Collaborative Planning for City Development. a Perspective from a City Planner

Przegląd Naukowy – Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska (2017), 26 (1), 136–147 Prz. Nauk. Inż. Kszt. Środ. (2017), 26 (1) Scientiﬁ c Review – Engineering and Environmental Sciences (2017), 26 (1), 136–147 Sci. Rev. Eng. Env. Sci. (2017), 26 (1) http://iks.pn.sggw.pl DOI 10.22630/PNIKS.2017.26.1.12 Kamalia PURBANI Environmental Sciences Doctorate Program Development Planning Department, City of Bandung, West Java, Indonesia Collaborative planning for city development. A perspective from a city planner

Key words: collaborative planning, city deve- governance “requires problem-solving, lopment, city planner broad participation, provisional solutions, the sharing of regulatory responsibility across the public-private divide and Introduction a fl exible engaged agency.” (Freeman, 1997), while Innes and Booher argue that Collaborative governance has been collaborative governance models must developed since early 2000. This mod- be engaged in “authentic dialogue” with el could be characterized by collecting each stakeholder legitimately represent- multiple stakeholders in a common fo- ing the interests for which they claim to rum for consensus decision-making, of- speak, coming to the table with interests, ten led by public agencies (Anshell and but also with open minds about their po- Gash, 2008). The principle characteristic sitions and a willingness to “seek mu- is that this leads to the outcomes satis- tual gain solutions” (Innes and Booher, fying all parties involved (Gray, 2000). 2004). Booher’s analysis shows that there are common characteristics such as policy consensus, community visioning, con- The new paradigm of planning sensus rule-making, and collaborative network structures in collaborative gov- The new paradigm of planning is ernance (Innes and Booher, 2004). based on interpretive approaches which One of the problems that may hinder recognise the diverse ways of living that the theories of collaboration is that re- exist in pluralist societies, while tra- searchers employ different defi nitions ditional planning focuses on scientifi c of “collaboration” (Imperial, 2005). rationalism in a culturally homogene- Jody Freeman argues that collaborative ous community with a public interest

136 K. Purbani (Healey, 2006). The theory of structu- Collaborative planning ration and the theory of communicative action show that the mobilization of Collaborative planning is a new networks generates the driving forces paradigm of planning for a complex con- of social transformation through inter- temporary society which usually medi- action. Thus, it is concluded that a new ates confl icts between parties through paradigm of planning based on interpre- consensus-building processes. It encour- tive approaches can be interpreted as an ages people to be engaged in a dialogue interactive process which has the poten- in a situation of equal empowerment and tial to establish relations and discussion shared information, to learn new ideas that will create new cultural formations through mutual understanding, to create through collaboration rather than through innovative outcomes and to build institu- the technical processes of design, analy- tional capacity (Innes and Booher, 2004; sis and management. Healey, 2006). In particular, Maginn However, sometimes discussions (2007) indicates that collaborative plan- may cause cultural domination rather than ning can provide policymakers with intercultural communication. To avoid more effective community participation. this limitation, participants need to learn With regard to collaborative plan- how to understand what the problems ning, Healey (2006) mentions that the are, how to respect each other and how processes of collaborative planning can to build consensus. This may encourage be described as a combination of “soft” people to build up new discussions with and “hard infrastructure”, which is called the capacity to reshape abstract systems “institutional design”: “soft infrastruc- in democratic debates (Healey, 2006). ture” includes informal collaborative In particular, relational webs based on strategy-making processes, such as so- social interaction can modify powerful cial learning, through which stakeholders forces, such as intense constraints, in communicate with each other and build a multi-cultural world, and change ab- social, intellectual and political capitals; stract systems and structuring forces. and “hard infrastructure” refers to the de- Several scholars (Innes and Booher, sign of political, administrative and legal 1999a; Margerum, 2002; Healey, 2003; processes, through which people change Maginn, 2007; Lofgren and Agger, the power relations in networks. 2008) have defi ned this new paradigm of Discussing collaborative strategy- planning as collaborative planning. It is -making as soft infrastructure, Healey argued that through collaborative plan- (2006) suggests that an ideal strategy- ning based on interpretive approaches, -making method should be “inclusion- people can build up relational networks ary argumentation”, which can be inter- and resolve complex confl icts. In parti- preted as a social learning process. Con- cular, the collaborative planning system sensus-building through social learning plays a signifi cant role in dealing with processes is expected to build up trust, the complexity and diversity of urban establish new relations of power among governance fi elds (Healey, 2003). participants and generate social, intellec-

