This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 31 August 2013, At: 00:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Practice & ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

Collaborative planning in practice: TheNicosia master planHazem Abu-OrfPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Hazem Abu-Orf (2005) Collaborative planning in practice: The Nicosia masterplan, Planning Practice & Research, 20:1, 41-58, DOI: 10.1080/02697450500261707

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450500261707

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLE

Collaborative Planning in Practice:The Nicosia Master PlanHAZEM ABU-ORF

Introduction

This paper examines how informal communication occurs in the context ofplanning in divided cities, with a case study of Nicosia. There is an extensive bodyof literature that investigates how planning is based on deliberation (Davidoff,1965; Barrett & Fudge, 1981; Harvey, 1985; Friedmann, 1987; Hoch, 1994; 1996;Sager, 1994; Flyvbjerg, 1998). It generally emphasises the political nature ofplanning, focusing on the relationship of knowledge to action. The work of theauthors listed above is rooted in the idea that planning is a social process and theunderstanding of communication draws on the social construction of meanings. Itbuilds on the recognition that knowledge forms do not only have an objectiveexistence to be discovered by scientific methods. Rather, they are activelyconstituted through social interactive processes in which planning plays a part.1

More recently, theoretical approaches to planning have come forward whichhave become known in the United Kingdom (UK) planning literature as‘collaborative planning’ (Healey, 1997) and in the United States (US) as‘communicative planning’ (Forester, 1989; Innes, 1998). They seek to democratiseplanning practice and empower communities through communication. Two keyideas emerge from these approaches. The first is that planning, as a social process,is interaction in which individuals organise their ideas. The second is concernedwith shared meanings, in which individuals move away from competitive intereststowards practices of collectively transforming their knowing. A normativedimension of planning is assumed, in which no affected party is excluded fromdiscourse and its premise is arriving at collaboratively chosen decisions.The above strengths are said to give collaborative planning both local rigour and

universal validity. However, critics of collaborative planning point out that it doesnot reflect reality; that is, collaborative planning takes insufficient account ofpower differences expressed in diverse interests and relations of domination, andin which planning practices are embedded (see Richardson, 1996; Allmendinger &Tewdwr-Jones, 1997). To the extent that interests are diverse and plans areuncertain, compromises are inevitable and differences in the structure of power

Hazem Abu-Orf, Allen Retail Consultancy, Allen Group, Exchange Building, Express Park, BristolRoad, Bridgwater, Somerset TA6 3RR, UK. Email: hazem.abu-orf@allen.uk.com

Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 20, No. 1,pp. 41 – 58, February 2005

ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/05/010041–18 � 2005 Taylor & Francis 41DOI: 10.1080/02697450500261707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

result in plans providing for some interests more effectively than others. Theseproblems are even more acute where conflict is intense, as in the case of a dividedcity with its different political and administrative arrangements on either side of a‘wall’ and little communication between them. In this context, it might be assumedthat comprehensive planning of the city is impossible.A growing number of case studies have made a valuable effort to address the

question of how power and knowledge interact in planning practice (see, forexample, Hillier, 2000; Phelps & Tewdwr-Jones, 2000). McGuirk (2001) arguesthat power is an integral component of planning practice and draws attention to theconcealment of diverse interests in her investigation of the actual politics ofplanning practice. Her research suggests that knowledge is an expression of, orstrongly related to, power in the idea of ‘planning through debate’. However, thereare few examples where this approach to understanding the operation of power inplanning has been attempted in situations of acute conflict, such as the planningcontext of divided cities (see Oranje, 1996; Khamaisi, 1999). There seems to be asignificant gap in knowledge in this respect.This paper, therefore, addresses the question of how power and knowledge

interact in the idea of planning through a case study of the divided city of Nicosia.The second section of this paper reviews the planning literature on the keyarguments that underpin the application of communicative action to planning. Itsaim is to present an appropriate framework to guide the empirical investigation.The third part then provides the context of, and the background for, the case study:the joint community initiative of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communitiesto mobilise development on the ground while formal planning institutions areblocked due to circumstances of a divided city. It is in the fourth section that theembedded strategies of collaborative planning are applied to the joint structure ofplan making in divided Nicosia. The fifth section then sums up the key findings.

The Application of Communicative Action to Planning

Many planning theorists have applied Habermas’s notion of communicative actionin the context of planning, notably John Forester (1989, 1993), Judith Innes2

(1995, 1996, 1998) and Patsy Healey (1997, 1999). The key idea of Habermas’swork that Forester and Innes explore and apply to planning is that communicationis not only about instrumental means and about problem solving. Instead, it isabout the way in which the ‘‘expectations, beliefs, hopes and understanding’’(Forester, 1993, p. 25) of actors involved are shaped through communication. Theperspective sees planning as both about substantive choice making and about theway in which meanings are created and sense made about those choices. As aresult, although Forester was concerned with structural influences on dailycommunication in planning, his analysis was focused on the ‘‘interactive level ofanalysis’’ (Forester, 1989, p. 157) and in particular on the micro-scale ofcommunication in planning.A key concern in Forester’s (1989, 1993) work has been the relationship

between language and power in planning. His analysis investigates the way inwhich language frames planning’s reality and in particular the way in which thepower of particular economic and political interests is exercised in planning.

Hazem Abu-Orf

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Forester draws on Goffman’s terminology3 and recognises that planners areusually confronted with others who systematically violate the universal criteria ofHabermas’s ideal speech situation.4 Forester questions the way in whichcommunication in planning actually occurs and makes a detailed analysis of theway planners and other planning actors interact and the language that is used. Hedraws on the actions of individuals in an institutional setting and stresses the needto pay attention to both ‘content’—what is being said (factual & rhetoricalclaims)—and context—when and where things are being said (Forester, 1989,p. 144). In particular, his analysis suggests that context does not only involveclaims to legitimacy, but also the way planners express their claims (expressiveclaims). This is so because planners are found in his research to be clothed in theinterests of their institutions.Forester (1989) is concerned, in particular, with looking at the systematic

distortions in communication and he questions the ontological distinction thatHabermas made between the practical and technical ‘claims’. He argues thatdistortions reflect not only structural influences but also more individual factors,for example, the personal pursuit of power. Based on the concept that planning isboth action and interaction (that is communicative action), Forester argues furtherthat the factors that prevent communication playing an instrumental role inplanning are part of a continuum associated with progressive stages of complexity.Planners in this are not acting alone as technicians, but also act politically incritical ways. They may act as a ‘progressive planner’, providing information andseeking to avoid misinformation or conflict. Adopting this approach, Forester’s(1989, p. 34) reformulated typology of bounded rationality distinguishes betweenrandom inevitable (cognitive limits) and structurally unavoidable distortions. Bothdistortions correspond to formal rational analyses of choice making and theconcentration on largely human, organisational and technical factors affecting therole of communication in planning. The typology also distinguishes between‘interpersonal bargaining behaviour’, which reflects a pluralist model of planning,and systematically avoidable distortions rooted in political and economicstructures and the perpetuation of power biases.In contrast to Forester, Healey (1997, 1999) focuses on action rather than on

language. One of the predominant themes in Healey’s work has been to develop anunderstanding of the nature of planning in terms of the interrelationship betweenstructure and agency. Adopting this approach, Healey (1997) argues that thisrelationship carries transformative power to develop shared meanings. Healeyrefers to Giddens’s theory that people’s sense of self is determined by theirinteractions. She describes these interactions as ‘relational webs’ that provide thestructure in which individuals’ way of knowing is embedded. In this respect,Healey considers a place, as well as time, to be structuring forces and develops heridea of localness in managing ‘‘co-existence in shared places’’ (1997, pp. 48 – 49).Central to Healey’s argument is the assumption that a policy discourse has the

power to transform mindsets and cultures and can be generated through inclusivedebate. Three key arguments characterise her approach. The first is that once astrategy has been agreed, coordination and implementation become automatic.Second, she considers that wide participation would create positive, interactivefeedback loops with the capacity to enhance institutional capability in public

Collaborative Planning in Practice

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

policy creation. The third argument is the debate that has, in her opinion, thepower to transform problem-related ‘systems of meaning’ to the extent that sharedvalues are embedded in the mindsets of key players. On this basis, Healey suggeststhat the mechanisms of communication in planning are more important than theiroutcomes. She therefore gave priority in her research to the development of links,forums and arenas through which diversity of knowing, ways of acting andvaluing can be learned, transmitted or transformed.Accordingly, Healey (1997, pp. 269 – 281) has developed a typology of

planning to achieve an inclusive debate: ‘routines and styles of discussion’ and‘making policy discourse’. The former is about ‘opening out’ a discussion toexplore the diversity of knowing and draws on three aspects of communication:style, language and presentation. Style certifies that individuals have a ‘voice’, a‘route to voice’, and each is heard through paying attention to cultural differences,room order, and through ‘who speaks and when’. Language is concerned withavoiding ambiguous or misleading statements. Presentation refers to the differentways in which actors are ‘called up’ to speak.Making policy discourse is mainly concerned with a collective strategy. Here,

Healey emphasises what she termed the ‘argumentative jumble’ of accountsconcerned with facts, values, claims, ideas, opinions, etc. She drew onparticipants’ feelings of others and the interaction taking place. Usually the‘argumentative jumble’, according to Healey (1997, p. 275), is organised throughthe technical planning arena into a planning-biased point of view; a taken-for-granted knowledge in which the planners attempt to make sense of choices. Theytake this argumentative jumble and transform it into a technical language whereindividuals’ values or concerns are narrowed to the objectives of planning. Theyalso use their own knowledge and force their own statements as purely ‘‘technical,value-free, professionals and bureaucrats’’ (Tewdwr-Jones & Thomas, 1998,p. 139).Moreover, Healey (1997, p. 276) suggests in her typology that the planning

process needs to be less technical and more richly shared to allow different viewsto be developed. She argues that this is possible through a ‘mutual shiftingexercise’ in which communication builds trust, understanding and, moreimportantly, participants’ feeling towards ways of knowing. The planners’ roleaccordingly is altered from that of professionals, who use their technicalknowledge to produce a strategy, to what Healey (1997, p. 309) terms‘‘knowledge mediators and brokers’’ who play the role of ‘‘critical friends’’(see also Forester, 1996). They bring together the forms of experimentalknowledge, the diverse forms of knowledge and the systems of meanings thatare processed by different actors.The application of communicative action to planning appears to suggest that

planners can foster relatively distortion-free communication in planning practiceand that such communication can result in a consensus based on collectiveagreements around shared meanings. Notably, behind Forester’s analysis(Forester, 1989) is the idea that communication in planning is indeed distorted.This lends support for the assumption that planning practice involves strategicbargaining and compromises, and sometimes strategic actions, which areunavoidable, if not necessary (see Fay, 1987; Pusey, 1987). In particular, the

