Simulation, Scenario and Visioning, Government and Governance, and Scale

  • Liliana Bazzanella
  • Luca Caneparo
  • Franco Corsico
  • Giuseppe Roccasalva
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)


The Future of Cities and Regions: Simulation, Scenario and Visioning, Governance and Scales is committed to presenting and discussing international best practices in planning and design according to four leading issues in urban and regional development: (1) Simulation, (2) Scenario and Visioning, (3) Government and Governance, and (4) Scale. The case-oriented discussion is a peculiarity of the book, which emerges from the title itself, The Future of Cities and Regions. The aim is to critically explain how urban planning, policy and design issues are faced by each simulation case and their inherent similarities and differences. The book reviews computer models and media, socio-political experiments and professional practices which help in communicating the future effects of different design, policy and planning strategies and schemes with a wide range of aims: from information, through consultation, towards active participation. Our intent is that the four leading issues both advance the understanding of the cases across the chapters, and advance discussion of the experiences theoretically. These issues could offer the reader a framework within which to consider the specific cases, and for interrelation of the narration of the practices from a methodological perspective, in an attempt to provide answers to the four leading issues.


Simulation Scenario Visioning Government Governance E-governance 


  1. Albrechts L (1999) Planners as catalysts and initiators of change: the new structure plan for Flanders. Eur Plan Stud 7:587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrechts L, Alden J, Da Rosa Pires A (eds) (2001) The changing institutional landscape of planning. Ashgate, Aldershot, HantsGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environ Plan B: Plann Des 31: 743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albrechts L, Healey P, Kunzmann K (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. J Am Plan Assoc 69:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolton R (2006) Habermas’s theory of communicative action and the theory of social capital. Williams College Economics Department Working Paper, Williamstown, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Coaffee J, Healey P (2003) My voice: my place: tracking transformations in urban governance. Urban Stud 40(10):1979–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couclelis H (2005) Where has the future gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environ Plan A 37:1353–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahrendorf R (1968) Market and plan: two types of rationality. In: Dahrendorf R (ed) Essays in the theory of society. Routledge, London, pp 215–231Google Scholar
  9. Eley G (1993) Nations, publics, and political cultures. In: Dirks NB, Eley G, Ortner SB (eds) A reader in contemporary social theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 297–335Google Scholar
  10. Forester J (1993) Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Frampton K (1980) Modern architecture: a critical history. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Fürst D (2001) Regional governance: Ein neues Paradigma der Regionalwissenschaften. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 5(6):370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geertman S (2006) Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environ Plan B: Plann Des 33:863–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas J (1984) Reason and the rationalization of society. Vol. 1 of the theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas J (1987) Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Vol. 2 of the theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardin R (2000) The public trust. In: Pharr S, Putnam R (eds) Disaffected democracies: what’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris N (2002) Collaborative planning: from theoretical foundations to practice forms. In: Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, London, pp 21–43Google Scholar
  18. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Helbing D (2008) Managing complexity: insights, concepts, applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helbing D, Balietti S (2011) From social simulation to integrative system design. Eur Phys J Special Topics 195(1):69–100Google Scholar
  21. Jessop B (1990) State theory: putting the capitalist state in its place. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Klosterman RE (1985) Arguments for and against planning. Town Plan Rev 56(1):5–20Google Scholar
  23. Kunzmann K (2001) State planning: a German success story? Int Plan Stud 6:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayntz R (2006) Conceptual models of organizational decision making and their application to the policy process. In: Hofstede G, Sami Kassem M (eds) European contributions to organization theory. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp 114–125Google Scholar
  25. Mc-Guirk PM (2004) State, strategy, and scale in the competitive city: a neo-Gramscian analysis of the governance of global Sydney. Environ Plann A 36:1019–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore T (1978) Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory. J Am Plan Assoc 44(3):387–398Google Scholar
  27. Pagano MA, Perry D (2006) Financing infrastructure in the 21st century city: “How did I get stuck holding the bag?” University of Illinois, A Great Cities Institute Working Paper, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Palumbo D (1987) Implementation: what have we learned and still need to know? Policy Stud Rev 7(1):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pharr S, Putnam R (eds) (2000) Disaffected democracies: what’s troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Pumain D (2006) Opening plenary: communicating about theoretical geography. Cybergeo: Eur J Geogr,

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liliana Bazzanella
    • 1
  • Luca Caneparo
    • 1
  • Franco Corsico
    • 2
  • Giuseppe Roccasalva
    • 4
    • 3
  1. 1.Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Architettura e Design (DAD)TorinoItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Superiore sui Sistemi Territoriali per l’Innovazione (SiTI)TornioItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Architettura e Design (DAD)TorinoItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Superiore sui Sistemi Territoriali per l’Innovazione (SiTI)TorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations