Striving For Sustainable Development - Essay Example

Improving the WA Public Planning By Balanced Deliberative Democracy- Striving For Sustainable Development Introduction: The pace at which our world today is operating, amid this environment of ever changing social, political and economic conditions, the concept of “sustainability” has become a principle area of interest for decision makers. To aim for sustainability has become a concern for all parties involved in the functioning of educated societies in these times, as taking pains to ensure that the future generations have access to what we have today (Burby, 2003) seems to be the only way left to make sure that the earth is habitable two centuries from now. This concept of sustainability, is limited not only to the issues of environmental concerns, but also applies, in general to the way we live, the way we work and even the way our society is administered, managed and run. Governments today are setting great store by incorporating sustainability practices in public development plans and similar measures have been adopted by the decision making bodies such as the Western Australia Planning Commission. However, the issue that is of consequence here is that the government, no matter how conscientious its planning policies are, alone cannot do enough to make these practices count. Hartz-Karp and Newman (date?) state that to make all sustainability practices a success, the “hearts and minds of the civic society” will have to behind all such ventures, and this can only happen if the society itself is given an important part to play in the decision making process. This ideology of “giving the community a voice” has brought to light the concept of “Participative Planning”, which, according to authors such as Gleeson and Low (2000) and Burbey (2003), is not only a democratically idealistic process but also a pragmatic solution as not only does it allow all members of the society to have their say in the forming of decisions which effect them the most, it also helps the administrative bodies in generating the support that is required in implementing all the plans that have been made. The outcome of the deliberative democracy and participatory planning process however depends on the balance of power between the members of community and the policy makers who take part in any such process. According to Carp (2004), this precarious balance, and the manner in which any power distortion is handled, can be the fine line of distinction between the success and the failure of any such process. This essay specifically talks about the importance of the deliberative democracy in the ideology of participative planning and discusses the great impact that it can have in making all developmental plans sustainable in the long run. This essay also, by the means of a discussion about a previously held “Dialogue with the City”, points out the various power imbalances that existed in the last dialogue, which could be avoided during another episode, and how doing so will make the program more effectively result in sustainable development. Participatory planning: A tale of Other cities Although participatory planning is practiced by the city planners in small ways around the world, the process of deliberation which allows almost every sect of the society to be represented equally within a participatory decision making process is not a common occurring. Among the cities where the authorities have provided the public with this opportunity, Vancouver is a standout. A business and economic hub of Canada, the city has outlined “economic guiding principles” which work to ensure that there is a competitive business climate within the city’s markets, the establishment of strategic infrastructure, a sustainable high quality of life for the city’s inhabitants, and improved collaboration between leaders and the public (Economic Guiding Principles, City of Vancouver website). According to the city planning authorities, the city-wide planning and development policies are created with the collaboration of the public and helps in the enhancement of Vancouver’s sustainability and livability by ensuring that the development for serving the city’s growing population is sustainable in the long run. Participatory planning: A history of Perth According to Hartz-Karp (2005), Perth, the capital city of Western Australia is among the most livable cities of the world, but at the same time, it is experiencing exponential rates of growth and urban sprawl, two principle culprits which result in unsustainable land development and growth. The steps that the city’s planning authorities have taken to ensure this standing are, therefore, worth mentioning. According to the President of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, there has been little work for sustainability around the world which is comparable to that of the extensive efforts generated by the policy makers of Western Australia (cited in Hartz-Karp and Newman, ?) a fact which is obvious by the city’s policy which aim specifically for long term sustainable development for all parts of the city. Perth has already been part of a deliberative democracy process in the form of the much publicized and talked about the “Dialogue with the City” which was a process initiated by the Western Australian Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, as a means to determine the public’s viewpoint on the way that the city’s growing population could be managed efficiently. This was a means to get the public to give their input to aid the developmental policy-making and the future-mapping of the city of Perth (MacTiernan, 2003) and its initial phases were in the form of an information and awareness campaign which was held in collaboration with the state newspaper. After this initial phase, a website was established along with a telephone hotline to raise awareness about the upcoming session, which encouraged the communities’ debate on the matter of regional planning (Hopkins, 2010). The plan for the “Dialogue with the city” was centered on the aim to make Perth “the most livable city by the year 2030” (Hartz-Karp, 2005), and aimed to be both large scale and representative of all societies and all kinds of people living in the city. A random community survey was sent out to 8,000 residents of the Perth area to determine the major concerns of these citizens and to ascertain their values and beliefs regarding the manner in which the future development of the city should take place (Hartz-Karp and Newman, ?). The dialogue forum, which was actually modeled on the format of a 20th century town meeting, took place in September 2003 and the forum consisted of one third invited stakeholders, one third randomly chosen electorate and one third self-nominated individuals. The base questions which were a part of the discussion held were: 1. What are your key hopes for the future of metropolitan Perth? 