Strategic

Structure
Planning
JEF VAN DEN BROECK
 169

The LA21 Programme advocated a planning approach that was able to deal with the specific contexts
in the different countries and cities. Strategic structure planning sought an approach based on real-
ism and aimed to achieve tangible results and a visible impact by the realisation of concrete actions
that fit into a long-term perspective for sustainable development: a strategic step-by-step approach
within a dynamic, coherent and integrating framework. It is an approach built upon local human,
social, economic and spatial resources, and upon a belief in cooperation between the people in-
volved as being the motor for their capacity-building; it strengthens empowerment and qualitative
development.

MASTER-PLANNING
NOT SUITABLE FOR NEW REALITIES

For a long time, planning has been based on so-called ‘master planning’ approaches that have
proved to be rather static, land-use-oriented and largely unrealistic in their assessment of limited
resources and rapid change. Of course, one should take into account the context in which this plan-
ning approach was developed in the beginning of the twentieth century. At the time, the role and
power of governments and their resources were substantial and social, technical, scientific and spa-
tial change was slower than today. Then, ‘plans’ could be prepared and even at times implemented
in a rather technocratic way. Today’s circumstances have completely changed.
This traditional planning approach, still very common in developing countries, starts with an often
very comprehensive survey followed by an analysis and interpretation of the data and results in a
‘master plan,’ a kind of blueprint to guide the city’s development of a city [Geddes 1915]. In the LA21
Programme cities, a master plan or a development plan usually already existed, even if it was not
necessarily followed. This planning tradition is characterised by a belief in the possibility of collect-
ing all the necessary data in order to have the knowledge needed to predict the ‘logical’ future and
to design a plan with a programme for its implementation. When starting the project in Nakuru, for
instance, it was striking that during the first workshop, most of the participants demanded an
exhaustive and comprehensive data collection phase as a necessary first step in the process. Simul-
taneously, the participants spoke of the many urgent problems and opportunities that should and
could be tackled immediately without much supplementary fundamental research and within the
available means. They were seemingly afraid of ‘action’ based upon available knowledge and of
learning by doing. They also seemed fearful of handling inevitable uncertainty and, consequently,
avoided concrete decision-making and action.
In the traditional planning approach, factors such as time (change and uncertainty) restrict the
means for realisation. Likewise, the values, interests and power of people and groups are often not
taken into account. Another and strange — due to contradictory logics embedded in the approach —
characteristic is the gap between the ‘master plan’ (expressing an optimal land use, developed by
an urban planner) and the previous studies carried out by different experts. Indeed, an analysis of
170

master plans shows that often they are based upon information, considerations, visions and con-
cepts which cannot be found in the surveys, but which prevail in theories about the ‘ideal city’ (reflect-
ing an ‘ideal social order’ as in the CIAM and Garden City concepts). This ‘gap’ may also be attrib-
uted to the largely sectoral-based research dealing primarly with housing, infrastructure, industry,
services, and social equipment which tends to cater solely to the functional and technical aspects
and less systematically to the spatial conditions of the location. Spatial characteristics — structure
and fabric — and spatial qualities and exploratory design do not appear in master planning.

SEARCHING FOR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

DURING THE PAST DECADES: A SUMMARY

In the 1960s and 1970s, different ‘modern’ planning theories and traditions were developed and im-
plemented; a brief summary review reveals that while they add some strength to the practice of plan-
ning, they have certain weaknesses:

• The rational, comprehensive model is based upon a belief in the existence of common interest in
planning as a continuous and voluntary process, as a means to create a better future by using a
‘systems approach’ [Hall 1979], and a clear methodology with sequential phases related to each
other: long-term goal setting, goal- and action-oriented research, forecasting and development
of alternatives and finally action, monitoring and feedback combined with decision-making in dif-
ferent phases of the process. Already in the 1960s, this approach was criticised by different
authors, faulted for the fact that the model did not fit with the irrationality of reality [Hall 1979].
Also practitioners using the model pointed out the obvious weaknesses of the approach [Van den
Broeck 1987].
• Disjointed incrementalism or the ‘science of muddling through’ [Lindblom 1959:79–88] can also be
seen as a reaction to ‘ideal rational’ planning and as a form of ‘non-belief’ in the long-term
dimension of planning. Lindblom states that “the synoptic ideal is not adapted to man’s limited
intellectual capacities, the inadequacy of information, the costliness of analysis, not adapted to
failure nor to the relationship between fact and value in policy making.” His alternative, which he
terms ‘disjointed incrementalism,’ is based upon a step-by-step approach using the existing sit-
uation as the standard and problem-solving as the proper approach.
• Advocacy, trans-active, radical planning, and other models for social learning and communicative
action, all generated in the United States, deal with addressing basic human values (equity, jus-
tice, sustainability) and interests, especially of the poor and the weak. These models, with their
specific methods and tools, today retain a certain importance as they are often used by non-profit
organisations (community work, action groups) and NGOs (Greenpeace, Amnesty International,
etc.). In many UN programmes and practices, too, the tools of these traditions of ‘social learning’
form the cornerstone of the techniques employed for ‘identifying problems and priorities, setting
 171