Hazem Abu-Orf

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

suggestion that ‘‘we can all get on better if we change how we think toaccommodate what other people think’’ (Healey, 1997, p. 312) attempts to bringabout forms of limited agreements among stakeholders.Having studied the accounts of Forester’s (1989, 1993), Innes’s (1992, 1996;

Innes & Boohr, 1999) and Healey’s (1997, 1999) works, it seems appropriate tosuggest that there is a lack of consideration of explicit transformative processes,which take into account a critical analysis of existing power relations. Theseaccounts appear to divorce the descriptions of practice from prescriptions forchange in the planning field. Communication is conceptualised to be eitherdescriptive in terms of how the planners plan, or interactive in terms of the waysplanners engage in communication as being capable of providing less distortion, ifthey actually believe in an open dialogue (see also Hillier, 1993).Of particular note is McGuirk’s central criticism of Healey’s collaborative

planning which, she argues, starts from an unrealistic assumption about powerrelations (McGuirk, 2001). Her investigation shows that planning exists within astrategic, economic and political context, which is infused by power relations.Deliberations in planning cannot be simply separated from the planners’ framingof them in discourses founded in instrumental rationality. She adds that althoughplanners were committed to an inclusionary ethic giving voice to a broad range ofvoices with varied frames of valuing, the practices of instrumental rationality werefound in her case study to be easily asserted. In this respect, McGuirk argues thatplanners’ knowledge is based in the institutional and legislative forms, whichframe practice, giving it legitimacy over moral and aesthetic knowledge forms.Clearly, McGuirk’s research provides evidence that suggests it is almostimpossible to abstract from planners the power/knowledge nexus within whichthey are embedded.Nonetheless, the literature review cited above offers a framework for research

such as the current investigation into informal communication in planning. Anempirical investigation, reported in the next section of this paper, discusses theevidence gathered in a case study of relations of power and knowledge inplanning. The case makes use of Healey’s typology of routines and styles ofdiscussion in policy discourse.

Nicosia Revitalisation and its Master Plan

The redevelopment of the Nicosia area through its joint Master Plan provides anexcellent example of a valuable effort to collaborate in planning in a context ofvery difficult political relations. The joint plan, pursued for the whole city, startedin 1981 and completed its first phase in the production of comprehensive planningpolicy in 1984. It shows the introduction of new planning criteria in Cyprus, as itaddresses the fundamental problem of the planning of what is seen as a unifiedplanning system (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/UnitedNations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS), 1982). With no town andcountry planning enacted at the time,5 the joint plan has been flexible enough toaccommodate the changing political circumstances of a divided city. Twoscenarios were developed: one for the city with the United Nations (UN) Buffer

Collaborative Planning in Practice

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Zone between the two communities and the other for an integral city without theBuffer Zone.In Nicosia the joint plan offered a possibility for collaboration on planning.

According to Demetriades (1998), with the support of the UNDP representativesof the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot community have met weekly in the UNBuffer Zone at Ledra Palace Hotel since 1981. They have more recently met todiscuss the practical agenda rather than political issues. Local professionals of bothcommunities have met at the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)headquarters at irregular intervals dependent on the necessity to discuss technicalissues. The links in Nicosia have been established (or rather developed) throughinformal methods of communication that have established a policy nexus thatincludes Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot representatives of their respectivecommunities. The joint plan also points to a number of factors that help expose itsunique planning situation.In particular, individuals count, for it was partly thanks to two innovative men

that a tentative bridge was formed between the two Cypriot communities. LellosDemetriades and Mustafa Akinci, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot mayorsof Nicosia, respectively, have taken an essential municipal tool, a master plan, andused it to pave the way for some cooperation in a community literally split bydistrust and animosity (Irwin, 1989). While recognising the substantial barriers toreunifying a divided city, Akinci and Demetriades have shown how creating amaster plan is a pragmatic response to the present situation and also offers hope forthe future. The two men began working together in 1978 to spur on the successfulcompletion of a joint sewerage project. This effort was a success and led them tothe next—and more difficult—step: a joint Master Plan. The cooperative initiativesin Nicosia show a hidden degree of commitment by the local political leaders,Akinci and Demetriades, since they found non-political space to discuss and tacklethe practical issues (Demetriades, 1998). They took these issues out of a strictlypolitical framework and thus allowed the two communities to get know each otheraround practical technical problems.Three key dimensions characterised the discussions at the Ledra Palace. First,

deliberations were designed as informal meetings to occur regularly. They wereinformal in the sense that the meetings were not recorded, although there wastaking of notes by hand (Demetriades, 1998). Second, they discussed issues of atechnical nature. The method of moving planning issues from political to technicaldebate was central to the successful completion of the joint plan. Political issueswere referred to the ‘top-level’ meetings needed to overcome the politicalconstraints facing the joint plan in a way that would convince the two de factoauthorities to support its efforts. Another method used to keep the informal natureof the joint plan was that participants were detached from their institutional ties onentering the joint deliberations. They were only recognised and considered in theirprofessional capacity as architects, planners, economists, etc. Overall, it seems thatthe key issue was not allowing communication in planning to enter the formalpolitical process.Third, the joint discussions were assessed by two International Consultative

Panels, occurring in 1981 and 1982, and appointed by the UNCHS. Theycomprised international professionals from all planning disciplines, and were

