We are not able to resolve this OAI Identifier to the repository landing page. If you are the repository manager for this record, please head to the Dashboard and adjust the settings.
“This book makes a case for the power and importance of the
narrative, emotional, and symbolic aspects of spatial planning”
(p. 246). In Dutch and English, the editors of Strong
Stories—How the Dutch Are Reinventing Spatial Planning
present a theoretical planning concept: strong stories. The
authors reflect on practical planning examples throughout
the Netherlands, selecting many water-related planning
cases, such as river bypasses, polder developments, etc.
After introducing the concept of strong stories in the first
section, the book presents sections on knowledge and participation,
planning with stories, anchoring stories, and
finally on responsibility for quality and democracy, with the
concluding section summing up the findings.
In the introductory section, “The Power of Strong
Stories,” the editors state that “without a strong story there
can be no successful planning” (p. 13). They reflect on the
roles of planners and of their expertise in the planning process,
presenting a definition of planning that emphasizes the
key roles of communication and coordination (p. 14). The
editors conclude this section with the explanation that strong
stories lead to spatial quality by tying together visions,
knowledge, and democratic legitimacy.
After this introduction by the editors, four sections with a
similar structure follow. Each section consists of a general
introduction and some case studies presented by Hajer, van’t
Klooster, and Grijzen. Different authors in independent
essays then reflect on the overall topic of the section (without
referring to the case studies). This structure shows the
inductive way of elaborating on the idea of strong stories.
Methodologically, however, this structure is not always pursued
consistently—instead of using the same case studies in
different sections for discussion from various facets, some
case studies just run through all the sections while others are
just used selectively in particular sections. The selection of
cases is not well reasoned either. The essays do not all reflect
on the case studies presented by the editors and sometimes
present their own cases (e.g., in Hemel’s essay)
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.