public sector logic constitutes the formal structure of “traditional” urban planning, and the experimental logic a collaborative and testing governance structure. Using examples from three Nordic municipalities, this article explores planning roles in experiments with autonomous buses in testbeds. The analysis shows that planners negotiate these logics in three different ways, combining and merging them, separating and moving between them or acting within a conflictual process where the public sector logic dominates.
Reference47 articles.
1. Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73.
2. Allbrecht, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 31(5), 743–758.
3. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41, 617–633.
4. Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., & Shepard, E. (2016). Where is planning to be found? Material practices and the multiple spaces of planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(1), 38–51.
5. Berglund-Snodgrass, L., Mukhtar-Landgren, D., & Paulsson, A. (2019). Experiment för hållbar mobilitet. Vad innoveras det (inte) kring i svenska kommuner? [Experiment for sustainable mobility: What are Swedish municipalites (not) innovating about?]. In J. Algehed, E. Eneqvist, C. Jensen, & J. Lööf (Eds.), Stadsutveckling: En forskningsantologi om organiseringsutmaningar för stad och kommun [Urban development: A research anthology about organisational challenges] (pp. 89–112). Gothenburg: Mistra Urban Futures.
Cited by
31 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献