goals, exercising legal rights, determining service standards, mobilising resources and imple-
menting policies, programmes and projects.’ However, the basic aim of these traditions is not to
influence daily policy but to change social and environmental conditions in the long term, mainly
by social learning through ‘action’ and by creating ‘movements’ dealing with a clear objective.

In the 1980s, one could witness a retreat from planning fuelled not only by the neo-conservative and
liberal disdain for planning, but also by post-modernist scepticism, both of which tended to view
progress as something which, if it happens, cannot be planned [Healy 1997]. Instead, the focus was
on the realisation of projects and not any more on ‘plan making,’ often only used as legal frames for
development. A distinction can be made between two movements.
A first movement starts from the changing role of the public sector. The lack of public finances
implies that more and more, the private sector, developers and investors bring with them market-led
methods and techniques to influence urban development. What is interesting and very positive is the
fact that this approach deals with opportunities and assets instead of merely with problems. It is
a development-led approach instead of classic regulatory land-use planning. However, within this
approach, the question remains if public interests and values are taken into account; in reality, most
of the time they are not. If we look at the prevalent practices, urban and social improvement is often
not an objective and neither is the need for a coherent urban policy. The main driving force remains
profit-making. For politicians, this approach is seductive, not only politically and financially, but also
because it delivers fast results.
According to several authors with architectural and urban planning backgrounds, the total mas-
tering of urban development is simply not possible or even desirable. They advocate another kind of
project-oriented approach based upon a detailed reading of the city, the potentialities of strategic and
structuring places, and their characteristics and qualities. They maintain that the scale of regions and
cities is too general and too abstract for ‘action planning.’ Such an approach aims at the develop-
ment of a package of urban interrelated interventions — urban projects — and measures on differ-
ent scales and levels. Although the implementation, quality and spatial orientation of this approach
should be a characteristic of every planning effort, it is somewhat ‘elitist’ in nature and cannot solve
the more fundamental issues faced by cities. It is an attractive model for politicians, architects and
investors because it is in fact a project- and market-led approach founded upon feasibility, opportu-
nity and quick realisation of projects. Promoters of this approach hope that such interventions will
have a renewing and structural impact on city development and in many cases they do. Barcelona is
possibly the best case illustrating this approach, using the ‘pulsar’ effect of the Olympics and of the
political changes in Spain in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
This model, however, as well as other traditions, cannot respond adequately to the growing com-
plexity and the increasing concern of rapid and apparently random development [Breheny 1994],
[Kreukels 1980], the problems of poverty, fragmentation, the dramatic increase in interest in envi-
ronmental issues (at all levels from the global to the local), the growing strength of the environ-
mental movement, a re-emphasis on the need for long-term thinking and framing [Newman and
172

Thornley 1996], [Zonneveld and Faludi 1997], and the desire to return to a more realistic and effec-
tive method.
In the present context, all these approaches seem unfit and inadequate for tackling the global and
local challenges that countries, regions and cities are facing today. Hence, in many countries, the
need existed for a different type of planning that aims to intervene more directly, coherently and
selectively in social reality and development [Albrechts 1999a].
The planning law of 1996 passed in Kenya is a direct consequence of this new understanding. By
introducing a more dynamic planning system and planning tools (dynamic structure plans and action
plans), it tries to address new challenges. The discussions held with the governor of Essaouira and
the local adviser of the Programme proves they were fully aware of the limitations of the planning
systems and approaches in Morocco. In Vinh, the centralist and hierarchical organisation of planning
based upon master planning cannot give proper and qualitative responses to the rapid changes tak-
ing place in Vietnamese society.
Nevertheless, we should be modest enough to acknowledge that the impact of (spatial) planning
will always be fairly limited. In reality, the influence of sectoral planning — certainly of the ‘stronger’
sectors such as infrastructure — is more substantial. Therefore, one should attempt to achieve a
closer, more intensive cooperation between spatial and sectoral planning. Spatial planning, as an
integrative discipline, can contribute towards improving people’s lives and to achieving long-term
sustainable development in a more energy- and resource-efficient manner.

