happening!

Spatial planning is about shaping the future. In a book with Patsy Healey,  Jean Hilier once outlined different definitions of spatial planning, such as: ‘a forward-looking activity’ (John Friedmann), a ‘deliberative forethought’ (Ernst Alexander), ‘persuasive storytelling about the future’ (James Throgmorton), the ‘self-conscious collective efforts to re-imagine a city’ (Patsy Healey) or ‘the investigation of “virtualities” unseen in the present’ (Jean Hilier herself). 

Put differently, spatial planning ‘embraces an orientation towards the future’ (Hilier and Healey, 2010, p12.-13). What is more, spatial planning is not just about a future, but about a better village, city or region of tomorrow, that is: about justice (e.g. Weghorst et al., 2024, Centre for the Just City). In doing so, planning’s mission emphasizes interventions in the physical environment, an interest shared with the overlapping and/or adjacent professions of urban design and landscape architecture (Balz, 2019; Gunder, 2011). Particularly when physical interventions become grander – highways, conversion of greenfields to neighbourhoods, etc. – their irreversibility makes it even more important to carefully reflect on the future in the present and explore different options.   

According to Hopkins (2003), this idea of irreversibility is a key dimension of planning. He does not, however, unpack the concept. Ethicists studying water and climate adaptation do pay careful attention to irreversibility. They argue that intergenerational justice is about keeping options open for future generations, that is: preventing irreversible losses and allowing future generations to have meaningful agency in their life and society at large (e.g. Teodoro et al., 2022). Building on the work of Doorn (2018, 2025) and Raworth (2018), we argue that spatial planners should thus always ask the following intergenerational questions: 

1. To what extent is a spatial intervention that is proposed reversible by future generations who might face a different world or have different preferences? 

2. To what extent does a spatial intervention lead to a irreversible loss for future generations, for instance the loss of a species, habitat or unique cultural asset? 

3. To what extent does the spatial intervention contribute to a safe and just operating space (the ‘doughnut’), in which future generations can thrive?  

These sub-questions of the big questions are a first step in taking intergenerational justice seriously, but admittedly also conceptually open and not very practical yet. During our Big Question Week we aim through refine these questions and develop answers through three strategies, which we outline below.  

Deepening conceptual understanding  

A key aim of our big question week is to develop conceptual precision in understanding intergenerational justice in spatial planning. Tuesday’s keynote speaker Daniel Galland has for instance written about the role of time in planning, which is a key to grasp intergenerational justice: how many generations should we look ahead? Or should we do away with such a linear perspective of time altogether? Monday’s panellist Marco te Brömmelstroet has pointed out repeatedly that the language we use shape our spatial futures. So what stories and concepts would take intergenerational justice seriously? And language gets meaning in settings, perhaps we should rethink how we gather in planning to discuss urban futures, like Monday’s other panellist Malique Mohamud did so imaginatively through the Nite Shop.  

Reflecting on the research-practice interface 

Spatial planning as an academic discipline in in a ‘continuous conversation’ with the professional and societal field of spatial planning; with the activists, with the civil servants, with urban designers, with politicians and of course, crucially,  those who are soon to enter the field: students. This spirit is also reflected in how we approach the week. In the workshop by the Centre for the Just City, the UP2030 project will be deployed to develop ways to make the elusive concept of intergenerational justice applicable for practical situations, through a benchmarking tool. The Wednesday session is organized in collaboration with the European Policies Research Centre and will be staged around the concept of ‘territorial foresight’, which links intergenerational justice and planning practice. Finally, on Thursday, the students from POLIS will reflect on what they have learned during the week and how that connects to what makes them tick as planners and designers.  

Scrutinizing examples 

Intergenerational justice gets relevant when the rubber hits the road. During our Big Question Week we discuss several examples from practice. On Monday, we start with the documentary of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, which had vast effects on generations of New York residents and is therefore instructive for transport planners, urbanists and many more. During the mini-conference, Mare de Wit will reflect on her work as a ‘future ambassador’ in the context of the Dutch national government. Procedural intergenerational justice in action if you will, but not without its complications. In the workshop on Territorial Foresight on Wednesday morning, we will discuss the case of ‘Studio Amsterdam 2100’ a scenario study on the future of the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. And on Friday,  we will extensively discuss the Nota Ruimte (‘Memorandum on Spatial Planning), which outlines a spatial future for the Netherlands. Is this vision indeed taking intergenerational justice seriously? This question will among other by answered by Jong BNSP.  

References  

Balz, V. (2019). Regional Design: Discretionary Approaches to Planning in the Netherlands. A+ BE| Architecture and the Built Environment, (6), 1-252. 

Campbell, H. (2006). Just planning: The art of situated ethical judgment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 92-106. 

Doorn, N. (2018). Distributing risks: Allocation principles for distributing reversible and irreversible losses. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21(1), 96-109. 

Gunder, M. (2011). Commentary: Is urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(2), 184-195.’ 

Hilier, J. & P. Healey (2010) The Ashgate research companion to planning theory: conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Routledge.  

Hopkins, L. (2001) Urban Development: The Logic Of Making Plans. Island Press. 

Raworth, K. (2018). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. 

Teodoro, J. D., Doorn, N., Kwakkel, J., & Comes, T. (2023). Flexibility for intergenerational justice in climate resilience decision-making: an application on sea-level rise in the Netherlands. Sustainability Science, 18(3), 1355-1365. 

Weghorst, M., Buitelaar, E., & Pelzer, P. (2025). A dynamic justice framework for analyzing conceptions of justice: The case of urban development projects. Planning Theory, 24(3), 242-264.  

Warde, P., Robin, L., & Sörlin, S. (2018). The environment: A history of the idea. JHU Press.