Hazem Abu-Orf

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

asked to make suggestions on the progress of Cypriot professionals. The panelswere considered essential to compensate for the limited experience of Cypriotprofessionals in handling the complex milieu of planning in Nicosia (UNDP/UNCHS, 1982). A workshop procedure for both panels was designed with aformal procedure, in which Cypriots and international professionals developedtheir views based on diagnostic and preliminary reports (UNDP/UNCHS, 1985).From 1987 onwards, the joint discussions concentrated on a rehabilitation

strategy for the historic centre of Nicosia. Particular attention was paid to a seriesof integrated priority investment projects (UNDP/UNCHS, 1985a), whichconstituted a common tool for implementation of a comprehensive planningpolicy. Priority was given to two special area schemes, namely Chrysaliniotissa inthe south and Arab Ahmet in the north (see Figure 1). Both were planned to act asearly implementation schemes and to help in identifying a feasible implementationstrategy of wider application. The two special projects were also planned to pumpnew life into the dying centre of historic Nicosia, and to restore it with reference toits ancient history (UNDP/UNCHS, 1985b).

The Transition from Vision to Action

Two forms of planning practice occurred while implementing the area schemes inNicosia: technical planning discourse and top-level meetings. The key theme inthis paper is to address the question of how power and knowledge interact in theidea of planning conceived as action and interaction. To do so, this sectiondiscusses the two forms of planning in Nicosia using Healey’s typology of stylesof discussion and modes of policy discourse. The discussion below draws on thedata collected through semi-structured interviews with key members of the teamthat is implementing the schemes’ provisions. The responses were dealt withqualitatively and are summarised in Table 1. A purposeful sampling method wasused through independent visits to both parts of Nicosia to understand in depth therelationship of power and knowledge in planning practice. Different groups wereapproached and these were not entirely homogenous; nor were they necessarilymutually exclusive, but they constituted a reasonable cross-section. Mostinterviews lasted up to two hours each and these were recorded by the taking ofnotes by hand before transcription. A second interview was conducted with someactors so as to clarify responses.

Technical Planning Discourse

Routines and Styles of Discussion

In response to the question on the design of the joint deliberations, thoseinterviewed commented without hesitation that participants were free to discusstheir concerns about the area schemes. Their account suggested that there were noparticular rules on how to proceed, who should speak first and who should speaknext within each group. They all emphasised that it was left to participants. As oneGreek Cypriot interviewee put it: ‘‘the discussion was one of an open shelter [. . .]

Collaborative Planning in Practice

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

anything we wanted to discuss was possible to get out on the table’’. Thisdescription seems to be much in line with Healey’s typology, that is, everyone hasa ‘voice’ or a ‘route to voice’. While Turkish Cypriot interviewees would agree on

FIGURE 1. Chrysaliniotissa and Arab Ahmet area schemes. Source: UNDP/UNCHS (1985a).

Hazem Abu-Orf

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

TABLE1.

The

applicationof

‘‘routines

andstyles

ofdiscussion

’’and‘‘po

licydiscou

rse’’to

thepo

wer/kno

wledg

erelatio

nshipin

theNicosia

case

Kno

wledg

eMuchof

thediscussion

was

basedon

technicaland

procedural

know

ledg

e,thou

ghaesthetic

know

ledg

ewas

evident

toacertainextent

Kno

wledg

eof

architectural

design

andbu

ilding

requ

irem

entswas

centralto

thediscussion

,which

presentedthe

internationalconsultants’

know

ledg

eon

‘app

ropriate

design

’.Associatedwith

thiswerethelegalmatters

oflistedbu

ildings

andtheconservatio

ntechniqu

eto

bechosen

Legal

know

ledg

ewas

central

tothediscussion

dueto

the

fact

that

theplanning

authorities

retained

the

ultim

atepo

wer

toratify

thejointplan

Legal

andtechnical

know

ledg

ewas

centralto

discussion

.Thisrelatedto

thecircum

stancesof

rehabilitationstrategy

Power

‘Voices’

wererespected

andvalued.The

parties

invo

lved

seem

edsystem

atically

notto

divertattentionfrom

theirob

jectives

While

recogn

isingthe

positio

nof

power

held

bymem

bers

oftheNicosia

MasterPlan

toexpresstheir

concerns

andop

inion,

internationalconsultants

determ

ined

how

decision

sweremade.

Strategic

attemptsto

reinforcethe

internationalconsultants’

positio

nwereevident

Participantsin

the

discussion

were‘free’

todiscusswhateverconcerns

they

had.

How

ever,

argu

mentswerebasedon

technicalanalysisand

legalconsiderations

The

discussion

focusedon

theinterestsof

themayors

forearlyim

plem

entatio

n,leavingou

twhat

participantsvalued

and

hadin

common

.A

conflict

ofinterestswas

evident

betweenthemayorsand

the‘team

leaders’

Healey’stypo

logy

Rou

tines

andstyles

ofdiscussion

Policydiscou

rse

Rou

tines

and

styles

ofdiscussion

Policydiscou

rse

Levelsof

discussion

Techn

ical

planning

discou

rse

‘Top

-level’

meetin

gs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

this, there was a strong feeling that deliberations were not, however, entirely free.Rather, they were based on the circulated documents previously produced. Theyadded that participants started the discussion in their groups, by explaining thestate of progress on the area schemes of their side, including ideas, desires andneeds, which could not be neatly categorised into formal planning and ‘other’.Their description indicated that deliberations had the objective of articulating thepolicy discourse that would frame the area scheme projects thereafter.The discussion related to the area schemes contained a number of examples of

the way in which particular uses of language shaped attention towards, or awayfrom, understanding. All interviewees referred to two instances to illustrate this.First, their reports indicated that technical knowledge featured prominently in themeetings and that there were references to floor loadings on particular units, theredesign of traffic patterns and the creation of sidewalks, and the conservationtechnique to be adopted. Clearly, the use of technical topics and language wouldnot have been comprehensible to those without training in such matters.International consultants, to whom technical knowledge was comprehensible,were aware of this and the discussion, in general, became more critical, as threeGreek Cypriot and four Turkish Cypriot interviewees repeatedly stressed thatsome participants felt overwhelmed by the amount of material to be dealt with andbegan to reject the process. Significantly, the holistic approach of early planpreparation was lost and detailed discussion of the area schemes began todominate.Second, interviewees’ accounts suggested that there was also use of legislative

language in the discussion of the conservation law of 1935. They reported thatsome Turkish Cypriot architects expressed concerns about the high number oflisted buildings in the Arab Ahmet scheme and described them as ‘‘onerousconditions affecting the viability of the scheme’’. This statement may have beencomprehensible, but it is difficult to be certain whether the Turkish Cypriotarchitects were sincere at the time, or if this was an attempt to shape attention toparticular issues of concern.A mixed picture seems to emerge from the examples given above of the

communicative styles and routines in the discussion that occurred at the technicalplanning level. Some statements and actions, cited above, witness some attemptsto move towards understanding, while others seem to provide evidence ofsystematic distortion. This lends support to Forester’s (1989) analysis thatplanning involves bargaining and compromises, and is, indeed, distorted. A powerrelation was evident in which specific interests and strategic actions co-existedwith communicative action to move towards understanding. As discussed,Healey’s (1997) typology treats the use of specific interests and strategic actionsas a deviation to be controlled through communication. This was not evident in theabove discussion. Rather, strategic interests were found to be an integral part ofplanning practice.

Policy Discourse

One of the major themes pursued in the interviews with members of the NicosiaMaster Plan team was their perspective on the translation process associated with

Hazem Abu-Orf

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

the process of ‘making sense’. In particular, they were asked about what strategycriteria seemed to dominate. They were also asked specifically about how adeliberation process was developed when different knowledge forms were drawnupon, how decisions were finally reached, and whose interest these presented.Interviewees’ accounts indicated that the parties involved were able to draw

successfully on different types of knowledge within the discussion of the areaschemes in the technical planning discourse. The discussion contained responsesto consultation by those (for example, sociologists) who were less technical innature and focusing on community facilities and social services. In contrast,interviewees added that some other participants (for example, architects andplanners) focused on the details of the schemes and made comments about theaesthetic qualities of schemes. While professional and technical language were notcomprehensible to all parties involved, international consultants recognised thisand arranged independent visits to both sides of Nicosia to consult members of theMaster Plan team in their own workplace, which all interviewees found ‘veryuseful’. The independent visits highlighted attempts by international consultants toshape attention towards understanding through citing technical knowledge.The international consultants played the role of planners in Healey’s

terminology, in mediating deliberation, clarifying aims and assisting participantswith the knowledge on the issues discussed. They also acted as ‘progressiveplanners’ in Forester’s terms by providing knowledge and seeking to avoidmisinformation.International consultants were also reported to be skilled in matters of

architectural design, and in judgments on ‘appropriate design’. Those interviewedreported that international consultants held the position of reading and explainingplans to Master Plan members. Accordingly, the position of the latter was not aspowerful as that of international consultants, who have the role of interpreting theirtechnical comments. In this respect, one Greek Cypriot interviewee spoke aboutthe need to consider a listed building application differently when internationalconsultants suggested this. Members raised matters, such as car-parking provisionbut the consultants’ professional knowledge was able to counter a request for anincreased number of spaces. Some interviewees explained this by drawingattention to the consultants’ concerns about the preservation of the old city.However, interviewees’ reports indicated that the consultants found it difficult tocounter some participants’ objections about the boring design of the buildings,reverting many times to the design arguments set out in the reports producedpreviously.Clearly, the meetings of the area schemes show evidence of a technical

discourse, which whilst recognising the position of power held by participants inthe Master Plan, tended to increase the consultants’ power. This was evident ininterviewees’ reports about the economic regeneration of the area schemes. In thisrespect, all interviewees strongly believed that some participants drew onknowledge of economic regeneration to reinforce their position of power,especially when discussing the renovation of listed buildings. For example, someTurkish Cypriot interviewees reported that participants from their side expressedconcerns about a servicing bay, which had ruined the outlook of the building to bedesigned as a library in the Arab Ahmet scheme (see Figure 1). The international

Collaborative Planning in Practice

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

consultants’ response to this was, in the exact wording of one Turkish Cypriotinterviewee, ‘‘the location of the service yard is essential to the development’’,thus implying that this point was not negotiable.Making sense of choices was therefore based on technical analysis, and

planning was consequently not able to move away from purely technical concerns.The case study shows a discussion of sorting through the ‘argumentative jumble’that unavoidably engages with power relations, whereas the knowledge systems ofinstrumental rationality appear to dominate planning practice. It is thereforeappropriate to support McGuirk’s research that the planners’ forms of knowledgeare deeply engaged in this sorting process to the extent that such knowledgemanipulates the values coming from moral and aesthetic forms of reasoning(McGuirk, 2001).

Top-Level Meetings

Routines and Styles of Discussion

Deliberations at the top-level meetings seem to be slightly different, but showmany points in common with those of the technical discourse. Once the meetingsbegan, the impression of participants interviewed was of a deliberative style thatwas consistent with the early stages of plan preparation in the 1980s. Intervieweesreported that participants started their discussion with the objectives identified inthe UNDP manager’s contribution and they were free to discuss whateverconcerns they had. Accordingly, the factor of ‘voices to be heard’ by which thetop-level meetings operated was maintained.However, the response of interviewees to questions on how arguments were

made during deliberations emphasised a relatively legal and technical analysis.Interviewees referred to two kinds of situations in connection with this. The firstsituation involved conflicts between two or more land-use interests over how thearea schemes should be zoned. While sources interviewed emphasised thatparticipants interviewed were in favour of a mixed-use development, TurkishCypriot participants largely doubted the value of such development in the ArabAhmet scheme, due to the scarce resources available and the fact that the ArabAhmet area has been inhabited by poor community groups. The second situationinvolved dealing with an ongoing grievance that a particular land-use interest had,based on their perception that the rehabilitation process tended to focus on housingprovision, leaving out cultural and community facilities.Attempts were made during interviews to understand the political dimensions of

arguments made in the discussion about the area schemes. Respondents said thatsometimes political criteria, particularly attracting the population back and‘pumping new life’, were paramount, but these were not a dominant feature.However, interviewees’ accounts suggested that the political agenda was inevidence, although sometimes in subtle ways. Four of the participants interviewedspontaneously spoke about the way in which planning authorities were able toexercise discretion in arguments made in the meetings. This relates to planninglegislation, plan preparation and development control. The planning authoritycould in particular exert powerful interest on the area schemes because it had, in

Hazem Abu-Orf

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

interviewees’ opinion, the ultimate power to ratify it. Participants interviewedstrongly emphasised that the planning authority retained the right to accept orreject whatever plan the Master Plan created, while the latter was not granted adegree of autonomy and influence as a body with no statutory authority. As oneGreek Cypriot planner explained:

[. . .] the Town Planning and Housing Department is in the position togive professional advice on drafting the local plan in the CommonBoard meetings, and applications are more likely to be refused if theseare not in line with the department’s point of view.

A dominant theme in the interviews with members of the joint Master Plan was,therefore, the importance of legal considerations. Those interviewed reported that,in addition to technical analysis, arguments were based on the outcome ofnegotiations with their planning authorities concerning the machinery of existingdevelopment control. They spoke about the process through which participantshandled the objections made by planning authorities of both sides. In this process,the UNDP manager prepared choices of alternatives to the objections, and theparticipants went through them one by one, choosing from them the bestalternatives. Participants interviewed emphasised a strong feeling that without thepowers to implement the area schemes and with ineffective development controlpowers, little, if any, would be achieved on the ground. They also felt thatobjections became difficult (that is, political) to handle, once communicationinvolved issues such as those bringing out conflict: conservation of historicalmonuments and funding methods.The communicative style of deliberations at the top level was therefore formal

in character and primarily concerned with technical and legal analysis. The legaland regulatory appeared to dominate it in terms of both objections and responses.The fact that planning authorities would ratify the joint plan contributed to powerdifferentials among participants. Bargaining and negotiation, and the considerationof political criteria, appeared to be a stronger feature. Strategic interests were notabandoned on entering deliberations. Rather, although participants were detachedfrom their institutional legacies, choices were based on the interests of planningauthorities. This is in line with Forester’s analysis where planners were found toexpress the interests of their institutions (Forester, 1989). In particular, the abovediscussion shows that planning exists within a political context infused by powerrelations. It therefore seems naı̈ve to suggest that participants will behave openly,as Healey (1997) suggests, when faced by strategic interests they perceive asconflicting with their own.

Policy Discourse

Discussions at the top-level meetings show a power relation, which was illustratedby the ability of those involved to successfully draw on different forms ofknowledge. The method of voting, according to interviewees’ reports, showed thepositions of power held by the participants who, to some extent, influenced thedecisions being made in the discussion. Nonetheless, interviewees’ accounts

Collaborative Planning in Practice

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

suggested that participants had competed neither with the UNDP manager’s use oftechnical knowledge, nor with the political positions of the two mayors. Clearly,then, a power relation was evident.Another example of power relations in practice is the differing interests of the

two mayors and the ‘team leaders’. These suggested that the mayors were infavour of earlier implementation as soon as possible; the mayors focused theirattention on actions and possible solutions to the circumstances facing theimplementation. The team leaders, by contrast, encouraged deeper research andconcentrated on specific technical planning outputs, such as zoning maps, detailedpolicies of land use, etc. A strong emphasis among those interviewed was that bothteam leaders were particularly interested in a zoning plan and then a project designfollowed by detailed drawings, while the mayors focused their attention onactions. As one participant who observed the two team leaders in the meetingsexplained: ‘‘I got the feeling that they [team leaders] were in favour of talkingabout the meaning of the place, what participants valued, what they had incommon, and to go from there’’. Given the split of interests, it is clear that the top-level meetings did not represent a collaboratively chosen consensus.The failure to generate a consensus had much less to do with the willingness

and dedication of the participants, and the two mayors in particular, than withvalues, i.e. what was the most important about the area schemes and theopportunities their communication presented at the time. The discussion was giventhe task of resolving the highly complex and contentious issues of a divided city.As a Greek Cypriot participant interviewed explained: ‘‘There were a lot ofquestions that had to be answered [. . .] and there was no way to even begin toaddress them all meaningfully in one day every six months’’. Another TurkishCypriot participant interviewed reported: ‘‘There was no time for evaluation.There was no time to remove the schemes from the realm of pure politics. Therewas no time for stories or asking deeper questions.’’ It seemed that there was fartoo short a time frame, and deliberations did not slow down enough to do the jobwell. It also seemed that deliberations were exclusive and hasty and, as aconsequence, failed to allow space for the type of collaborative practice that theprocess at the time demanded. It was thus not surprising that interviewees felt thatsome participants were frustrated with the unreasonable expectations that had beenplaced on them.