STRATEGIC STRUCTURE PLANNING:

WORKING TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Origin
Etymologically, strategic planning finds its origins in the military notion of ‘strategy’ or ‘the activity
of leading or organising an army as a general in order to win a fight and a war’ [Needham 2000] or
‘the art of using a fight within the scope of a war.’ Within these definitions, two elements are impor-
tant: one emphasises the achievement of a goal or objective while another stresses the use of an
appropriate ‘way’ to reach that goal on the other; in other words, ‘how to get from here to there.’
Often, the notion of ‘strategic planning’ is only used in relation to the first aspect. Many defini-
tions emphasise only the ‘long-term perspective’ as a frame for development and neither the ‘how’
to realise it nor the measures and actions to do so. This is somehow understandable within the
planning discipline given the hierarchical organisation of planning in many countries. Indeed, the
elaboration of long-term perspectives is often the designated responsibility of the higher authority,
while actual implementation is left for the lower tiers of authority. The LA21 Programme has kept
the two components together as both visioning and realisation are considered to be essential
aspects of planning.
 173

Definition and characteristics

A review of planning literature and practice related to different fields such as the social sciences,
policy analysis, business management — the origin of modern strategic and spatial planning — is
both appropriate in the present context and relevant to the LA21 Programme.
Within this context, ‘strategic planning’ can be defined as a ‘social process aimed at designing and
realising an intended spatial development of a given area. Within this process, four sub-processes
can be distinguished: one leading to the design of a dynamic and sustainable long-term perspective,
a second dealing with daily policy, trouble-shooting and process-supporting actions, a third dealing
with a decision-making process involving all possible actors, and last but not least, a process to
empower people to better their living conditions and to participate in society’ [Van den Broeck 1995].
This definition invariably borrows from different authors dealing with strategic planning (e.g. Patsy
Healy, John M. Bryson, Barry Needham, and Andreas Faludi).
Louis Albrechts [1999] sums up the different characteristics of strategic planning based upon a
review of the existing literature:

• it is focused on a limited number of strategic key issues

• it takes a critical view of the environment in terms of determining strengths and weaknesses in
the context of opportunities and threats
• it studies the external trends and forces
• it identifies and gathers major stakeholders (public and private)
• it allows for a broad (multi-level governance) and diverse involvement during the planning process
• it designs plan-making structures and develops content, image and decision-making frameworks
for influencing and managing spatial change
• it is concerned with new ideas and the processes that can propagate them, thus generating ways
of understanding, ways of building agreements and ways of organising and mobilising for the pur-
pose of exerting influence in different areas
• both in the long- and short-term, it is focused on decisions, actions, results and monitoring, feed-
back and revision

Needham [2000] sums up the arguments both for and against the establishment of a strategic plan.
He states that if the desire is to take concrete action, to change things, and to find ‘good’ solutions,
then one should proceed to formulate a strategic plan. Additionally, one should do so if one wants
to win support from people, to motivate them to act, to save money and to be both efficient and effec-
tive. His main argument against the creation of such a plan concerns the weakness of the responsi-
ble authority, the institutional structure and organisation, the absence of an active private sector and
the lack of capacity of the planning services. Bryson too states that failure to formulate a strategic
plan is primarily due to the lack of support and the necessary political will on the part of policy-
makers. In all the cities of the LA21 Programme there was a serious lack of capacity. In Nakuru, for
instance, the need for a planning unit was accepted from the beginning, but it seemed to be impos-
174

sible to find and keep capable officers. In Essaouira, the situation was even worse. At the highest
municipal level, the political will was absent and it was in fact the province that took the lead in the
Programme. In Vinh, Vietnam, “still many fundamental issues are decided and directed top-down.
The public administration has not been reformed comprehensively and it is still characterised by
natures of an administration system led by the centrally planned mechanism. It is a slow process and
it cannot keep pace with the overall renovation process. The Party’s policies and Government’s com-
mitments on decentralisation and ‘grassroots democracy’ are available ‘in principle,’ but the central
commitment is not strong enough to interpret them into actual results. And in terms of economic
and social guidance, the response of the Government is based on quantity, rather than on liveability
or quality” [Belpaire 2003:151]. In the Programme, capacity building was an important issue but due
to the circumstances, lack of will or absence of qualified people, the effects are restricted.