2. To become the world’s most liveable city, what aspects of metropolitan Perth do we need to make sure we keep 3. To become the world’s most liveable city, what changes would need to be made? 4. What scenario (dispersed, compact, multi-centered, or connected network) would best help us achieve the aspects we have prioritised to make Perth the world’s most liveable city? As a result of this forum, committees were formed which, acting in accordance with the opinions of the forum members, prepared the plans for “Network City”, which was deemed at the time as a milestone in metropolitan planning. The Network City plan comprised of 28 strategic priorities and 59 priority actions which were a pathway to the eventual and gradual progress that would result in making Perth the city that its inhabitants wanted (Network City, Statement from the WAPC). On the planning and developmental front, this plan proposed the formation of strategic Activity Centers, Activity Corridors and Transport Corridors which would help the base issue of sustainable development of the city of Perth. The fact remains that this initiative provided great emphasize to the importance of participatory planning for sustainable development, however, certain issues have also been isolated, avoidance of which, could make this process more acceptable to the masses as well as resultantly more applicable. Following is a discussion of some of the ways that deliberative participation could be held without manipulation of power disturbances, and the way forward for this process which would result in the formation of a greater support infrastructure enabling the government to act out its developmental plans accordingly. Participatory Planning and Power Imbalances As mentioned previously, deliberation has become the key to participative planning. According to Newman (2001), the weakened legitimacy of the government of today has resulted in greater public dependence on the government’s part to help in acting out any planning and developmental processes. Therefore, the right way to seek out any form of help from the public sources also requires incorporating their opinions into all such plans , and deliberation is the key to this incorporation. Levine (2003) states that deliberation is important on account of three major reasons, which are: 1. It enables citizens to discuss public concerns and opinions 2. It gives democratic leaders a greater insight into the public issues 3. It allows people to justify their views so that the authorities and decision makers can determine the better from the worse. Therefore, to say that deliberation seems to be the right way forward for participatory planning of sustainable development would be making an apt statement. However, deliberation also has a way of creating more concerns than solving existing issues, as it can result in conflict arising due to one party exhibiting greater influence over the final decision. A review of the scholarly material on this subject allows one to see that even though there has been a discussion about the structural differentiations and inequalities in a communication process the likes of the “Dialogue with the people” (Forester, 1994, Krumholz and Forester,1990) , there has been a lack of discussion about all power distortions created within such a process ( issue raised in Harris, 2002; Huxley, 2000; Yiftachel and Huxley, 2000). It can be safely said that although the discussion about the relationship between power and planning has a long history, the exclusive nature of a deliberative process such as the “Dialogue with the People” has allowed little discussion of power injustices in such forums. Hopkins (2010), however is a remarkable paper on the subject of power distortion within the deliberative planning process that the citizens and policy makers of the Western Australian planning commission went through in September 2003. The author has brought to light the question of authorities ever being able to bring equality to a deliberation process, and discusses the various ways in which the final decisions of the “Dialogue with the People” were marred by power distortions. Isolating discrepancies in the Deliberative Democracy process From a review of the Hopkins Paper (2010), and after detailed analysis of the literature available about the “Dialogue with the People” initiative, following are the principle factors that I believe were the major cause of concern, things which could seriously hamper the effectiveness of participatory planning as a means for sustainable development: 1. Over-representation of some groups 2. Close relationship between land developers and the planning commission 3. The inability of planners to act as unbiased facilitators 4. The manipulation of opinion by the planners due to unequal knowledge capacity These were some of the inevitable issues that could and did arise during the discussion session of the forum and which in time, also effected the resulting plans which were drawn from the deliberation process. Over-representation of some groups such as private development concerns, outweighed other groups and due to the sheer size of this group, it influenced and effected a major portion of the Network City plan which was prepared from the input received during the session. Another component of the same problem arose due to the close relationship between land developers and the planning authorities which were a part of this session. Due to their undue influence over the facilitators themselves, the group of land developers was also able to overcome voices from the public which opined differently. A major imbalance also resulted in the form of the facilitators who could not detach themselves from their role of authority. Planners who had previously been solely responsible for the planning process had been asked to act as unbiased facilitators, which resulted in them having to share their power and see it being distorted in front of them. Due to this, instead of correcting any imbalance of power being exhibited in their group, these facilitators tried to reinforce existing power relations (Carp, 2004). Another major discrepancy was the unequal level of knowledge about the planning process that all participants who took part in the deliberation possessed. Due to this, individuals who were more knowledgeable could easily manipulate and lead the discussion, allowing inequality in the deliberation process. A Way forward: Making Participatory Planning Unbiased and efficient Till this point, I have presented a discussion related to the manner in which deliberative democracy and public participation in planning can result in far more effective planning processes. A discussion about the previously held public participation forum has also ensued and so has been a discussion related to isolating the major concerns blighting the image of equality that has been represented in the masses regarding this process. Therefore, it is now essential to discuss the steps for improvement which can be taken to ensure that