Collaborative planning... 137 tual and political capital. However, the agents are united by an authentic dia- quality of inclusionary argumentation logue in which the process will produce depends upon several factors (Healey, exchange, relationships, learning and 2006): the availability of initiators who creativity. The dialogue will eventually open up places for argumentation and se- produce an adaptation of a system. Net- lect participants; openness which gives work of DYADIC is a very important all stakeholders a voice in discussion; aspect in collaborative planning, while facilitators who encourage high quality how the dialogue goes, described by An- discussion, preventing some voices from shell and Gash (2008) in a cycle in Col- being ignored; mutual interaction to re- laborative Governance Model. frame diverse issues; the formalization Driving and obstacles factors in col- of any agreement reached; the monitor- laboration process are also described ing of implementation of any agreement; in Collaborative Governance Model and the maintenance of consensus. An- (Anshell and Gash, 2008). The models shell and Gash (2008) state that inclu- incorporate the critical factors that de- sionary argumentation requires “face- termine the process of collaboration, -to-face dialogue, trust building and the namely: the initial conditions, institu- development of commitment and shared tional design, and leadership. The initial understanding” between stakeholders. condition consists of trust, conﬂ ict and social capital into supporting and collaboration. Institutional design compiles Collaborative process as key rules in the process of collaboration. elements of collaborative planning Leadership provides an important role in mediating and facilitating collaboration. In a planning approach based com- The collaborative process is a cycle that munications stressed the importance of includes: face-to-face dialogue, building cooperation with based communication trust, commitment to process, shared un- among stakeholders as shown by a plan- derstanding and intermediate outcomes. ning approach transactive (Friedman, Innes and Booher (2004) consider 1973), collaborative planning (Healey, dialogue, networking and institutional 1996), planning communicative (Sager, capacity to be a key factor in maximiz- 1994; Innes, 1998), planning delibera- ing the effects of collaborative govern- tive-participatory (Forrester, 2000) and ance: dialogue encourages participants the planning of consensus (Woltjer, to share information, understand the per- 2000). The process that includes activity spective of the other partners and creat- of dialogue, participation and oriented to ing innovative results; creating networks the joint decision, summarized in a col- of mutual trust, encouraging participants laborative process. to learn the power of collaborative proc- Innes and Booher (2000) describe esses; and institutional capacity, which the collaborative process in a Dynamic is considered as a combination of social Network (DYADIC) diagram, in which capital, intellectual and political, prolif- the diversity and interdependence of the erates through the network and making

138 K. Purbani civil society more competent. In addi- The role of stakeholder leadership tion, Anshell and Gash (2008) suggests in collaborative planning that “face-to-face dialogue, build trust and development of commitment and There has been a growing attention mutual understanding” is an important on the discussion of leadership in the factor in the collaborative process. planning literature (Balducci and Cal- In order to achieve collaboration varesi, 2004; Crosby and Bryson, 2005). between actors with the interests and di- The relationship between leadership verse history of the confl ict, the dialogue and collaborative planning is not clearly must be genuine, not rhetorical or ritual- theorized yet, although this is implicitly istic (Isaacs, 1999). Everyone should say conceptualized as the “network power”, what they mean and mean what they say. in which power is being shared and con- To be authentic, dialogue must meet sev- fronted with each other (cf. Booher and eral conditions (Habermas, 1981; Fox Innes, 2002; Healey, 2006; Innes and and Miller, 1996): each speaker must Booher, 2010). Leadership can actually legitimize interests to speak, must speak be considered to be an integral part of sincerely, should make a statement that communicative planning (cf. Crosby and comprehensive for the other and each Bryson, 2005). There is an argue that statement must be accurate. This condi- leadership can foster an effective collab- tion is not obtained directly automati- oration and consensus building process. cally, but the usual obtained by engaging Previous studies also show that leader- a facilitator. ship appears to be one of the key success Based on Anshell and Gash research factors in regional governance (Firman, (2008) concluded that there are three core 2010; Hudalah et al., 2013). An effective contingency factors: (1) time, (2) trust, leadership framework, which is tailored and (3) where there is interdependence for specifi c governance setting, can help between the interactive effects of trust mobilize resources, foster dialogues, and interdependence. Interdependence encourage participation and overcome fosters participation and commitment confl icts between stakeholders (Crosby to a more meaningful collaboration, and and Bryson, 2005; Hemphill et al., 2006; trust can be built in a situation of interde- Rondinelli, 2009; Talvitie, 2012). pendence is high. To validate the argument, Fahmi et Johnston et al. (2010) and then fol- al. (2016) examine the best practice in low up studies and prove empirically urban management Indonesia as evi- that if the process of engagement in col- denced in a street vendor relocation in laborative governance structure is well Surakarta. This case provides an inter- managed, then it can be a force in creat- esting international insight and especial- ing the strengthening cycle of trust, com- ly for the nations that have experienced mitment, understanding, communication decentralization and restructuration of and the result, which is indicator of the planning system, such as Indonesia. success of collaborative government. Besides, the problem of street vendors