PRINCIPLES OF SSP

Recognition of space as an integrating framework

By and large, sectoral issues are taken as the entry-point for planning processes. This is under-
standable as the need for basic services — water, sewerage, housing, road infrastructure, business
and industrial areas — remains a primary concern for most people. It is an issue that people are will-
ing to talk about, which is why ‘participatory’ processes often start with discussions about sectoral
needs and their related priorities. It is also understandable as most governments are organised in
a hierarchical, sectoral way with ministries and their departments dealing with the development of
sectoral programmes and their realisation. In the minds
of many people, even spatial planners, a spatial plan is the
(co-ordinated) sum of all these needs translated into land
use, very often representing a grey compromise between
various interests. Even most research is oriented towards
the deduction and programming of sectoral needs.
However, while spatial planning has to deal with the spa-
tial needs of society and their programmatic realisation, the
pursuit of spatial quality involves much more and should
remain the main objective of planners. Indeed, housing,
infrastructure, and business areas are located somewhere
in a space with its own identity, name, specific character-
istics, fabric and form. Space is the framework for social,
cultural, economic and ecological artefacts and activities,
wherein their relationships will be materialised. For exam-
ple, the relationship between park, crater and city in Nakuru
fig. 6.1 Nakuru: park edge project, see chapter 2. or between port, medina and dunes in Essaouira or between
 175

the rivers, sea, and productive paddy fields in Vinh is impor-

tant. In our minds, ‘space’ should be the entry-point, the
focus, for spatial planning because of its integrative rela-
tional potentialities (see chapter five). This implies the struc-
ture of space, seen as the expression of relationships, and
the design of space as their form are key mediums for spa-
tial quality and for sustainable development [Esho 2003; Van
den Broeck 1995]. This is the reason for calling this particu-
lar approach not only strategic, but also ‘structure’ planning.
The ‘intended structure,’ based on a detailed reading of
the city to pinpoint the key issues and a vision for its future
development, expresses the way the various parts and
components of the city should be related to each other. For
instance, how can the area between the national park in
Nakuru function as an interface, a communicative space,
between the park and the city instead of merely being a
backyard along a fence. And how can this area not only
function as a physical barrier but also a psychological one
fig. 6.2 Essaouira: urban park project,
(fig. 6.1). Similarly, in Essaouira the challenge was to create
see chapter 3.
an urban park that simultaneously protected the dunes and
created a new front for the city (fig. 6.2). In Vinh, a symbio-
sis between the liquid landscapes was sought, addressing
issues of productivity, flooding and urban sprawl (fig. 6.3).

Focus on selectivity and

specificity against comprehensiveness
We have already mentioned the need for a more action-ori-
ented and realistic approach starting with an acceptance of
the scarcity of means and resources (time, money, human
resources), but also with an acknowledgement of the exist-
ing strengths and opportunities, urgency of issues, struc- fig. 6.3 Vinh: Green City vision, see chapter 4.
ture of power in the area and possibility for cooperation
between actors. This means that when starting a process,
the field should be ‘surveyed,’ but surveyed here means only
identifying key issues with all important actors for a partic-
ular area. Key issues can be defined as ‘coming between
people and their sleep.’ It is an issue for which different
feasible solutions can be found and implemented [Bryson
1995]. All aspects influencing feasibility have to be taken
176

into account: financial means but also the existence of social support or the potential for gaining it.
A key issue is strategic and structural and can function as a catalyst for solving other issues. A key
issue is also specific because it should reflect reality in order to get people interested and involved.
Sometimes, this can be problematic because people are not always interested in non-sectoral spa-
tial issues. Techniques to define key issues include the reading of the city, the well-known Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis (SWOT), and Values, Visions, Interests and Power
Structures analysis (VVIP), all of which can be part of the survey to better identify realistic possibili-
ties for planning and intervention.
In line with international developments and the acceptance of a less comprehensive and more
realistic development-led approach based on strategic planning, a difference between three types of
activities for planning institutions on each policy level can be recognised:

• The development and design of a very selective generic policy which is a framework supporting
the ‘regulatory’ practices and which also contains a programme for action
• The development and design of specific policies for specific strategic areas
• The development of strategic projects (see chapter seven) which are within the generic frame-
work considered as necessary to achieve a sustainable and qualitative spatial development

From this perspective, the present ‘Strategic Structure Plan’ for Nakuru remains too comprehensive
and lacks selectivity, specificity and a direct relationship with resources and budget. Analysing the
plan, it is obvious the ‘priorities’ mentioned will surpass the resources of the city even within the
most optimistic scenario. Another important principle of strategic planning is its ‘participatory or
more collaborative’ character (see chapter nine).

