Planning Theory
Planning Theory
Planning Theory
1
American Planning Association:
What is Planning?
“Good planning helps create communities that offer better choices for
where and how people live. Planning helps communities to envision
their future. It helps them find the right balance of new development
and essential services, environmental protection, and innovative
change.”
Source: https://www.planning.org/aboutplanning/whatisplanning.htm
Post-Modernism
• realization that material progress does not automatically
lead to moral progress,
• that rational and just social institutions do not resolve the
problem of human evil
• what is the significance for planning? Why do we plan?
Thus:
Less optimism, even pessimism placed on the idea of
progress.
5
Public versus Private planning
6
Public Planning is highly political
7
;
8
9
10
Example of Disciplinary theories of planning or theories about
the object of planning – substantive theories of the
subject matter of planning –
for example,
• planning deals with population growth/migration – what is
the theory of demographic change? The determinants and
consequences of migration (theory of migration);
• planning deals with the environment – what is the theory of
environment?,
• planning deals with housing problems, theories about
housing markets
• poverty issues,
• women’s (gender) issues,
• mass transit
• In each of these issues we ask about social justice, ie. Who
benefits, who suffers? 11
We need substantive theories about Planning issues
to help us understand the problem(s) and find ways to
intervene:
Further examples:
• informal sector employment
• transportation (gravity models)
• industrial and commercial location
• globalization and its impact on spatial development
• social movements and social change
• environment
12
A desired future – planning cannot be value neutral, it must
serve multiple public interests in increasingly complex and
changing environments, and that it must involve all stakeholders
in the decision-making process. (Beauregard 2001).
“The question is not whether planning will reflect politics but whose
politics it will reflect. What values and whose values will planners seek
to implement? … In the broadest sense plans represent political
philosophies, ways of implementing differing conceptions of the good
life. No longer can the planner take refuge in the neutrality of the
objectivity of the personally uninvolved scientist” (Norton E. Long,
Planning and Politics in Urban Development, 1959, 168).
13
Illustrations of the normative character of planning in the
Philippines - (it is not purely a technical process)
14
CODE OF ETHICS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Article VII RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE COUNTRY
Section 11. The primary obligation of the Environmental Planner is to serve the country
and in so doing safeguard public interest.
a. He shall have special concern for long-range consequence of present actions and
must therefore pay close attention to the inter-relatedness of his decisions and opinions.
b. He shall strive to provide full, clear, and accurate information on planning issues and
concerns to the general public and government decision-makers in order to optimize
their participation in the planning process.
c. He shall strive to increase choice and opportunity for all persons, a special
responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged, disabled and recognizing a
special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged, disabled and
underprivileged groups or persons.
15
d. He shall diligently protect the natural environment, opt for excellence of
16
Are these densities acceptable? - - is a normative
questions
17
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
19
Province…..
For a City:
All the services and facilities of the municipality and
province, and in addition thereto, the following: 20
Synoptic
(Comprehensive)
Planning
21
Synoptic - manifesting or characterized by
comprehensiveness or breadth of view
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synoptic
22
Meaning of Rationality
23
• assumes man has at least impressively clear and
voluminous knowledge regarding his environment.
29
30
Two main types of rationality:
1.) Instrumental or functional rationality focuses
on the most efficient or cost-effective means to achieve a
specific end, but not in itself reflecting on the value of that
end.
32
33
Characteristics of the Rational-Comprehensive
Planning Model (RCPM)
will be dissatisfied.