Collaborative planning... 139 refl ects a global phenomenon, which is Frame et al., 2004; Heikkila and Gerlak, hardly managed not only in Indonesian 2005; Imperial, 2005; Murdock, Wiess- cities, but also in many other develop- ner and Sexton, 2005). ing countries (cf. Bhowmik, 2010; Men- Leadership is crucial for setting and eses Reyes and Caballero-Juarez, 2014). maintaining clear ground rules, building Street vendors, or pedagang kaki lima trust, facilitating dialogue, and explor- (PKL), are very small retails who usu- ing mutual gains. Vangen and Huxham ally do not have legal permits but that (2003a) argue tha leadership is impor- occupy public spaces such as streets, tant to embrace, empower, and involve parking areas, stations and parks (Porter stakeholders and then mobilize them to et al., 2011). Street vendors in Indonesia move collaboration forward. Chrislip refl ect the people’s reaction to the 1998 and Larson (1994) describe the collabo- monetary crises, which enforced them rative leader as a steward of the process to search for alternative ways to earn (transforming, servant, or facilitative a living. In many cities, street vendor re- leadership) whose leadership style is location almost always “ends with clash- “characterized by its focus on promoting es between offi cers and the vendors” and safeguarding the process (rather than (BBC Indonesia, 2011). on individual leaders taking decisive ac- This case has also been studied tion)”. Scholars assert that collaborative through various perspectives concluding governance requires specifi c types of that the relocation was carefully designed leadership. Ryan (2001), for example, and communicated beforehand between identifi es three components of “effec- the local government, street vendors, and tive” collaborative leadership: adequate other supporting actors, so that these actors management of the collaborative proc- collaboratively implemented this project ess, maintaining “technical credibility” (Porter et al., 2011; Bunnell et al., 2013; and ensuring that the collaborative is Sufi anti et al., 2013 Sufi anti, 2014; Phelps empowered to “make credible and con- et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the success ap- vincing decisions that are acceptable pears to be complicated as it “departs from to all”. Lasker and Weiss (2001) argue a story linked inextricably with Jokowi’s that collaborative leaders must have the leadership” (Phelps et al., 2014), or Mayor skills to (1) promote broad and active Joko Widodo, who used humanist and cul- participation, (2) ensure broad based in- tural values in his approach. fl uence and control, (3) facilitate produc- Leadership is widely seen as a criti- tive group dynamics, and (4) extend the cal ingredient in bringing parties to the scope of the process. table and forstering them through the Successful collaborations may also rough patches of the collaborative proc- use multiple leaders, formally and infor- ess (Chrislip and Larson 1994; Reilly mally, rather than relying on one leader 1998, 2001; Smith 1998; Huxham and (Bradford 1998; Lasker and Weiss 2003). Vangen, 2000; Roussos and Fawcett Huxham and Vangen (2000) emphasize 2000; Saarikoski 2000; Margerum 2002; that effective collaborative leadership Gunton and Day, 2003; Vangen and is likely to be time, resource, and skill Huxham 2003a; Laskerand Weiss 2003; intensive.

140 K. Purbani It is interesting to discuss that lead- of everyday life in its locality (UNDP, ership is also important for empowering 1993; Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002). and representing weaker stakeholders. Based on the above discussion it Ozawa (1993), for example, describes can be concluded that the most impor- what he calls “transformative” tech- tant factor in establishing collaborative niques in which mediation procedures leadership is to recognize the necessity helps to bring about a “balance of power” for interdependence between stakehold- among stakeholders. This style of facili- ers. If the stakeholders can realize that tative leadership also helps stakeholders their principles will be implemented to explore possibilities for mutual gain. only through cooperation, this will help Lasker and Weiss (2003) argue that fa- them recognize their problems, estab- cilitative leaders must “give meaning- lish effective working arrangements ful voice to participants” and encourage and reach agreement through shared participants to listen to each other. They understanding. conclude that leaders should stimulate creativity by synthesizing the knowledge of diverse participants so the group can The role of city planners create new ideas and understanding. in collaborative planning Strengthening the leadership role in collaboration is also expressed by Ryan In their article, Brand and Gaffi kin (2001), Innes and Booher (1999b). They (2007) disaggregate collaborative plan- emphasize that the major role of lead- ning into four key elements: ontology, ership in collaboration is to establish, epistemology, ideology and methodol- protect and encourage collaboration by ogy. They make a statement regard- providing a long-term vision and facili- ing ontology, that statutory plans face tating the consensus-building processes a greater legal authority than non-statu- in the face of various obstacles such as tory plans where the latter, paradoxically, distrust. Collaborative leadership plays contains more creativity and imaginative a signifi cant role in setting rules for col- outcomes and therefore possibly refl ects laboration, building trust and facilitat- the public discourse better (Brand and ing dialogue (Anshell and Gash, 2008). Gaffi kin, 2007). While Innes (2006) Innes and Booher (1999b) introduce states that that “a comprehensive plan is a new style of leadership for the contem- a long range physical plan for a city… porary era, a style of leadership that can [and] a statement of policy rather than suggest a long-term vision, encourage a program of specifi c actions, intended to public involvement, build trust among guide city offi cials in future actions”. In stakeholders and develop participatory this sense, we should approach a compre- skills for social learning processes. In hensive plan as a non-statutory plan and self-governing networks, government is regard the document with actual physical no longer the single leader, because civil actions as a statutory plan. society has begun to accumulate its own Collaborative planning could be un- power since the 1980s, refl ecting a prac- derstood as a power paradigm of stake- tical knowledge built up in the course holders. Healey (2003) approaches power

Collaborative planning... 141 as a relation rather than a “thing”. The expert knowledge to enforce their con- arguments she gives for her statement vincing power. By doing so, they enable that a collaborative planning process is themselves to “decide” or strongly advise not meant to “neutralize” this power but others when other participants within the that power is rather derived from the cred- collaborative planning process fail to use ibility and legitimacy that people grant to their power and thus in decision mak- certain institutions, are convincing. Equal ing. The collaborative planner should try distribution of information among all (among others) to maximize the degree stakeholders is also diffi cult to achieve of creativity in both statutory – and non- because certain information is only avail- -statutary plans, thereby sketching physi- able to certain institutions which is not cal actions a clearly as possible. meant to distribute to others, of which political sensitive information is an example. However, the more local the collaborative The shift role of urban planners planning process is in regard to land use in collaborative planning and spatial development, the more diffi - in Indonesia cult it is to dodge controversy. This could possibly also harm the collaborative plan- Strengthening the role of the legis- ning processes towards statuary and non- lature in the era of democratization and statuary plans. regional autonomy era brings a new The Case studies (Kobler, 2010; nuance in planning in Indonesia. Local Sokol, 2012) confi rms that the planners parliament becomes more involved in can facilitate an informed decision-mak- public policy-making as in budgeting, ing process more effectively among the determination of the development pro- local participants about the context-spe- gram up to the impeachment of the head cifi c future of their community. One com- region. The planners have a role and mon theme that emerges in many of the a new task in this era which are to iden- interviews was that planners often need tify goals, values and interests of the to moderate their expectations for a given groups of players involved in a more community based on input from the lo- specifi c and to identify levels of infl u- cal participants in a visioning initiative. ence and the efforts taken, to acomodate Planners effectively balance their roles the interests of each group. as advocates and facilitators in collabo- When planning is seen as a tool and rative processes by engaging in shared method in decision-making and public learning with the local participants. action, it is very reasonable to under- Jorian Walls (2015) proposes exten- stand that there is a political dimension sion to the role of a collaborative planner in planning. Political dimension in the not only as a mediator and knowledge formulation of public policy is insepara- exchanger (Brand and Gaffi kin, 2007). ble from the planning process as an act Collaborative planners should not only of rational and scientifi c. Differences in guide a shift from competitive inter- technocratic planning process with dem- est bargaining to negotiating consensus ocratic planning are very visible and will building, but they should also use their affect the role planner for each context.