A METHODOLOGY:
THE THREE-TRACK PROCESS

The LA21 Programme adopted the three-track process based on a Strategic Structure Planning
(SSP) approach as its main operative tool. Analysing the cities, it can be observed that the principles
of the methodology — initially a three-track process — are the same in the different cities but the
process structure is very different. Indeed, the way a process structure is designed depends upon
the specific circumstances and the context, which was totally different in each of the participating
cities: the social, political and legal context, the historical, spatial, judicial and planning context, the
key issues, the assets, and the actors.
The methodology implemented was based on the above-mentioned definition and principles and
on previous experiences by members of the Consortium in different cities and circumstances (Jef
Van den Broeck, Filiep Decorte, Bruno De Meulder, André Loeckx, Kelly Shannon, Han Verschure,
etc.) and on the study of other cases in different countries [Healy et. al. 1997; Bryson 1995].
 177

A three-track process: a continuous process of envisioning

The rationale for the division into three working tracks lies in the different objectives and character
of the planning activities as well as in the different and complementary skills to be used in the
process. The three tracks, which can be seen as sub-processes (fig. 6.4), are as follows:

a strategic plan
first working towards a
long term vision

daily policy a framework

second solving bottlenecks an action plan
actions policy agreements

engaging different actors

and citizens in the planning
third
and decision process
dispute resolution

fig. 6.4 The three-track process

• A working track leading to a long-term framework with a vision of the intended development of
the city, spatial concepts, a long-term programme, and a short-term action plan
• A second track to ‘manage’ everyday life, resolve conflicts, score ‘goals’ and create trust by solv-
ing problems, making use of opportunities through the implementation of actions and projects of
an urgent and strategic nature in the short-term
• A third track for engaging different actors in the co-production, planning and decision-making

The proposed process should certainly not be viewed as a linear process. The different cases and
experiences, collected from all over the world during the last decades, prove there is no prefabri-
cated process model — no cookbook — for the design of a proper strategy and process structure
that can be implemented in every situation and certainly not in complex cases such as bigger cities.
Objectives, circumstances, means, actors, and spatial context determine the strategy and the process
structure adopted.
It was clear that the new planning law in Kenya [1996] had to be the framework for starting the
process in Nakuru and for defining its objectives. The law introduced new planning instruments: a
‘structure plan’ combined with ‘action plans’ of varying nature which would act as tools to implement
the structure plan. Another interesting aspect of the law expressed the need for a participatory and
decentralised approach giving more responsibility to local authorities. Within this context it was only
natural to avail of this opportunity — the need for a legal structure plan — accepted by all parties
concerned, as the entry-point for the process. It created the opportunity to develop a new type of plan
with a new content for use as a model for other cities. At the same time, it ensured cooperation of
all the different levels of planning. Of course, the other objective of the approach — the need for visi-
ble actions — was not forgotten. A final argument for focusing on the elaboration of a structure plan
was the need for a long-term sustainable vision to tackle the very rapid and fragmented development
178

of the city (fig. 6.5).

The circumstances in Essaouira were totally different:
some of the most urgent problems there included the dete-
rioration of the medina and mellah, the pressure exerted on
the valuable environs of the existing compact city by (offi-
cial) developers capitalising on the need for housing and the
attractiveness of the city for tourists, the lack of interest in
the conservation of natural assets, and commercial pres-
sures resulting from the value of the forestry industry, an
important generator of local employment. The political con-
text, as acknowledged by the governor of the province, made
direct intervention necessary. One could say there was a
‘turning point’ in the development of the city where a choice
could be made for either a qualitative development or a
speculative one, both alternatives having their own local and
national supporters. A favourable circumstance was the on-
going revision of the master plan (SDAU, Schéma Directeur
d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme) by the central government.
fig. 6.5 Nakuru: existing spatial structure of strate- Despite being a rather passive document, it nonetheless
gic structure plan and intended spatial structure of
strategic structure plan, see chapter 2.
sustained the discourses on the future of the city and cre-
ated a legal context for intended concepts — such as the
urban park — and for sustainable interventions (restoration
of the wall) in the city.
Although in Vietnam a principle of ‘democratic central-
ism’ is governing public organisation and functions, efforts
at decentralisation have gained strength, particularly since
1996. Nonetheless, master plans continue to be drawn up at
the central government level by the Ministry of Construction.
Starting at the local level with a fundamental rethinking of
a vision for Vinh City was not possible, but identifying gaps
between the master plan and ‘reality-on-the-ground’ was a
good starting point for discussions. So were the important
renovation needs related to the Quang Trung housing estate
fig. 6.6 The Quang Trung pilot project rehabilitated
half of the centrally located B3 block, see chapter 4.
and issues such as solid waste removal. The immediacy of
renovation for Quang Trung was turned into an opportunity
for elaborating entire urban project proposals for the whole
strategically located urban area (fig. 6.6). This also allowed
for a broader consultation with resident representatives,
local and provincial authorities and specialised ministries.
 179

