**4. Spatial planning**

large-scale socioeconomic and ecologic systems, the complex restructuring processes lead to degradation of these systems, and probable associated risks to human well-being. Hence, sustainability probes the natural and social systems, questioning their interactions, most notably achieving needs' balance of present and future generations while improving well fare and

The interdisciplinary mode of thinking has recently succeeded in linking the traditionally separate intellectual fields of critical social theory and environmental science. However, responses to meet the increasing demands of a growing population in an interconnected but unequal world have undermined the earth's essential life-support systems. Sustainability is therefore a concept that provides new visions for the national and international development and formulates new solutions for the recurrent socioeconomic needs. Nevertheless, the world's present development path is not sustainable [20]. The ecological transformations accompanied by the development processes are considered chief global challenge along with the intense alterations underway in socioeconomic and cultural life. Key indications of such consequences are global climate warming, urban sprawls, degradation of biological diversity, deprivation and increase in poverty levels, and the excessive exploitation of resources with unmatched rates of pollution [23]. In this context, the current concept of sustainability is vulnerable to the same

criticism of the vague idealism proffered against comprehensive planning [24].

The "classical" definition of sustainability, in that context, could be conceived as a guiding tool that connects the "present" of a spatially referenced activity into a "future" projected and thus desired, status. Still, classical sustainability does not cover *the past*, in particular, within its temporal analysis. Moreover, it could be debated that the aforementioned classical definitions for sustainability in both, be it theory-driven or action-driven directions, neither integrate nor incorporate the cultural and historical aspects of space and place within the framework of the development process. Thus, it is also arguable that adopting the "classical" norms of sustainability disregard the cultural identity and historical aspects and could, therefore, lead toward a critical cultural transformation, degradation, or even evanescence and disappearance.

To overcome the existing challenge and to recover that gap in the classical conception of sustainability, it is necessary to put forward a revolutionary model for spatial sustainability that not only conceives sustainability as a guidance tool aiming at steering the development wheel toward environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity but also at integrating the cultural-historical factors in a more holistic temporal analysis as well. In other words, this requires shifting the "classical sustainability" concept into a more comprehensive model, namely, the "four-dimensional" spatial sustainability (4DSS) presented in **Figure 1**. This adds a new comprehensive time-based dimension allowing the integration of the past of a referenced space by evaluating its cultural and historical identity and to assess the consequential cause-effect impacts of the projected, future development. Furthermore, considering the cultural-historic dimension within the development process enhances the integration toward a well-balanced time scale focusing on understanding a past-present trajectory before linking it into the future. Hence, the 4DSS considers the following four substantial dimensions for investigation and integration—social, environmental, economic, and cultural-historic—forming together the SEEC orbit of sustainability, centered by gravity zone of tension. In practice, considering the dynamic interactions while integrating these four-dimensional perspectives

preserving the planet life support systems.

222 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

In order to understand the notion of spatial planning, it would be useful to begin by understanding a definition of this term. A brief review of the literature pertaining to "planning" in terms of physical development would immediately reveal that the word has a wide variety of meanings. Gradually, the terms "urban and regional planning" or "town and country planning" and "city planning" as they are called in the UK and North America, respectively, are ideally represented by the term spatial planning. Spatial planning is not a static notion that presents a single concept, procedure, or tool; it is rather a well-structured mix of all that must be comprehensively functioned if desirable outcomes are to be achieved [25]. From this regard, the perception of spatial planning indicates the necessity for integrating several spatial sectorial policies in order to create positive synergies. The emerging compound nouns of planning have attracted academics to explore the meanings and semantics of those flexible names. For instance, the terms "land use planning," "regional planning," "town planning," and "urban planning" are often used interchangeably, and in many cases will depend on the reference country, but do not always have the same meaning. In the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, the term "town planning" is common. Meanwhile, in the United States and Canada, the term "urban planning" is more familiar. However, in Europe, the preferred term is increasingly "spatial planning." Spatial planning is perceived as going beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programs which influence the nature of places and how they function [20].

**4.2. Regressive planning**

in many cases, unpredictable roles.

groups often reside in their own regions.

ticipation in the process of decision-making.

ethnic cultures.