142 K. Purbani Forester (1989) provides fi fth per- Basically, there have been basic profes- spective in explaining the role of infor- sional ethics that guide the conduct of mation in a plan that is full of political planners to carry out their profession overtones. That role is of a Technician, ethically, in participatory planning. Incrementalist, The Liberal Advoca- Professional ethics that guide the be- tive, The Structuralist, The Progressive. havior of planners in supporting commu- While Hardiansah (2005) in his thesis nity participation and responsible to the on the role of planners in this era of de- interests of society are often overlooked mocratization “Planning: A Case Study given that the planners have controlled of Planning Jalan Dago Lembang”, con- by the planning approach of a scientifi c cludes that planner roles in the political nature. In supporting participatory plan- process include an engineer, bureaucrat, ning, they are no longer possible to ig- lawyer and politician. nore ethics as a city planner. In addition, Approach to development planning to gain the trustt of community and build has begun to shift from central planning effective communication based on mutu- toward participatory planning. Theoreti- al understanding, trust and cooperation, cally, such shifts would lead to changes then the natural pragmatic norms should in the role of the planner in planning become a handbook for planners. practices, from planners as applied sci- entists to a planner as a communicator. In participatory planning, planners ex- Conclusions pected to carry out a role as a facilitator for accommodating aspiration through Collaborative governance is a gov- discussion and ensure that the marginal ernance model that developed over the also got the chance to have their voice last two decades which prioritize con- heard. sensus among diverse stakeholders. Participatory planning practices need In the world of planning there is also a qualifi ed planner as a facilitator which a shift paradigm of planning for a com- will function as a communicator who plex contemporary society based on helps establish dialogue involving all Communicative Rationality Theory that participants to make effective planning called Collaborative Planning. Collabo- that meet the needs and solve problems rative planning can provide policy mak- together. ers with more effective community par- Changes in the role of the planner re- ticipation. The collaborative approach quires change of ability and behavior of relies heavily on the leadership role that planners which will be resulting ethical should be able to run a variety of roles. participatory planning process. In carry- The main role to be undertaken is to build ing out their profession in a participatory trust and facilitate dialogue. planning process, planners not only rely In line with the shift in approach to on knowledge and analysis techniques, the planning, the role of urban planners but also on the ability to establish dia- in the development of the city also ex- logue or communication parties. Plan- perienced a shift. City planning is not ning is the result of joint discussions. just about technocratic process but also

Collaborative planning... 143 a political process. In the political pro- Chrislip, D.D. and Larson, C.E. (1994). Colla- cess, city planners must be able to per- borative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- form a variety of roles depending on the -Bass. Crosby, B.C. and Bryson, J.M. (2005). Leader- situation and context which serves as ship for the Common Good: Tackling Public technocrats, bureaucrats, lawyers and Problems in a Shared-Power World. 2nd politicians. edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons. In any the situation, city planners Fahmi, F., Prawira, I., Hudalah, D., and Firman, must still uphold the ethics as a city plan- T. (2016). Leadership and collaborative planning: the case of Surakarta. Indonesia. Plan- ner who puts the responsibility to socie- ning Theory, 15(3), 294-315. ty, to the assignor and their integrity and Firman, T. (2010). Multi local-government under professionalism. Indonesia’s decentralization reform: The case of Kartamantul (The Greater Yogyakarta). Habitat International, 34(4), 400-405. References Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning proces- Anshell, C. and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative ses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal Forester, J. (2000). Multicultural planning in of Public Administration Research and The- deed: lessons from the mediation practice ory, 18, 543-571. of Shirley Solomon and Larry Sherman. In: Balducci, A. and Calvaresi, C. (2004). Participa- M. Burayidi (Ed.), Urban Planning in a Mul- tion and leadership in planning theory and ticultural Society (pp. 147-168). Westport, practices. In: M. Haus, H. Heinelt, M. Stewart CT: Praeger. (Eds.), Urban Governance and Democracy: Fox, C.J. and Miller, H.T. (1996). Postmodern Leadership and Community Involvement (pp. Public Administration: Toward Discourse. 234-252). New York: Routledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Beatley, T. (1989). Environmental Ethics and Frame, T.M., Gunton, T. and Day, J.C. (2004). Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Lite- The role of collaboration in environmental rature, 4(1), 1-32. management: an evaluation of land and re- BBC Indonesia (2011). Memimpin Solo ala Jo- source planning in British Columbia. Journal kowi. BBC Indonesia, 4 August. Available of Environmental Planning and Management, at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/indonesia/maja- 47(1), 59-82. lah/2011/08/110804_tokohjokowidodo.shtml. Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative Governance in Bhowmik, S. (Ed.) (2010). Street Vendors in the the Administrative State. UCLA Law Review, Global Urban Economy. New Delhi, India: 54, 1-98. Routledge. Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter-organizational Booher, D.E. and Innes, J.E. (2002). Network collaboration: Multiple Conceptions and power in collaborative planning. Journal of multiple methods. In: D. Faulkner, M. de Planning Education and Research, 21(3), Rond (Eds.), Cooperative Strategy: Econo- 221-236. mic, Business, and Organizational Issues. Bradford, D.L. and Cohen, A.R. (1998). Power (pp. 243-260). Oxford: Oxford University up: Transforming organizations through Press. shared leadership. New York: J. Wiley. Gunton, T. and Day, D. (2003). The theory and Brand, R. and Gafﬁ kin, F. (2007). Collaborative practice of collaborative planning inresource planning in an uncollaborative world. Plan- and environmental management. Environ- ning Theory, 6(3), 282-313. ments, 31, 5-19. Bunnell, T., Miller, M.A. and Phelps, N.A. (2013). Habermas, J. (1981). Reason and the Rationali- Urban development in a decentralized Indo- zation of Society, Vol. 1, The Theory of Com- nesia: Two success stories? Paciﬁ c Affairs, municative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). 86(4), 857-876. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

144 K. Purbani Hardiansah, E.C. (2005). Peran Perencana dalam A New Approach to Sustainability. Economic Era Demokratisasi Perencanaan: Kasus Per- Development Quarterly, 13(2), 141-156. encanaan Jalan Dago-Lembang. Jurnal Per- Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2004). Reframing encanaan Wilayah dan Kota, 16(2), 41-63. Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Healey, P. (1996). The communicative turn in Century. Planning Theory and Practice, planning theory and its implications for 5(4), 419-436. spatial strategy formation. Environment and Innes, J.E., Connick, S., Kaplan, L. and Booher, Planning B: Planning and Design, 23(2), D.E. (2006). Collaborative governance in the 217-234. CALFED program: Adaptive policy making Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Per- for California water. Institute of Urban and spective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123. Regional Development Working paper 1. Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning – Shap- Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thin- ing Places in Fragmented Societies. 2nd edn. king Together. London: Crown Business. London: Macmillan. Johnston, E. (2010). Managing the Inclusion Pro- Heikkila, T. and Gerlak, A.K. (2005). The forma- cess in Collaborative Governance. Journal tion of large-scale collaborative resource ma- of Public Administration Resources Theory, nagement institutions: Clarifying the roles of 21(4), 699-721. stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Kobler, A.M. (2009). Building community capa- Studies Journal, 33(4), 583-612. city: how collaborative planning is changing Hemphill, L., Mcgreal, S., Berry, J. and Watson, the culture of governance in Seattle (master S. (2006). Leadership, power and multisec- thesis). Ames: Iowa State University. tor urban regeneration partnerships. Urban Lasker, R.D. and Weiss, E.S. (2003). Broadening Studies, 43(1), 59-80. participation in community problem solving: Hudalah, D., Firman, T., and Woltjer, J. (2014). a multidisciplinary model to support colla- Cultural cooperation, institution building, and borative practice and research. Journal of metropolitan governance in decentralizing Urban Health, 80(1), 14-47. Indonesia. International Journal of Urban Lasker, R.D., Weiss, E.S. and Miller, R. (2001). and Regional Research, 38(6), 2217-2234. Partnership synergy: a practical framework Huxham, C. (2000). The Challenge of Collabo- for studying and strengthening the collaborative Governance. Public Management. In- rative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, ternational Journal of Research and Theory, 79(2), 179-205. 2(3), 337-357. Lofgren, K. and Agger, A (2008) Democratic Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in Assessment of Collaborative Planning Pro- the shaping and implementation of collabo- cesses. Planning Theory, 7(2), 145-164. ration agendas: How things happen in a (not Maginn, P. (2007). Towards more effective com- quite) joined-up world. Academy of Manage- munity participation in urban regeneration: ment Journal, 43(6), 1159-1175. the potential of collaborative planning and Imperial, M.T. (2005). Using Collaboration as applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six 6(4), 25-43. Watershed Management Programs. Admini- Margerum, R.D. (2002). Collaborative Planning stration & Society, 37(3), 281-320. – Building Consensus and Building a Distinct Innes, J.E. (1998). Information in Communicative Model for Practice. Journal of Planning and Planning. Journal of the American Planning Education and Research, 21, 237-253. Association, 64(1), 52-63. Meneses-Reyes, R. and Caballero-Juárez, J. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999a). Consensus (2014). The Right To Work on the Street: Building and Complex Adaptive Systems Public Space and Constitutional Rights. – A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning Theory, 13(4), 370-386. DOI: Planning. Journal of the American Planning 10.1177/1473095213503967. Association, 65(4), 412-423. Phelps, N.A., Bunnell, T. and Miller, M.A. (2014). Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999b). Metropo- Urban inter-referencing within and beyond litan Development as a Complex System: a decentralized Indonesia. Cities, 39, 37-49.