Some authors advocate taking different successive steps in a management process [Teisman 2000].
Bryson and Alston, in their interesting manual “Creating and implementing your strategic plan,”
define the steps for a strategic change cycle, but emphasise that in practice a process will be ‘typi-
cally iterative’ [Bryson 1995; Bryson Alston 2001; Van den Broeck 1994]. A process will not always
‘begin at the so-called logical beginning’ as illustrated in the cases of Nakuru, Essaouira and Vinh.
Conceptually, a process is always a kind of trial and error, a combination of a deductive and an in-
ductive approach, of long-term envisioning and short-term action, resolving conflicts and problem-
solving, goal-setting and developing solutions, often within a rather chaotic but constantly struc-
tured relationship. Indeed, the behaviour of people and organisations is unpredictable [Innes et al
2000] in a way that a clear and linear process is simply neither feasible nor possible.
There is another important aspect in relation to process design and management. In this kind of
unpredictable and fitful process, the focus often shifts from the content — a good project — to the
process. Often, process design and management is seen as an activity independent of the content.
Possibly this point of view is a result of the way policy analysts and planners perceive reality. For
them, the focus of this planning tradition is the ‘search for ways of making public administration
more efficient and effective’ [Healy 1997b]. In the LA21 process, sustainable development and,
specifically, spatial quality were the ultimate objectives of each process, which of course should be
as efficient and effective as possible. The content will and should always influence the design of a
process, the object and the succession of its various phases and the nature of the result. Often, it is
apparent in a decision-making process that the objective is limited to reaching a consensus between
actors, which often results in grey, undefined solutions.
In any case, through an analysis of various processes, we can define some essential building
blocks always present in any LA21 process but not necessarily in a linear way. However, these are
always associated with the elements of the three tracks:

looking
for clients

interpretation
reading hypothesis goal-orientated implementation
initiative key-issues SWOT draft SSP SSP
the city vision research/advice monitoring
VVIP

context
analysis

urban pact 1 urban pact 2 urban pact 3 urban pact 4

fig. 6.7 Possible components of the first-track process.

• Initiation of the process by an interested actor aiming to bring an issue or issues on the agenda;
in the LA21 Programme, the main initiators were key local actors involved (the town clerk in Nakuru,
the Provincial Governor in Essaouira, etc.) who saw the potential offered by the possible support
of UN-HABITAT and the Belgian Consortium to initiate a process of change.
180

• A starting phase where the initiator mobilises key actors and tries to define key common issues
based on a spatial, social, economic and political analysis of the city and resulting in an agree-
ment about the objectives, the project design, the financing of the process, and possibly also the
realisation of some actions in order to ‘score’ as soon as possible. At times it was useful to for-
mulate a general development perspective as a hypothesis based upon existing available knowl-
edge as a means to generate fundamental discussions about the intended future of the city and
to specify the objectives of the process (fig. 6.7).

Soon after the first workshops were held in Nakuru and Essaouira, visions and related spatial con-
cepts were developed (chapters two and three) as a hypothesis taking into account existing knowl-
edge and the visions of the different actors.

• A planning and decision-making phase, exploring the different key issues, the dynamics and
trends, weaknesses, strengths and opportunities, the basic values and visions of the populations,
the interests of stakeholders and the structure of power in the area with a desired outcome of
possible alliances. During this phase, solutions are designed in an interactive, collaborative way
with ‘mature actions’ intended to be realised for the benefit of different stakeholders. Last, but not
least, this phase resulted in the elaboration of the strategic plan according to financial and human
resources.
• A final commitment-building phase, facilitating implementation, monitoring, evaluation and fur-
ther continuation of the process and Programme. Here, the programme of actions and the inten-
tion of different stakeholders to participate in realising them was concretised in a binding com-
mitment on a limited package of short-term actions. Referred to in the LA21 Programme as a
‘Commitment Package,’ they were further translated into policy agreements or ‘Urban Pacts,’ or
what could be considered as written contracts between the different actors. The ‘Pact,’ as it is often
called, is a statement of community involvement setting out a shared commitment for implemen-
tation. It gives a guarantee of the results because responsibilities are consensual and means are
fixed in the different budgets of the stakeholders, public and private [Van den Broeck 1995].

Key components of a strategic structure plan

What will be the result, the product of such a process? Certainly not a ‘blueprint master plan nor a
land-use plan,’ but an action plan with the following components:

• A dynamic and indicative framework including a vision, spatial concepts and policy goals for the
development of the city as well as a long-term programme. This programme is not an action plan,
but serves to make the relatively abstract vision, concepts and goals more concrete. Visioning or
framing is “a way of selecting, organising, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality so
as to provide guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading and acting. It is a perspective from
which an amorphous, ill-defined problematic situation can be made sense of and acted upon”
 181

[Zonneveld and Faludi 1997:7]. Frameworks make long-term planning possible and serve to moti-
vate and encourage people who definitely need a perspective. Visions and concepts create an
image of a dynamic future and give meaning to isolated issues and measures and projects.
• A binding commitment package of short-term interrelated actions and measures. Obviously this
part is the most tangible for people and, in principle, the subject of hard discussion and negotia-
tion. In the LA21 Programme the content of the package was directly related to the availability of
resources and, as such, to the budget of the city.
• A set of policy agreements or arrangements (called an Urban Pact) linking and binding the actors.
A policy agreement is perceived as a result agreement, a binding contract between committing
actors (then partners) stipulating responsibilities and project financing.

Critical reflection: adding a fourth track

Analysing the processes in the Programme cities and from experiences in other cities, it can be con-
cluded that it is certainly possible to involve the various actors intensively in planning processes. The
settings created to guide the project in the different cities together with the tools employed for bet-
ter cooperation and collaboration, such as ‘workshopping,’ always yielded interesting results, both
quantitatively (in terms of the number of participants) and qualitatively (in terms of the visions and
solutions generated). However when one looks at the kind of actors involved in these processes, it
becomes apparent that for various reasons, specific groups, not just the weaker ones, and the
broader public are missing from the ‘arena.’ Therefore, there is a need to add a ‘fourth track’ to the
approach to achieve a more permanent process involving these citizens in order to build mutual
understanding and trust, empower them, and raise their social and intellectual capacity [Forester
1989; Innes 1995; Friedman 1992; Healy 1997; Albrechts 2002; Van den Broeck 1996] (fig. 6.8). How-
ever, it is difficult to involve these groups directly into planning processes which have a limited time-

first working towards a

long term vision

daily policy a framework

second solving bottlenecks an action plan
actions policy agreements

engaging different actors

and citizens in the
third
planning and decision process
dispute resolution

fourth permanent action

involving people

time

initiation starting planmaking implementation

fig. 6.8 The fourth track and its process components.

182

frame. The associations and amicales in Essaouira are examples of such groups and possibly even
the ZDC (Zonal Development Committees in Nakuru). Their activities are very diverse but have an
important influence on the engagement of people. All over the world, an awareness of this situation
is growing and already several structural initiatives have been taken beyond the mere experimental
level in order to include people into the planning and decision-making process, perhaps not directly,
but certainly in a more effective and inclusive manner. The activities along the fourth track can be of
a very different nature, but often have the character of ‘events’ dealing with local issues and local
spaces and places. Of course these activities are not expected to change the prevailing power dynam-
ics and structures in cities, but these can possibly influence them (see chapter ten).

CONCLUSION

Planners and designers like to believe in the notion that ‘plans’ can change reality. From a histori-
cal point of view and from experience, one should be aware that people constitute the crucial factor
in planning. The LA21 process stressed that given the present circumstances, and taking into
account the local context, cooperation between all actors, both public and private, and including the
population at large are essential for decision-making, action and change. Commitment packages
and policy agreements are tools for the co-production of policy and its implementation, as its even-
tual acceptance requires discussion and negotiation about ‘what to do and how to do it.’ In practice,
reaching an agreement is not as straightforward as it would seem, as was apparent from experi-
ences in the different cities. For instance, in Nakuru the ‘Structure Plan’ was accepted, but without
a short-term action plan or any agreements on its implementation. A possible strategy for dealing
with this reality could be to delay the full acceptance of the action plan and to start with some of the
actors and the implementation of those elements of the Programme for which both an agreement
and resources exist. Also, in other cases, politically, the decision about ‘what to do now’ can be
extremely difficult, certainly when the choice is not related to the budget. ‘Defining priorities’ is often
seen by planners as a necessary activity and many techniques are developed to enable this, but in
our experience, this is an impossible job. For the different actors involved, their self-interests are of
paramount importance and an abstract discussion cannot build a consensus. A commitment seems
possible only by including (participatory: engaging and committing all actors) budgeting and the lim-
iting of the action plans in the negotiations, as well as by a stipulation of the responsibilities for the
implementation of the action plan. However, mere action plans and commitment packages are not
enough. A systematic monitoring mechanism should be established to guide the implementation
and the planning and decision-making process, which must remain a continuous activity. This has
unfortunately not been one of the LA21 Programme’s strong points.
‘How to do it’ is important and the quality of a process can have an important influence on the
quality of the ‘what,’ but it remains that the ‘what to do’ in order to create a sustainable future
remains the core task planners and designers have a fundamental responsibility to address.
 183