Conclusions

As discussed, this paper has sought to address the question of how power andknowledge interact in planning practice using Healey’s typology. Table 1summarises the key findings.It was thought that Healey’s typology would provide an explanation of how

communicative action operates in the planning context of the Nicosia case. Now, itis apparent that the former is far from clear cut. The typology remains normative.It explains how planning should be done. In particular, it was not possible toachieve collective decisions through the mode of argumentation, as Healey (1997)suggests. This is because removing the distortions arising from inequalities thatindividuals bring with them on entering deliberations and ensuring ‘ear, voice and

Hazem Abu-Orf

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

respect’ was not possible in the Nicosia case. Deliberations paid less attention tothe importance of exploring context. Rather, they largely represented the interestsof the two mayors and the need to proceed with a sense of emergency and mission,leaving values and interests of others aside. Further evidence comes from the roleof the international consultants, who assisted participants on technical knowledgein a partisan way. What Healey (1997) seems to neglect to address in her typologyis that planning takes place in a political context in which the agendas of choicemaking are selectively managed.The routines and styles of discussion and policy discourse are concerned with

removing the inequalities arising from power relations. However, the emphasis inboth terms is on pure communication, assuming away, rather than engaging with,power relations and the treatment of differences that penetrate planning practice.The Nicosia case argues in this respect that power relations are an integral part ofplanning practice and suggests that even though deliberations showed signs of‘inclusionary ethics’ and allowing participants’ opinions to be heard and respected,the communicative style of instrumental rationality was still dominant.A particular relation of power was evident in the Nicosia case. On the one hand,

deliberations primarily engaged with technical analysis rather than with whatparticipants valued or had in common. On the other hand, forms of knowledgewere validated largely through international consultants’ positions, rather thanvalidation based on inter-subjective communication. Accordingly, the Nicosiacase shows a planning process of organising through the argumentative jumblethat involved the practices of interpretation in which experts drew heavily on theirprofessional knowledge. Clearly, this is a characteristic of the instrumentalrationality of creating knowledge and ascribing value. This research thereforesupports McGuirk’s analysis in that it is naı̈ve to suggest a separation of rationalreasoning from acts of power and other communicative distortions (McGuirk,2001). A power relation is in operation that challenges the assertion of alternativeknowledge/rationality forms and largely questions Healey’s description of theplanners’ role as critical friends (Healey, 1997).One particular finding is that Healey’s typology is less useful than anticipated,

as it largely fails to explain how power and knowledge interact in the applicationof communicative action to planning (Healey, 1997). It pays much attention to theway communication evolves in concealing shared meanings. While this isdramatically opposed to instrumental rationality, the typology suggests anunrealistic assumption about the practical context of power relations in whichplanning practice is embedded. It assumes that the differences of power relationscould be removed, at least temporarily, through the mode of argumentation;thereby it is possible to arrive at a collaboratively chosen strategy grounded in adialogue. This assumption cannot be made in the Nicosia case.Other findings are in relation to the forms of distortions identified in Forester’s

(1989) analysis of bounded rationality. Distortions were found in the Nicosia caseto be associated with the institutional and legal legacies. These legacies, bestillustrated at the top-level discussion, played a strong role in shaping the way thatparticipants were drawn into power asymmetries. There was strong formal controlon the extent of decision-making jurisdiction. Planning authorities were primarilyengaged in discussions related to planning legislation and development control.

Collaborative Planning in Practice

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

This was so because arguments were based on the outcome of negotiations withthe planning authorities. The fact that the latter would ratify the joint plan was animportant factor influencing the way participants handled objections. This waslargely based on legal knowledge, which was a direct consequence of the positionof power the planning authorities had.This research therefore supports Forester’s analysis that communication in

planning is indeed distorted (Forester, 1989) and adds to the argument made byOuthwaite (1996) that distortions in the form of strategic actions may benecessary in cases of unequal powers, and sometimes unavoidable. This is true,as international consultants, in their role as planners, engaged in strategicactions to pursue participants’ understandings of the technical issues beingraised. In this respect, some kinds of distortions are seen in a positive way, ifnot as necessary, in establishing shared understanding of issues being discussed.However, it may be the case that the distortion of informal communication inplanning to support a particular agenda in the way described by Forester (1989,1993) was not a salient feature of the Nicosia case. Interviewees, as reported inthis paper, gave numerous examples showing how informal communication inplanning was distorted and the way it was used as a cover for essentiallypolitical agendas.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Ann Dennett and Trevor Clark for their support whilewriting this paper. Thanks go also to the referees for their useful comments onearly submissions.

Notes1. It should be noted that there are significant ideological variations within this body of theory.2. Innes’s work is not included in the paper. While her work is useful in identifying the factors affecting the

social learning process in communicative planning, her work seems not to be related to the power relationscharacterising planning in practice and to be questionable in the views of other researchers (see, for example,Tewdwr-Jones & Thomas, 1998; Hillier, 2000).

3. According to Goffman (1959), dramaturgical action is a social term which describes the presentation of self toothers, by constituting a particular behaviour or image. This involves strategic behaviour in which individualsattempt to hide particular views or employ deceptive means to achieve desired outcomes.

4. The ability of individuals to make a change is what Habermas, after Hannah Arendt, calls power (seeHabermas, 1979). What is taken to be true and right, Habermas argues is in the ‘force of the better argument’.In this book Habermas also developed his concept of the ‘ideal speech situation’ in which power andinequality can be set aside, at least temporarily. However, Habermas’s utopian philosophy of the ideal speechhas been heavily criticised; see, for example, Flyvbjerg (1998), and Owen (1996).

5. Prior to 1974, urban planning in Nicosia was undertaken according to the Streets and Buildings Regulations of1946. Following independence in 1960, a planning study of Nicosia, after consultations with experts from theUniversity of Nottingham (UK), was prepared in 1968 based on the Town and Country Planning Bill,modelled mainly on the British Planning Act of 1968. The Greek Cypriots enacted the 1968 Bill into aplanning law in 1972, but never implemented it until December 1990 in the south. In northern Cyprus, sourcesinterviewed explained that antiquities regulations, land allocation and Streets and Buildings Regulations lawwere in existence. They added that a planning law in the north based on the British planning system of 1968came into force in 1989 when enacted and approved by the parliament.

Hazem Abu-Orf

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

ReferencesAllmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1997) Mind the gap: planning theory-practice and translation of

knowledge into action, Environment and Planning B, 24, pp. 802 – 806.Barrett, S. & Fudge, C. (Eds) (1981) Policy and Action (London, Methuen).Davidoff, P. (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31,

pp. 331 – 338.Demetriades, L. (1998) The Nicosia Master Plan, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 8(2), pp. 169 – 176.Fay, B. (1987) Critical Social Science (Cambridge, Polity Press).Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism (New

York, State University of New York Press).Forester, J. (1996) Beyond dialogue to transformative learning: how deliberative rituals encourage political

judgment in community planning processes, in: S. Esquith (Ed.) Democratic Dialogues: Theories &Practices, pp. 141 – 168 (Ponznan, University of Ponznan).

Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York, Doubleday).Habermas, J. (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society (London, Heinemann).Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Conciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge, Polity).Harvey, D. (1985) The Urbanization of Capital (Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press). Reproduced

in: S. Campbell & S. Fainstein (Eds) (1996) Reading in Planning Theory, pp. 165 – 184 (Malden, MA,Blackwell).

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Basingstoke, Macmillan).Healey, P. (1999) Institutionalist analysis: communicative planning and shaping places, Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 19, pp. 111 – 121.Hillier, J. (1993) To boldly go where no planners have ever . . . , Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,

11(1), pp. 89 – 113.Hillier, J. (2000) Going round and back? Complex networks and informal association action in local planning

processes, Environment and Planning A, 32, pp. 33 – 54.Hoch, C. (1994) What Planners Do (Chicago, Planners Press).Hoch, C. (1996) A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power, in: J. Seymour & R. Burchell (Eds) Explorations

in Planning Theory, pp. 30 – 34 (New Brunswick, Centre for Urban Policy Research).Innes, J. (1992) Group process and the social growth of process management, Journal of the American Planning

Association, 58(4), pp. 440 – 453.Innes, J. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive process, Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 14(3), pp. 183 – 190.Innes, J. (1996) Planning through consensus building, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), pp.

4 – 29.Innes, J. (1998) Information in communicative planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1),

pp. 52 – 63.Innes, J. & Boohr, D. (1999) Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative

planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), pp. 9 – 26.Irwin, V. (1989) Nicosia’s daring diplomacy, Planning, 55(9), pp. 20 – 22.Khamaisi, K. (1999) Management transformation in statuary planning systems in the Jerusalem area, The Arab

World Geographer, 2, pp. 116 – 138.McGuirk, P. (2001) Situating communicative planning theory, Environment and Planning A, 33, pp. 195 – 217.Oranje, M. (1996) Modernising South Africa and its forgotten people under post-modern conditions. Paper

presented to the University of Newcastle 50th Anniversary conference, Department of Town & CountryPlanning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 25 – 27 October.

Outhwaite, W. (1996) General introduction, in: W. Outhwaite (Ed.) The Habermas Reader, pp. 3 – 22(Cambridge, Polity Press).

Owen, D. (1996) Foucault, Habermas and the claims of reason, History of the Human Sciences, 9(2), pp.119 – 138.

Collaborative Planning in Practice

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3

Phelps, N. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance:identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building, Environment and Planning A,32(1), pp. 11 – 130.

Pusey, M. (1987) Juergen Habermas (London, Tavistock).Richardson, T. (1996) Foucauldian discourse: power and truth in urban and regional policy making, European

Planning Studies, 4(3), pp. 279 – 292.Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory (Aldershot, Gower).Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Thomas, H. (1998) Collaborative action in local plan-making: planners’ perceptions of

‘planning through debate’, Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, pp. 127 – 144.United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1982)

Preliminary Nicosia Master Plan Project, Vol. I., Nicosia (south) (United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Nicosia, Habitat)).

United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1985a) TheCentral Area of Nicosia, Vol. I, Area Scheme Report, Nicosia Master Plan Second Phase, Nicosia (south)(United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Nicosia, Habitat)).

United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1985b)Nicosia Central Area, Vol. VIII, Investment Programme, Nicosia Master Plan Second Phase, Nicosia (south)(United Nations Development Programme/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Nicosia, Habitat)).

Hazem Abu-Orf

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

00:

13 3

1 A

ugus

t 201

3