Toward a Holistic Planning Culture Framework: Integrating Individual, Collective, and Societal Dimensions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6000/Keywords:
Planning culture,, sociological institutionalism, structure-agency, holistic framework, transformative capacity, comparative planningAbstract
Planning culture scholarship has evolved significantly over six decades, yet fundamental analytical tensions persist: between systematic comparison and contextual specificity, between structural determinism and agential capacity, and between cultural continuity and institutional change. Existing frameworks, particularly the influential Culturised Planning Model, struggle to address these tensions because they inadvertently reproduce the structure-agency dualism they seek to transcend, treating institutional contexts as relatively fixed parameters that shape but are not shaped by planning practice. This paper presents a holistic planning culture framework that bridges this divide by drawing on sociological institutionalism’s insights into how actors simultaneously work within, reshape, and transform institutional arrangements. The framework distinguishes three interdependent cultural layers: individual attitudes (encompassing knowledge, beliefs, and actions), collective practices (including procedural rules and actors’ constellations), and societal environment (reflected in steering styles). Unlike hierarchical models that imply unidirectional causation, this framework conceptualises these layers as mutually constitutive – simultaneously structuring and being structured by planning practice. This recursive character explains both cultural reproduction (through mutually reinforcing relationships) and transformation (through contradictions creating openings for institutional entrepreneurship). The framework enables more nuanced analysis of how planning cultures operate across multiple scales, how identical formal instruments produce divergent outcomes, and how endogenous change emerges through everyday planning practice. By treating planning culture as a dynamic institutional field rather than a static context, the framework supports more reflexive, culturally-informed planning practice.
References
Battilana, Julie, Bernard Leca, and Eva Boxenbaum. 2009. “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” The Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 65-107.https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903053598Bolan, Richard S. 1969. “Community Decision Behavior: The Culture of Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 35(5): 301-10.https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977240Campbell, John L. 2004. Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Carpenter, Juliet, Patricia Pereira, Oliver Dlabac, and Roman Zwicky. 2022. “’Urban Interventionism’ in Welfare and Planning: National Typologies and ‘Local Cultures’ in Europe.” Journal of Urban Affairs 44(7): 1019-38.https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1770604DiMaggio, Paul J. 1988. “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory.” Pp. 3-21 in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, edited by L.G. Zucker. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-60.Douglas, Mary. 2004. “Traditional Culture – Let’s Hear No More About It.” Pp. 85-109 in Culture and Public Action, edited by V. Rao and M. Walton. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Ernste, Huib. 2012. “Framing Cultures of Spatial Planning.” Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 87-101.https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661194EU (Informal meeting of Ministers responsible for spatial planning, territorial development and/or territorial cohesion). 2020. Territorial Agenda 2030: A Future for All Places. Germany, 1 December 2020.
82Global Journal of Cultural Studies, 2025, Volume 4Ana PerićFaludi, Andreas. 2005. “The Netherlands: a culture with a soft spot for planning.” Pp. 285-308 in Comparative Planning Cultures, edited by B. Sanyal. New York: Routledge. Fischer, Frank and John Forester (Eds.). 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520908918Friedmann, John. 1967. “A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning Behaviour.” Administrative Science Quarterly 12: 225-52.https://doi.org/10.2307/2391550Friedmann, John. 2005. “Planning cultures in transition.” Pp. 29-44 in Comparative Planning Cultures, edited by B. Sanyal. New York: Routledge. Fürst, Dietrich. 2005. “Entwicklung und Stand des Steuerungsverständnisses in der Raumplanung.” disP – The Planning Review 41(163): 16-27.https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2005.10556937Getimis, Panagiotis. 2012. “Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe.” Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 25-40.https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659520Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44(5): 936-57.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.xHealey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: MacMillan Press. Healey, Patsy. 2012. “The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices.” Planning Theory 11(2): 188-207.https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095211419333Healey, Patsy. 2013. “Circuits of Knowledge and Techniques: The Transnational Flow of Planning Ideas and Practices.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(5): 1510-26.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12044Hoch, Charles. 2006. “Emotions and planning.” Planning Theory and Practice 7(4): 367-82.https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350600984436Innes, Judith E., and David Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge. Jackson, Jonathan T. 2022. “Local Planning Cultures? What Glasgow, Melbourne and Toronto Planners Say.” International Planning Studies 27(3): 284-301.https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2022.2043148Jepperson, Ronald L. 1991. “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.” Pp. 143-63 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Knieling, Jörg and Frank Othengrafen, eds. 2009a. Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning. Farnham: Ashgate.Knieling, Jörg and Frank Othengrafen. 2009b. “En route to a theoretical model for comparative research on planning cultures.” Pp. 39-62 in Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning, edited by J. Knieling and F. Othengrafen. Farnham: Ashgate.Lawrence, Thomas B., and Roy Suddaby. 2006. “Institutions and Institutional Work.” Pp. 215-254 in The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, and W.R. Nord. London: SAGE Publications.https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7Li, Kang, Philippe Dethier, Anders Eika, D. AryA. Samsura, Erwin van der Krabben, Bendik Nordahl, and Jean-Marie Halleux. 2020. “Measuring and Comparing Planning Cultures: Risk, Trust and Co-operative Attitudes in Experimental Games.” European Planning Studies 28(6): 1118-38.https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1612325Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” Pp. 1-37 in Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, edited by J. Mahoney and K. Thelen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806414.003Nummi, Pilvi, Aija Staffans, and Olli Helenius. 2023. “Digitalizing Planning Culture: A Change Towards Information Model-Based Planning in Finland.” Journal of Urban Management 12(1): 44-56.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2022.12.001Othengrafen, Frank. 2010. “Spatial planning as expression of culturised planning practices: the examples of Helsinki, Finland and Athens, Greece.” Town Planning Review 81(1): 83-110.https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.25Pache, Anne-Claire, and Filipe Santos. 2013. “Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics.” Academy of Management Journal 56(4): 972-1001.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405Pallagst, Karina, Ricarda Fleschurz, Sabrina Nothof, and Tetsuji Uemura. 2021. “Shrinking Cities: Implications for Planning Cultures?” Urban Studies 58(1): 164-81.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019885549Perić, Ana. 2018. “Culturised planning practices in the brownfield regeneration process: the cases of Switzerland and Serbia.” Paper presented at AESOP 2018 Conference, July 12, Gothenburg, Sweden.Perić, Ana. 2024. “Urban Planning across Europe: Insights into Planning Cultures ofSwitzerland, Greece and Serbia.” Global Journal of Cultural Studies 3: 102-15.https://doi.org/10.6000/2817-2310.2024.03.12Perić, Ana and Charles Hoch. 2017. “Spatial planning across European planning systems and social models: A look through the lens of planning cultures of Switzerland, Greece and Serbia.”Pp. 1247-58 in Spaces of Dialogue for Places of Dignity: Fostering the European Dimension of Planning – E-Proceedings of the AESOP 2017 Conference, edited by J.A. Ferreira. Lisbon: University of Lisbon.Purkarthofer, Eva, Alois Humer and Hanna Mattila. 2021. “Subnational and Dynamic Conceptualisations of Planning Culture: The Culture of Regional Planning and Regional Planning Cultures in Finland.” Planning Theory and Practice 22(2): 244-65.https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1896772Reimer, Mario. 2013. “Planning Cultures in Transition: Sustainability Management and Institutional Change in Spatial Planning.” Sustainability 5: 4653-73.https://doi.org/10.3390/su5114653Reimer, Mario and Hans H. Blotevogel. 2012. “Comparing Spatial Planning Practice in Europe: A Plea for Cultural Sensitization.” Planning Practice and Research 27(1): 7-24.https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659517Rydin, Yvonne. 2003. Conflict, Consensus, and Rationality in Environmental Planning: An Institutional Discourse Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199255191.001.0001Rydin, Yvonne. 2007. “Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory.” Planning Theory 6(1): 52-68.https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207075161Sandercock, Leonie. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Planning Culture FrameworkGlobal Journal of Cultural Studies, 2025, Volume 483Sanyal, Bish, ed. 2005. Comparative Planning Cultures. New York: Routledge.Sanyal, Bish. 2016. “Revisiting comparative planning cultures: is culture a reactionary rhetoric?” Planning Theory and Practice17(4): 658-62.https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1230363Scott, W. Richard. 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.172.0136Seo, Myeong-Gu, and W.E. Douglas Creed. 2002. “Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 27(2): 222-47.https://doi.org/10.2307/4134353Thornton, Patricia H., and William Ocasio. 2008. “Institutional Logics.” Pp. 99-129 in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby. London: SAGE Publications.https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200387.n4United Nations. 2017. New Urban Agenda. New York: United Nations.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Policy for Journals with Open Access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post links to their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work