REFERENCES

ALBRECHTS, L. (1999) In pursuit of new approaches to strategic spatial planning. Paper presented
at the ACSP Annual Conference ‘Rebuilding Nature’s Metropolis’. Growth and Sustainability in
the 21st Century, Chicago.
ALBRECHTS, L. (1999a) Planners and Change: how do Flemish planners on the shop floor cope
with change. In: Sociedade e Territorio 29, pp. 36–46.
ALBRECHTS, L. LEROY, P. VAN DEN BROECK, J. VAN TATENHOVE, J. VERACHTERT, K. (1999)
Geïntegreerd Gebiedsgericht Beleid: een methodiek, Nijmegen, Leuven.
ALBRECHTS,L., (2002) The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement: views from
academics and reflective practitioners. In: Planning Theory and Practice, No. 3, pp. 331–347.
ALBRECHTS, L. ,VAN DEN BROECK, J. (2004) From discourse to facts: the case of the
ROM-project in Ghent, Belgium. In: Town Planning Review, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 127–150.
BELPAIRE, E. (2003) Towards a sustainable urbanisation in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam? How an
Innovative Approach can push the Agenda Forward. Unpublished thesis in fulfilment of the
degree of Master of Architecture in Human Settlements, Leuven.
BREHENY, M.J. (1994) The Renaissance of Strategic Planning. In: Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, No. 18, pp. 233–249.
BRYSON, J.M. (1995) Strategic Planning for public and non-profit organizations.
San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass.
BRYSON, J.M. Alston, F.K. (2001) Creating and Implementing your Strategic Plan, A workbook for
Public and Non-profit Organizations.
DE RYNCK, F. BOUDRY, L. CABUS, P. CORIJN, E. KESTELOOT, C. LOECKX, A. (Eds.) (2003)
De eeuw van de stad: Over stadsrepublieken en rastersteden. Die Keure, Brugge.
ESHO, L. (2003) Strategic Planning in Nakuru / Kenya, localising the SSP in the South. Unpublished
thesis in fulfillment of the degree of Master of Architecture in Human Settlements, Leuven.
FORRESTER, J. (1989) Planning in the face of Power. Berkeley CA, University of California Press.
FRIEDMAN, J. (1987) Planning in the Public domain: From Knowledge to Action.
Princeton NJ, University Press.
GEDDES, P. (1915) Cities in Evolution. New York, Howard Fertig.
HALL, P. (1979) Methods and processes in urban planning, the experience of Great Britain.
In: Papers and Proceedings.
HEALY, P. KHAKEE, A. MOTTE, A. NEEDHAM, B. (1997) Making Strategic Plans.
University College of London Press, London.
HEALY, P. (1997a) Collaborative Planning, Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.
MacMillan, London.
HEALY, P. (1997b) An Institutional Approach to spatial planning In Making Strategic Plans.
Healy, P. Khakee, A. Motte, A. Needham, B. University College of London Press, London.
INNES, J.E. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive
184

practice. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3), pp. 183–189.
INNES, J. BOOHER, D. (2000) Planning Institution in the Network Society: Theory for Collaborative
Planning In: The Revival of Strategic Planning, Amsterdam.
KREUKELS, T. (1981) Developments in Strategic Planning: an overview. In: Voogd, H. (Eds.)
Strategic Planning in a dynamic society. Delftse Uitgeversmaatschappij, Delft.
NEEDHAM, B. (2000) Making Strategic Plans: a Situational Methodology!. In: The revival of
Strategic Spatial Planning. Salet, W., Faludi, A., (Eds.). Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and Sciences, Amsterdam.
NEWMAN, P. THORNLEY, A. (1996) Urban Planning in Europe. Routledge, London.
LINDBLOM (1959) The Science of muddling through. In: Public Administration Review 19.
TEISMAN, G.R. (2000) Strategies for improving policy results in a pluri- centric society:
an interactive perspective on strategic policy behaviour. In: SALET, W. Faludi, A. (Eds.)
The Revival of Strategic Planning. Amsterdam.
VAN DEN BROECK, J. (1983) The Revitalisation of the Rupel region. Paper presented to the
International Seminar on ‘Revitalising the Inner City’. IFHP Haraldskaer, Denmark.
VAN DEN BROECK, J. (1987) Structuurplanning in de praktijk: werken op drie sporen.
In: Ruimtelijke Planning. afl. 19, II.A.2.c, p. 53–119. Van Loghum Slaterus, Antwerpen.
VAN DEN BROECK, J. (1994) Structuurplanning, een handleiding voor gemeenten.
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. AROHM, Brussels.
VAN DEN BROECK, J. (1995) Sustainable Strategic Planning: a way to localise Agenda 21.
In: Proceedings of the Nakuru Consultative Workshop. Nakuru, Kenya.
VAN DEN BROECK, J. (1995) Pursuit of a collective urban pact between partners.
Paper presented at the 31st IsoCaRP International Congress in Sydney.
ZONNEVELD, W. FALUDI, A. (1997) Vanishing Borders: The second Benelux Structural Outline.
In: Built Environment, Vol. 23, No. 1. Academic Press, Oxford.