Optimal versus Satisfactory solution
36
Critique of the Rational-Comprehensive
Planning Model (RCPM)
• Criticisms of Charles Lindblom (1959):
– Unachievable and out of step with political realities:
– Political leaders cannot agree on goals in advance
– They prefer to choose policies and goals at the same time
– Evaluating all possible alternatives on all possible measures of
performance (criteria) exceeds human abilities*
*the notion of bounded rationality: decision makers can never be
completely rational in the sense of having total knowledge of a
situation and the alternatives available to them. Impossible to satisfy
the excessive information requirements of RCPM (“greedy for
information”)
– Relationship between science and policy choice is oblique at best
37
– A "good policy" is one on which policymakers agree
Critique of the Rational-Comprehensive
Planning Model (RCPM)
• Findings from Alan Altshuler's (1965) doctoral dissertation:
– Planners seldom achieved their objective, scientific
aspirations
– Planners claims to comprehensiveness not backed up by
reality
– Planners’ recommendations often ignored by policymakers
in favor of the wishes of the politically connected
stakeholders.
– Policymakers prefer to satisfy the wishes of the politically
connected rather than follow objective, scientific
recommendations from planners.
38
Critique of the Rational-Comprehensive
Planning Model (RCPM)
• Beazley (1989):
– Planning being a technical, value-free, apolitical activity
without proper consideration of socio-economic and
political climate in which it operates
• Goodman (1972):
– RCPM maintains the existing power relations under a mask
of rationality, efficiency and science
– Under this model, planning is likely to benefit capitalists and
those in the middle class while the poor become the
casualties
39
40
Wicked Problems
41
Rittel and Weber (1973) argues that the
Rational Comprehensive Model of
Planning (RCMP) is unattainable, even as
we seek more closely to approximate it.
42
43
Societal problems are “wicked problems”
Wicked problems: Impediments to Optimization
• The kinds of problems that planners deal with are inherently different
from problems that scientists/engineers deal with
By contrast, the problems planners deal with are:
– interconnected (interdependent), the nature of problem is ill defined
– less apparent where problem centers lie, and thus, where and how
we should intervene even if we do happen to know what aims we
seek
–Rely upon elusive political judgment for resolution
• Social problems are never solved. At best they are only re-solved-over
and over again.
• The problems that scientists and engineers have usually focused upon
are mostly "tame" or "benign" ones; for example:
• The organic chemist analyzing structure of an unknown compound;
• The chess player attempting to accomplish checkmate in five
moves.
"We are all beginning to realise that one of
the most intractable problems is that of
defining and locating problems."
• defining problems (knowing what distinguishes an
observed condition from a desired condition)
• locating problems (finding where in the complex causal
networks the trouble really lies).
• In turn, the problem of identifying the actions that might
effectively narrow the gap between what-is and what-
ought-to-be.
• it becomes ever more difficult to make the planning idea
operational.
45
“We use the term 'wicked' in a
meaning akin to 'malignant' or
'vicious' or 'tricky' or 'aggressive'...
to characterise social problems”
The use of term "wicked" here has come to
denote resistance to resolution, rather than evil.
Moreover, because of complex
interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect
of a wicked problem may reveal or create other
problems.
46
47
“To find the problem is the same
thing as finding the solution; the
problem can't be defined until the
solution has been found”
48
“One cannot meaningfully search for
information without the orientation of a
solution concept; one cannot first
understand, then solve”
50
51
Not easily defined
No clear stopping rules (cannot be fully resolved)
No right or wrong approach
No clear measures of success
An iterative process
Solutions are discovered
Each are unique
Level of detail a matter of judgement
Strong moral & political pressure against
failure
52
Traffic congestion and narrow roads create impossible situations.
Where do you put the CITOM enforcer in this situation without
being run over?
Where will they park their motorcycles? If they need backup how
will the responders
be able to arrive
in time?
“Counterflow”
Phenomenon
under extreme
congestion in
Cebu City
Divider
Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153679806340225&set=gm.670967316378647&type=3&theater
53
Procedural rationality focuses on the process that generated it.
54
Disjointed Incrementalism? (by Charles Lindblom)
• examples: traffic jams in Cebu City or Manila, disasters relating to climate change.