Collaborative planning... 145 Porter, L., Lombard, M. and Huxley, M. (2011). Woltjer, J. (2000). Consensus Planning: The Re- Informality, the commons and the paradoxes levance of Communicative Planning Theory for planning: Concepts and debates for infor- in Dutch Infrastructure Development. Alder- mality and planning self-made cities: Ordina- shot: Ashgate. ry informality? The reordering of a Romany neighbourhood The Land Formalisation Process and the Peri-Urban Zone of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania street vendors and planning Summary in Indonesian cities informal urbanism in the USA: New challenges for theory and practice Collaborative planning for city devel- engaging with citizenship and urban struggle opment. A perspective from a city plan- through an informality lens. Planning Theory ner. A number of defi nitions related to col- & Practice, 12(1), 115-153 laborative governance have been developed Rondinelli, D.A. (2009). Changing concepts of since early 2000. The common characteris- leadership in a globalizing society. In: D.A. tics of collaborative governance are, among Rondinelli, J.M. Heffron (Eds). Leadership others, policy consensus, community vi- for Development: What Globalization De- sioning, consensus rule-making, and col- mands of Leaders Fighting for Change (pp. laborative network structures. Collaborative 27-47). Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press. Ryan, C.M. (2001). Leadership in collaborative planning is a new paradigm of planning for policy-making: An analysis of agency roles a complex contemporary society through in regulatory negotiations. Policy Sciences, which it encourages people to be engaged in 34(3), 221-245. a dialogue in a situation of equal empower- Sokol, M. (2014). Theorizing Planning Practice: ment and shared information to learn new Collaborative Planning for Smart Growth on ideas through mutual understanding, to cre- Long Island, New York (master thesis). New ate innovative outcomes and to build institu- York: Columbia University. tional capacity. This indicates that collabora- Sufi anti, E. (2014). Kepemimpinan dan Peren- tive planning can provide policy makers with canaan Kolaboratif pada Masyarakat Non more effective community participation. Kolaboratif. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah Collaborative process is the key of col- dan Kota, 25(1), 77-95. laborative planning which also emphasizes Sufi anti, E., Sawitri, D. and Pribadi, K.N. (2013). the signifi cant role of collaborative leader- Proses Kolaboratif dalam Perencanaan Ber- ship. The process includes a participatory basis Komunikasi Pada Masyarakat Non activity of dialogue oriented to the joint Kolaboratif. Mimbar, 29(2), 133-144. decision and summarized in a collaborative Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002). Working process. The collaborative leadership is cru- across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public cial for setting and maintaining clear ground Services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. rules, building trust, facilitating dialogue, Talvitie, A. (2012). The problem of trust in plan- and exploring mutual gains. ning. Planning Theory, 11(3), 257–278. Along with the shift of planning para- UNDP (1993). Human Development Report. New York: UNDP. digm, the role of city planner will also Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting change since the city planning deals with the leadership for collaborative advantage: Di- political process. In the political process, city lemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the planners must be able to perform as techno- activities of partnership managers. British crats, bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians Journal of Management, 14(1), 61-76. who always uphold their ethics because they Walls, J.R. (2015). Flood resilient cities – A Ja- are responsible to the society, the assignor karta case study. for their integrity and professionalism.

146 K. Purbani Author’s address: Kamalia Purbani Universitas Padjadjara Postgraduate School Jl. Dipati Ukur 35 Bandung Indonesia 40132 e-mail: [email protected]

Collaborative planning... 147