Toward a Framework for conceptualizing Public Interest in Spatial Planning

Public interest has always been a controversial concept in spatial planning theories. The controversies over the concept imply a critical disagreement on what public interest is and if it exists at all. These have led to the development of multiple theories, challenging the legitimacy of planning. Despite emphasizing the importance of addressing the question of public interest, this article has not aimed to find an ultimate answer to the question; rather, it has focused on understanding the nature of the disagreements on this concept through the formulation of the different responses to this question. Accordingly, it has put its finger on the various ontological perspectives on the relation between the social and the individual by applying the meta-synthesis method and aimed to understand the trace of these perspectives on the conceptualization of public interest in the twelve most influential traditions on planning theory and practice. These imply the dominance of four approaches to the public interest in spatial planning, including individualism, universalism, pluralism, and critical tradition. In terms of these approaches, the article has addressed three questions: what is the nature of the relation between the social and the individual; what does constitute the public interest; and how does the so-called public interest actualize, especially in spatial planning?