55
56
57
Mixed Scanning Procedural Theory of Planning
by Amitai Etzioni
58
Advocacy Planning
66
Radical Planning Theory
• “Planning is necessary to the ruling class in
order to facilitate [capital] accumulation and
maintain social control in the face of class
conflict. The modes by which urban planners
assist accumulation include the
development of physical infrastructure, land
aggregation and development, containment
of negative environmental externalities, and
the maintenance of land values … Urban
planners specialize in managing the
contradictions of capitalism manifested in
urban form and spatial development” (Fainstein
N and S Fainstein (1979), “New debates in urban planning, The impact of
marxist theory within the United States”, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, Volume 3, Issue 1-3, March-December, 148-9).
67
Radical Planning
Meaning and Characteristics
• Radicals call for a more progressive approach to planning,
following not-satisfactory-enough outcomes of Advocacy
Planning experiments
• Call for decentralization, ecological attentiveness and
spontaneous activism guided by a vision of self-reliance
and mutual aid
• Radical planning emphasizes the importance of personal
growth, cooperative spirit, and freedom from
manipulation by anonymous forces
68
Radical Planning Theory
Meaning and Characteristics
• It calls for structural changes to promote equality,
participation and legitimacy in planning
• Proponents:
– Based on several Marxist writings, e.g. Stephen Grabow
and Alan Heskin's (1973)
Critique
• Radical planning is an ambiguous tradition; no clear road
map for doing planning
69
70
71
72
73
Post Modern concerns in the West
• Move from grand narratives to problem centred planning
– Inner city decline - urban regeneration
– Economic boom - social inequalities
– Ecological crisis - sustainable development
– Urban ugliness - urban design
– State control - public participation
• Two major shifts
– Design - science
– Planners as technicians - planners as (social) scientists
74
Expanding the Normative basis in
the Post-Modern Critique
76
Social Learning. characteristics
• Critical feedback
• Shared values with clients
• Strong institutional memory
• Based on past experiences, institutions learn from their mistakes and
are able to improve themselves.
• Openness requires democratic procedures. Favors open over closed
meetings, and invites criticism and comment.
• Role of media and evaluation research is important
• Access of these types of information by communities is important
• So that they have a basis for criticism
Accountability of Planning
• Accountability increases when planning process is brought out in the
open
• In secrecy, mistakes accumulate, leading in the long term to disaster
• Requires confident leadership that is not afraid to admit mistakes.
• Share experiences openly, both success and failure.
77
78
TRANSACTIVE PLANNING THEORY
Meaning and Characteristics:
• Main proponent: John Friedmann (1973)
• Rejects planning approaches that view people/ communities
as ‘anonymous target beneficiaries’
• Focuses on face-to-face contacts between planners and
those affected
• More emphasis on collaboration, participation, dialogue and
mutual learning than surveys and analyses
• Characterized by decentralized planning and institutions that
enable people to have greater control over social processes
79
Transactive Planning Theory
Transactive = “a communicative action or activity involving two parties or
things that reciprocally affect or influence each other”
• two kinds of knowledge: expert (Planners) versus experiential knowledge
(communities).
• Experiential knowledge - unsystematized knowledge of people who will be
affected by potential solutions. (not written in reports, but comes out only
in speech, conversations)
• To arrive at solutions the two kinds of knowledge must be brought together.
This can occur only in face-to-face communication between planners and
people to arrive at a knowledge adequate to find solutions to the problem:
“PARTICIPATORY”, planners help build capacity of communities to
participate and speak up.
• But it takes time therefore both planners and people must have capacity to
listen symphathetically and share responsibility for problem definition
and solution. It results in detailed information brought out into the open.
• Optimum group for transactive planning to work : small groups of up to 20
people.
80
TRANSACTIVE PLANNING THEORY
Meaning and Characteristics:
81
TRANSACTIVE PLANNING THEORY
Critique
– i.e. the outcome (the plan) may not reflect real collective
decision-making
82
83
84
Communicative action
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Source: Webster, Douglas and Patharaporn Theeratham (2004), Policy Coordination, Planning and Infrastructure Provision: A
Case Study of Thailand, paper commissioned for the ADB-JBIC-World Bank East Asia and Pacific Infrastructure Flagship Study,
November 17, p. 27.
92