Territorial Foresight: More than Planning Less than Prospective

After the Y2K crisis many futurists feared that it might take another millennium to receive the same attention the year 2000 brought to us. Fortunately, we have seen that part of the interest in the future that the turning of century and millennium provoked seems to carry on. One of the most remarkable features of this continued appeal is regional foresight, or should I say regional planning? The truth is that many of us are so happy that futures related activity keeps going on, that we do not care much if it is called foresight, prospective, planning, business intelligence or whatever. Granted that it is important to work and to maintain the flow of projects going, but the question remains: the denomination matters or it is just a semantic issue? In this article will devote some space to the use of different names and its conceptual implications. It is important to clarify the theoretical standpoints in which every notions lies, in order to be able to determine if the present regional planning boom is beneficial for foresight. My intention is to demonstrate that the use of planning as a generic tantamount for foresight or prospective may have a negative boomerang effect. The second part of my presentation will focus on the specificities of planning activities at the city region level. And also, on how some of the most frequent pitfalls that this endeavours show can be avoided using a foresight methodological approach. The final part will concentrate on the importance of incorporating participatory mechanisms in this kind of undertakings. Taking Advantage of the Conjuncture