the next dialogue with the public is relatively unbiased and which results in plans which truly reflect the sustainable choices that the public wants to make. The most important step that the government should take when planning the next discussion forum is to ensure that all demographics of the population are covered and that no age group, social class and income bracket is left unrepresented. Consequentially, it is also imperative that all participants of the discussion are educated on the intricacies of the sustainable development process before hand. Cooke (2000), states that whereas all participants who take part in a deliberation process may have a specific reason for a particular opinion, not all of them will have the means to justify their opinion on the basis of their existing knowledge and experience, hence it is important to deal with that angle of the issue. There is also a need for greater fairness and impartiality from the side of the planning commission authorities, who will need to ensure that the facilitators have been trained to aid and encourage impartial discussion. This will have a greater impact on the “applicablity” of the ensuing development plans as the participants will believe that their concerns have received due attention. Flyvbjerg (1996) points out that planners do not simply operate in the ‘face of power’, but are active participants who can themselves deceive and manipulate. Therefore, the need to recruit trained facilitators will greatly have to be realized in the next instance of any such process. Since the deliberation process involves the best ideas persuading others (Lukensmeyer and Brigham, 2002), both this, and the previous point are inter-related, as educating participants will eventually lead to them being less-influenced by overly-influencing facilitators and/or other stake-holders. Conclusion: All deliberation processes, as the law of human nature goes, must accompany some power distortions and inequalities. The aim of this paper has been two-fold. First of all, it has discussed the importance, and more importantly the relevance of the concept of deliberative democracy in these modern times. And secondly, this paper has examined the process of deliberative planning that ensued as a result of public participation in the September of 2003,as exhibited in the discussion forum held by the Western Australian government. This process was one in a kind and unique in the sense that it was not only massive in scale, but also resulted in actions which were not just a table talk. As much as it is important to appreciate the initiative taken by the government in this regard, it also important to review the power distortions that were a part of the process, and in doing so, present suggestions which could ensure that the next time around for this process would result in increasingly sustainable development. This essay has highlighted the reasons behind the major power distortions during this process and in the end, I would like to reiterate the importance of maintaining a power balance between the participants of this discussion. It is essential therefore, to ensure that there is no over or under participation of any group and also that all public groups have engaged in extensive educational exercises on the subject of sustainable development so as to ensure that they are not overly-influenced due to their lack of knowledge on the subject. Achieving greater sustainability will, at this point, require the government and the public to re-examine their priorities and their opinions regarding the process of development and city and town planning. The eventual outcome of any deliberative process is to engage the public and allow them to participate in the formation of rules which effects them directly, and by doing this, the main aim of the government has been to gather public support which will help them carry out the developmental plans without hindrances, However, if the government truly wants the development process to be democratic, deliberative procedures will have to be more unbiased and free of manipulation of all sorts. References Burby, R. J. (2003). "Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action." American Planning Association Journal 69(1): 33- 49. Carp, J. (2004), ‘Wit, style, and substance: how planners shape public participation’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 242–54. Cooke, M. (2000), ‘Five arguments for deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 48, 947–69. Few, R. (2001), ‘Containment and counter-containment: planner/community relations in conservation planning’, The Geographical Journal, 167, 111–24. Forester, J. (1994), ‘Bridging interests and community: advocacy planning and the challenges of deliberative democracy’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 153–58. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998), Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press. Gleeson, B. and Low, N. (2000), Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas, Sydney, Allen & Unwin. Hartz-Karp, J. (2005), ‘A case study of deliberative democracy: Dialogue with the City’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 1 (electronic article from http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles/ jhk-dialogue-city.pdf) (accessed 29oct 2010). Harris, N. (2002), ‘Collaborative planning: from theoretical foundations to practice forms’, in P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (eds), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, London, Routledge, 21–43. Hopkins, D. 2010. The emancipatory limits of participation in planning: Equity and power in deliberative plan-making in Perth, Western Australia. Huxley, M. (2000), ‘The limits to communicative planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 369–77. Krumholz, N. and Forester, J. (1990), Making Equity Planning Work: Leadership in the Public Sector, Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press. Levine, P. (2003). The New Progressive Era: Toward a Fair and Deliberative Democracy, Rowman & Littlefield, USA. Lukensmeyer, C. J. & Brigham, S. (2002). "Taking Democracy to Scale: Creating a Town Hall Meeting for the Twenty-First Century." National Civic Review 91(4): 351 - 366. Network City- A milestone in metropolitan planning. 2005. A statement by the Western Australian Planning Commission on the partnerships in planning Perth and Peel, Perth, Government of Western Australia. Newman, J. (2001), Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society, London, Sage. Mactiernan, A. (2003), ‘Welcome to Dialogue with the City, Dialogue with the City Issues Paper’ (information brochure given to participants of the community forum held on 13 September), Perth, Government of Western Australia. Yiftachel, O. and Huxley, M. (2000) ‘Debating dominance and relevance: notes on the “communicative turn” in planning theory’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 907–13. Read More