**5. Conflict city of Jerusalem**

Regressive planning is a concept used for the cases in which planning is oriented to function as a "control tool" in order to achieve oppressive objectives. More specifically, regressive planning is utilized to serve a specific social stratum and neglect or even restrain the other strata. This sort of planning is critically practiced at places where there is conflict, political instability, or racial disputes. It presents a considerable degree of uncertainty and vagueness, therefore affecting its legitimacy, ability to create consensus, and sustainability in real contexts. Consequently, this widespread uncertainty of planning concepts continues to raise doubts regarding a presumed disciplinary status and even professional conception for planning and its expected, and

Planning, Power, and Politics (3P): Critical Review of the Hidden Role of Spatial Planning…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78779

225

From the viewpoint of physical development in conflict areas, the interactive power relationships clearly exist between contingent styles of planning and their institutional and cultural contexts which illustrate, to some extent, the differentiation in planning tools and the variety of outcomes [31]. Examining the theoretical and empirical studies regarding planning practices in different contexts could help clarifying a solid core of common trends and problems constituting a series of challenges, dilemmas, and limitations that are valid in different insti-

Understanding the context in which planning is transformed into what can be understood as "imperfect planning," addresses substantial exploration of particular scopes that reveal how

• *Territorial scope*: It is also known as the spatial context and it reflects upon space, geography, time and people. It presents the territorial policies and ordinances utilized as a powerful tool of control over minorities, particularly in deeply divided societies, where ethnic

• *Power relations and decision-making scope:* This is also known as the methodological scope and it includes the statutory aspects that determine the formal relationship between the regime and the public. It is employed in order to marginalize specific groups, thus enhancing segregation and exclusion of ethnical or minority groups from the active and real par-

• *Socioeconomic scope:* This focuses on serving the economic interests of the dominant party and thereby contributes to create weaker groups of people who become more dependent on the dominant party, who in turn manipulates the regime to increase its influence and power. • *Cultural scope:* It deals with the influence and effect of planning on the multiple cultures and identities within a space. It is critically utilized through the planning strategies that are practiced by the dominant ethnic group who often aims to minimize and alienate the other

Few cities evoke such a sharp and expressive response from so many people all over the world as does Jerusalem. Sacred to at least three major faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—Jerusalem

planning is used as a socio-graphical control tool. These scopes are four-fold [20]:

tutional, government, economic and administrative frameworks [32].

It could be argued that the definition of spatial planning depends on the basic historical and institutional differences between the various settings where planning is practiced. Hence, there are variances for the perception of planning according to the spatial reference that originates the definition [26]. Italian intellectuals, for instance, perceived "planning" as an element of the city seen as a work of art. Alternatively, the British have regularly concentrated on the regulation in different scales of physical development. Meanwhile, American researchers have often referred to planning as a loose concept, dealing essentially with public and private policy efforts. Generally, there are two major, but contradictory, definitions for planning, depending upon the aims and tools of planning, or in other words, based upon the "role" of planning. The concepts pertaining to the power of planning to act either as a progressive or as a regressive agent of change and the probability of using planning as a "control tool" instead of "reforming tool" principally upon ethnic minorities are briefly presented in the following sections.

#### **4.1. Progressive planning**

Planning, in its conventional sense, simply refers to the process of setting goals, developing strategies, and outlining activities and schedules to accomplish desired objectives [27]. The term progressive planning refers to that sort of planning that acts as a means of positive change to achieve more urban justice, economic growth, equity, and stability. Achieving these goals has proven very demanding. Specifically, after the early start of the Industrial Revolution, the world went through rapid transformation processes, moving from simple agricultural communities into massively urbanized ones. This quick transformation resulted, in many cases, in the emergence of unhealthy living conditions, social dilemmas, and environmental hazards. Accordingly, planning was born as a way to heal the ills of urbanization and then evolved into an organized field of human activity; thus it was normative reaction to the exigent of ameliorating the deteriorated living conditions [28]. This fundamental explanation of planning inspired urban planners to introduce "ideal" concepts such as utopianism, liberty and equity, economic reform, and improvement of living conditions. These basic thoughts formed the foundation of planning theories. Therefore, progressive planning has been conceived as a problem-solving activity that relates knowledge to action in different ways, and thus is optimally characterized as reformative norm [29]. Spatial planning represents the interrelationship between the concepts of space and place. It explores how such concepts reflect the shift in geographical thought to a dynamic, discontiguous, relational conceptualization of spatiality [30]. It is a multidisciplinary, hermeneutic discipline, which integrates the integration of many other disciplines in order to explain spaces and eventually to optimize strategic mechanisms in developing spaces toward a more sustainable and equitable living conditions [25].

#### **4.2. Regressive planning**

planning," "town planning," and "urban planning" are often used interchangeably, and in many cases will depend on the reference country, but do not always have the same meaning. In the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, the term "town planning" is common. Meanwhile, in the United States and Canada, the term "urban planning" is more familiar. However, in Europe, the preferred term is increasingly "spatial planning." Spatial planning is perceived as going beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programs

It could be argued that the definition of spatial planning depends on the basic historical and institutional differences between the various settings where planning is practiced. Hence, there are variances for the perception of planning according to the spatial reference that originates the definition [26]. Italian intellectuals, for instance, perceived "planning" as an element of the city seen as a work of art. Alternatively, the British have regularly concentrated on the regulation in different scales of physical development. Meanwhile, American researchers have often referred to planning as a loose concept, dealing essentially with public and private policy efforts. Generally, there are two major, but contradictory, definitions for planning, depending upon the aims and tools of planning, or in other words, based upon the "role" of planning. The concepts pertaining to the power of planning to act either as a progressive or as a regressive agent of change and the probability of using planning as a "control tool" instead of "reforming

tool" principally upon ethnic minorities are briefly presented in the following sections.

Planning, in its conventional sense, simply refers to the process of setting goals, developing strategies, and outlining activities and schedules to accomplish desired objectives [27]. The term progressive planning refers to that sort of planning that acts as a means of positive change to achieve more urban justice, economic growth, equity, and stability. Achieving these goals has proven very demanding. Specifically, after the early start of the Industrial Revolution, the world went through rapid transformation processes, moving from simple agricultural communities into massively urbanized ones. This quick transformation resulted, in many cases, in the emergence of unhealthy living conditions, social dilemmas, and environmental hazards. Accordingly, planning was born as a way to heal the ills of urbanization and then evolved into an organized field of human activity; thus it was normative reaction to the exigent of ameliorating the deteriorated living conditions [28]. This fundamental explanation of planning inspired urban planners to introduce "ideal" concepts such as utopianism, liberty and equity, economic reform, and improvement of living conditions. These basic thoughts formed the foundation of planning theories. Therefore, progressive planning has been conceived as a problem-solving activity that relates knowledge to action in different ways, and thus is optimally characterized as reformative norm [29]. Spatial planning represents the interrelationship between the concepts of space and place. It explores how such concepts reflect the shift in geographical thought to a dynamic, discontiguous, relational conceptualization of spatiality [30]. It is a multidisciplinary, hermeneutic discipline, which integrates the integration of many other disciplines in order to explain spaces and eventually to optimize strategic mechanisms in developing spaces toward a more sustainable

which influence the nature of places and how they function [20].

**4.1. Progressive planning**

224 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

and equitable living conditions [25].

Regressive planning is a concept used for the cases in which planning is oriented to function as a "control tool" in order to achieve oppressive objectives. More specifically, regressive planning is utilized to serve a specific social stratum and neglect or even restrain the other strata. This sort of planning is critically practiced at places where there is conflict, political instability, or racial disputes. It presents a considerable degree of uncertainty and vagueness, therefore affecting its legitimacy, ability to create consensus, and sustainability in real contexts. Consequently, this widespread uncertainty of planning concepts continues to raise doubts regarding a presumed disciplinary status and even professional conception for planning and its expected, and in many cases, unpredictable roles.

From the viewpoint of physical development in conflict areas, the interactive power relationships clearly exist between contingent styles of planning and their institutional and cultural contexts which illustrate, to some extent, the differentiation in planning tools and the variety of outcomes [31]. Examining the theoretical and empirical studies regarding planning practices in different contexts could help clarifying a solid core of common trends and problems constituting a series of challenges, dilemmas, and limitations that are valid in different institutional, government, economic and administrative frameworks [32].

Understanding the context in which planning is transformed into what can be understood as "imperfect planning," addresses substantial exploration of particular scopes that reveal how planning is used as a socio-graphical control tool. These scopes are four-fold [20]:

