Leadership in the collaboration on transport and land use

Abstract

The integration of land use systems and transport systems contributes strongly to the sustainable development of cities and regions. But integration doesn¿t come easy. The policy processes involved are so complex that the departments of transport and planning often lower their ambitions. Major barriers are found in the silo structure of the policy fields, but also in the different paradigms of the disciplines of land use planning and transport. Accepting those barriers reduces the level of intelligence of the system as a whole.
This article reviews the literature on collaborative planning and on learning, in search for the levers that transport and land use professionals can use to improve their collaboration.
Planning theory suggests argumentative approaches to integrate such diverging discourses. Ideal speech situations supposedly allow participants to acknowledge diversity and to create new common frameworks. But it is not obvious that the professionals involved are capable to participate in such conversation, or even facilitate them.
Cognitive psychology, organisational learning and neurosciences offer another perspective on the interaction. They reveal how difficult it is for anybody to handle such complex situations. Uncertainty and fear are probably the most dominant emotions. Most people will react on this complexity with an attitude that prevents learning. They also reveal the relevance of personal leadership for the creation of breakthroughs.
This article suggests to use perspectives offered in cognitive psychology and neurosciences to reframe the policy processes. The focus on interests, disciplines, rational discourses doesn¿t acknowledge the emotions involved, nor the individuality of learning processes. This focus hampers learning and collaboration. A focus on values, integration, personal involvement changes the language and the possible output of the collaboration. Leadership training can support the professionals involved to take responsibility, not just for the content of their integrative work and for their individual shortcomings, but also for the shortcomings that are imminent in such processes. The article gives an example of such a training, as applied in one of the Dutch provinces.