I JACK PRIESTLEY & KARI-ANN WEST are Urban and Environmental Planning students, in the School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast. Theory and Practice in Planning: A Planners Tale Abstract
Key Words: urban planning; theory; practice; government; external forces s the planning culture under threat of being abandoned and left in the history books? Or are planners and planning practice simply adapting to other disciplines to ensure that planning has a future? (Hemmens, 1980). The following light-hearted article discusses planning theory and its link with practice. The article follows two young planners entering the workforce and their ideals of how theory has prepared them for the professional world. One planner worked with the Queensland Government in the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, the other worked with the Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. The article explores planning theory, traditional and modern planning and the relationship between theory and practice. Planning theory It is argued whether it is possible for planning to have a single or effective theory (Hemmens, 1980). Hemmens (1980) believes there is no single conclusive theory of planning and discusses the uncertainty surrounding planning theory, as how can there be one theory for a profession that is influenced by so many different disciplines? Hemmens (1980) also poses the questions, if there was a single theory what would it be and how would it relate to practice? Traditionally, a planners role and purpose was straightforward; ensure the physical surroundings were practical and aesthetic (Sandercock & Berry, 1983) and to establish trading hubs and housing to support population. Although the traditional purpose of planning for practical and aesthetically pleasing communities is still demonstrated today, plannings purpose and role has expanded and evolved over the centuries and with it the culture of planning has changed to no longer directly reflect the traditional view of planning but something progressive, flexible and remarkable with the inclusion of social, environmental and economic values (Hillier, 1995). As planning has evolved, so has the theory behind it, leading to multiple theories, and with it multiple arguments (Hillier, 1995). Sorensen & Auster (1999),argue the gap between academics and planning theory is the real problem. That is, what How can we as graduating planners help close the gap between planning theory and practice when external forces are influencing both theory and practice? With external forces such as government, economy, politics, resource security, social, and environment degradation acting upon the Australian planning system, the room for improvement is over shadowed by political dogma and necessity. From traditional planning to modern planning, the planning culture and practicing professional has adapted to survive the perpetually changing political web that the planning profession cannot escape. This article follows two young planners as they break into the professional planning world, and how they feel planning theory adapting from university and planning practice in the professional environment works, or could be improved. This article discusses the foundations of theory and practice, and the influence of external forces in obstructing better integration of planning theory in practice.
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 2 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
planners should do and what planners actually do. Traditional planning The origins of urban planning can be traced back to various techniques of the Greek and Roman land surveyors, as well as Medieval and Renaissance eras with their grand projects of architectural urbanisation (Salzano, 1999). The development of town planning as a profession is said to have originated in Britain due to growing concern of some politicians and intellectuals about the social and economic consequences of the industrial revolution (Sandercock & Berry, 1983). Sandercock & Berry (1983) explain that the development of town planning was the result of some concerning qualities such as sanitary of water, sewerage and drainage of the new congested industrial districts. While the most part of traditional town planning revolved around the social and economic values associated with addressing the important issues, other planning advocates were more concerned with the aesthetics and with the organisational complexities of urban development (Sandercock & Berry, 1983). The concerns of the traditional planner, whether it be primarily for social and economic wellbeing or that of amenity, efficiency and beauty were the founding ideals and theories modern planning is built on today (Sandercock & Berry, 1983). Traditional town planning was defined by Haverfield (1913) as, the art of laying out towns with due care for the health and comfort of inhabitants, for industrial and commercial efficiency, and for reasonable beauty of buildings (Cherry, 1969). In contrast to traditional planning, modern planning has no singular task or purpose; it has several (Hillier, 1995). As most of our towns and cities have already been established, the modern planners goal is to ensure these towns, cities, regions and states continue to grow sustainably and in a manner ensuring demand is met, and strategies for the future are instituted to safeguard not only the planning profession and culture, but modern society as we know it (Hillier, 1995). Modern planning As modern planning continues to grow and adapt to a changing world, it is feared that the theory behind the practice is becoming outdated (Sorensen & Auster, 1999). Sorensen & Auster (1999) argue that the gap between theory and practice is at an all-time high, and if planning is to continue moving forward, so must the theory to support it. As planning moves away from traditional forms, it opens up opportunity for expansion into other professions and disciplines (Hillier, 1995). The planner and planning profession is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, involving itself in many different areas so that it cannot be forgotten, nor rendered unnecessary. Some would consider this a strategic move of the planning culture; however concern has been expressed by some of the planning community, warning that the tradition and culture of planning could be lost (Hemmens, 1980). As graduating planners, we find this debatable, as we believe that in order ensure a future for planning, the culture must adapt to new disciplines and those principles. With an increasing amount of pressures on planning today to fix problems such as, rapid population growth, housing demand, food, water and productive land security, as well as electricity demand, natural hazards and degradation of the environment, practicing professionals have to expand their knowledge and find innovative techniques to address these problems and plan for the future. Some techniques that have been the result of this multidisciplinary, modern planning culture are principles of urban greening, transit- oriented development (TOD) and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Of the previously mentioned techniques, traditional planning theory provided the fundamental knowledge to establish these principles and therefore is acknowledged as relevant (Curtis & Olaru, 2010). A planners role is more complex than it was traditionally. With political influence and government systems, a planners role has expanded to now include a range of positions a practicing planner can land. With the introduction THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 3 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
of strategic planning, the planner is no long confined to statutory planning. Statutory planning leads to professions in development assessment (DA), enforcement, environmental planning, master planning, public participation, social planning. Strategic planning presents the opportunity for involvement in the development of local government planning schemes and other local planning instruments, regional plans, state planning policies and legislation. Why teach planning theory? Hemmens (1980) believes that the discussion of planning theory appears to be stuck and in need of renewal. As discussed previously in this article, planning theory is complicated and continuously changing, although Friedmann (1989) expresses the importance of planning theory, as it provides the modern planner with the history, context and inspiration to understand and develop new and innovative planning principles and theories. Friedmann (1989) explains, planning theory can awaken [a planner] to the complexities of their chosen profession and provide them with a framework useful for their own thinking about planning. The importance of planning theory and knowledge to the practicing planner may not initially seem relevant to those working within some positions. Hillier (1995) discusses the response received from a planning theory class when the question was posed, which theories of planning [the students] actions [in practice] demonstrated?. Hillier (1995) recounts the response of pure amusement and the comment, you dont need theory to write a Ministerial. However, whether for personal understanding or related to a project, at some point the theory is called upon and the planner is grateful for the education and knowledge of the theory they once believed was redundant. University education and the theories they teach is of paramount importance as it provides new planners with the fundamental knowledge of the past, present and future planning trends and theories as well as transferable skills a practicing planner requires (Hillier, 1995). Planning academics, who rely on theory, are the soldiers on the front line breeding a new generation of planners and inevitably shaping the future of the planning culture. The knowledge and skills we learnt at university is only a foundation on which the individual must continue to grow and expand according to their own professional interests and career pursuits. Embarking upon the new phase after university and commencing work in the professional world is daunting to the most confident of us. The first day, month, and even year/(s) can feel as though you are completely out of your depth and constantly drowning in your overwhelming anxiety. However, personally speaking, a silver lining and grounding factor that always reassured and asserted the fact that we were where we were meant to be was holding the prior knowledge and understanding of planning theory and the education received from university. It was this knowledge of the theory that made the transition that little bit smoother, and anxiety that little bit less. From sitting at a desk at university, to sitting at a desk in a government office having the skills readily available was encouraging and allowed us both to contribute an optimal performance. Although our university courses were not altogether transferable, it reinforced for us that our university education had been advantageous to our professional application of skills. University has taught us a way to think, but not everything that we will need to know. As mentioned previously, this skill and knowledge learnt from university is our foundation to expand and to continue to grow as planners. It asserted the fact that no professional should stop learning or adapting in order to stay current with their profession and knowledge base. Growing from theory to practice What planning does in reality is different to what it sets out to do in theory (Coiacetto, 2000). Deficiencies in planning outcomes illustrate that planning does not achieve its potential (Coiacetto, 2000). Planning theories have evolved in an attempt to address broadening problems such as urban-sprawl, congestion and crime. However, these are still common throughout Australia. So, why do we continue to experience such problems? The following section will look at why this disconnect between theory and practice THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 4 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
exists. Firstly, we will have a brief discussion of the structure and process of the government and current planning system in Australia. From this, we will look at the number of dimensions of planning to outline a number of reasons why, after our placement experience, we believe the gap exists between theory and practice. Government, law and influence on planning There are numerous pieces of planning legislation within Australias unique, three-tiered government (Gleeson, 2001). The Federal Governments responsibility and role largely lies in infrastructure planning (e.g. highways and hospitals), but its policies on a broader level can influence the planning initiatives of the other two tiers of government (Gleeson, 2001). State and territory governments are responsible for the majority of planning controls over land use, transport and urban services (Gleeson, 2001). They create direction-setting frameworks and plans with goals, objectives, and structural frameworks. States and territories can create regional-scale plans, such as the South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP), 2009. Local government is responsible for implementing the majority of planning functions, although they are subservient to state and territory rule (Gleeson, 2001). Local Government Areas (LGA) are usually mandated to create local- scale plans dictating specific development requirements and strategies. Planning theory is most relevant to these two lower levels of government (state and local). All three levels of government spend money on planning and infrastructure projects. Acquisition of funds is through tax and excise revenue. The Federal Government collects the majority and distributes funds to the states and territories. This provides the Federal Government with the greatest power in economic terms. States and territories do raise their own revenue through taxation of payroll, motor vehicles, gambling and stamp duties (Gleeson, 2001). Local governments have a limited ability to raise revenue, and do so mainly through property taxes (Gleeson, 2001). In some jurisdictions throughout Australia, local government can collect infrastructure charges. These charges are to pay for local infrastructure projects constructed by the local government (McNeill & Dollery, 1999). As always, there are limited amounts of funds available, and not enough to construct all projects needed. There is often debate, and rarely consensus, about whether this money is well allocated. For example, the recent delivery of the federal budget proposes $11.6 billion in roads, but it is hard to find anything regarding investments in public transport (ABC, 2014). The authors of this report believe there is too little consultation with the planning profession about these decisions. Within the three tiers of government there exist numerous departments, each responsible for a particular role (e.g. Department of Environment, protects the interests of the environment). These government departments typically attempt to hold on to the power that they wield. This occurs in the interests of self-preservation and out of the fear of becoming redundant or having budgets slashed. For instance, as the control of local government is by the state or territory to which it belongs, it does not have any constitutional powers and can be reformed as states and territories see fit. This occurred in South East Queensland (SEQ) in 2008 with widespread council amalgamations undertaken to reduce costs (Brisbane Times, 2010). This example illustrates why government departments operate in the interests of self- preservation, and why a lack of communication and cooperation within government occurs. This severely dampens efforts for a more effective planning system in Australia (Albrechts, 2006) and signifies the presence of deep structural issues with applying theory to practice. Practicing roles of a planner Strategy and policy planners working within the public sector create legislation under the guidance of elected officials and other government departments. They develop a vision that paints a picture of what a place should look like in the future (Albrechts, 2006) and develop goals, objectives and strategies to move toward this future state. In the true spirit of adversarial politics (Hoch, 1994) it is common practice that after a change in government, the newly elected will develop a new plan within their jurisdiction. The new plan reflects the interests and priorities of that government, which is perfectly legitimate. THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 5 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
However, as a former premier of Western Australia notes various kinds of pressure groups achieve major changes to the plans (Albrechts, 2006). While also legitimate, this can unfortunately produce results biased toward the short-term monetary desires of the rich and powerful to maintain the status quo (Birkeland, 1996). This represents that a key reason planning theory does not make it into practice is because of the interests that the plans address. Separately to this, planning theory regularly omits economic consequences of its prescribed actions. Wildavsky (1973) says planning must balance the needs of the economy to those of the individual. So in reality, it is politically impossible to implement any plan which is not economically productive, or at least, viable. At the local level, statutory planners undertake assessment of legislation and determine whether a proposal complies. This pertains to individual developments with residential, commercial or industrial uses. At this point of the process, the plans have already been created and the planner has considerably limited legislative-wiggle room to work. The planner can try to achieve the best outcome but with this limited flexibility is instead focused on an enforcement role. Planning theory is essentially of little use to these planning practitioners because its application is so difficult at this level (Binder, 2012). The disconnect of planning theory and practice Early planning pioneers such as Geddes and Howard based their theory on planners as supreme rulers with lots of control (Lane, 2005). While planners have lost much of the authoritative power they once held (Sandercock & Berry, 1983), planning ministers and high-ranking officials still possess it. For instance, in the Northern Territory, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment holds the power to approve any development project regardless of advice received and there are no appeal rights to this decision. As the minister does not need to be a planner, and does not need to take planning advice. While the Ministers intentions may not be malicious, this does open the system up to the problem of decisions being made without the support or basis of planning theory. Planners in the private sector typically those working for developers are naturally concerned with maximising profits for their employers. This can be achieved by acting inside (perhaps occasionally pushing) the confines of planning legislation. By profession, these planners are educated in the social and environmental consequences of their plans, but these are not their priorities (unless of course it is economically wise to be). It is not their responsibility to ensure successful planning outcomes, as this is meant to be addressed through legislation. Therefore they can hardly be blamed for not applying the theory they know to the practice they do. It would be nonsensical. Corruption and ethics are the darker side of planning practice. While corruption is obviously illegal, the differentiating line between corruption and unethical behaviour can be murky. Both create bad planning outcomes, and Hemmens (1980) goes so far as to say that planning is an ethical activity. While corruption is punished, unethical decisions are usually unprovable. Actions of elected officials can be legitimised by casting decisions in terms of being consistent with the public interest and economic benefit (Coiacetto, 2000). Additionally, they can use planning expertise and argument as rhetorical cover for advancing their special interests above those of others (Hoch, 1994). Inevitably, this leads to the environment being incrementally traded off to resolve social conflict and maintain the status quo (Birkeland, 1996). Neither of the authors of this article experienced this first hand in our placements, however, stories from lecturers throughout our degree have prepared us with such expectations throughout our careers. Public participation in planning Planning theory suggests participation of the governed in government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy (Arnstein, 1969) and its importance is often spruiked in our university teachings. However, true public participation is rare in planning practice and Australian regulatory frameworks do not generally require high levels of THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 6 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
public participation. When viewed against Arnsteins (1969) famous ladder of participation, Australian planning practice is still very much on a lower rung, between tokenism and nonparticipation. The ability for the public to become genuinely involved in determining the future of their natural and built environment is then severely limited. Consequently, there is an inability for planners to even attempt to address the desires and needs of all stakeholders under this current system (Binder, 2012). Many planners are powerless to implement or carry out the planning theory learnt at University due to the structural systems of planning. Numerous factors underpin the model of our current planning system in Australia; politics, power, corruption, ethics and a lack of public participation. The ability for one to use initiative enables innovative ideas and improves their profession, although how can this occur if systematic and regulated barriers stand in the way? Our journey As graduating planners moving into the workforce, we did not experience any shady corruption deals or scenarios in our practicum placements, but we did see examples where the best possible planning theory was not applied to practice. As with most planning legislation in Australia, they exhibit short- term economic priority. This is not unreasonable, as discussed above; it is a prerogative that plans consider this. However, we feel the balance with social and environmental consideration is lacking. The authors of this article share the intention to try our hardest to achieve sustainable, equitable and prosperous planning outcomes throughout our careers. However, the decisions we make in our careers will be inevitably shaped by the planning system we work in. We expect to encounter many problems in applying the best theory we hold to every planning decision that we are involved, but we intend to use our ethical compasses to determine where we go. A realistic approach and a thorough understanding of the issues in the system are essential to achieve the best possible outcomes. Furthering our learning not just on planning theory as discussed above - but on what needs to change structurally may one day privilege us to be in a position where we can contribute this knowledge to rectify the problems inherent in the system. However, as Wildavsky (1973) warns, planners begin by attempting to transform their environment and end up by being absorbed by it. Conclusion This article has attempted to illustrate a number of reasons why there is a gap between planning theory and practice. We opened with a brief discussion of the evolution of planning, from the traditional to modern theory and practice. Shedding our personal reflection of how this influenced us directly in our placements, it concreted the fact that planners have to adapt in order to maintain current with a rapidly changing society. This was followed by a brief discussion of the different factors which influence the application of theory and more broadly planning as a profession. It was suggested that, politics is the predominant shaper of the Australian planning system; however, money, ethics, corruption and a lack of public participation are also intricately linked. We have attempted to provide an evaluation of how our university education has translated into practice, and where we see the planning profession and inevitably our own professions heading. We believe a step in the right direction to help bridge the gap between planning theory and practice would be better integration and communication between the academics and practitioners, although like every great idea, doubt and hesitation lurks in the shadows wouldnt it be great if we could simply turn on the light?
THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PLANNING: A PLANNERS TALE 7 AUSTRALIAN PLANNER VOL 51 NO 3 2014
References ABC 2014, Federal Budget 2014: infrastructure experts react (online), Available: <http://theconversation.com/federal- budget-2014-infrastructure-experts-react- 26575> Albrechts, L. 2006, Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 38, pp. 1149-1170. Arnstein, S. 1969, A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224. Binder, G. 2012, Theory(izing)/practice: The model of recursive cultural adaptation, Planning Theory, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 221-241. Birkeland, J. 1996, Ethics-Based Planning, Australian Planner, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 47- 49. Bolan, R. 1980,The Practitioner as Theorist The Phenomenology of the Professional Episode, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No.3, pp. 261-274 Brisbane Times 2010, Its their second anniversary, but are Queensland councils celebrating? (online), Available: <http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queen sland/its-their-second-anniversary-but-are- queensland-councils-celebrating-20100312- q43t.html> Cherry, G. 1969, Influences on the Development of Town Planning in Britain, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 3, Urbanism (Jul., 1969), pp. 43-58. Coiacetto, E. 2000, Planning-in-practice and planning-in-principle: Is planning facilitative of the real estate development process?, Australian Planner (online), Vol. 37, no. 3. Curtis, C. & Olaru, D. 2010, The Relevance of Traditional Town Planning Concepts for Travel Minimization, Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 49 75.
Forester, J. 1980, Critical Theory and Planning Practice, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 275-286. Gleeson, B. 2001, Devolution and State Planning Systems in Australia, International Planning Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 133-152. Haverfield, F. 1913, Ancient Town Planning, Oxford University Press. Hemmens, G. 1980, New Directions in Planning Theory Introduction, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No.3, pp. 259-260. Hillier, J. 1995, The Unwritten Law of Planning Theory: Common Sense, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 14, pp. 292 296. Hoch, C. 1994, What Planners Do: power, politics, and persuasion, Ch. 3, The Rational Protocol and Political Conflict, American Planning Association, pp. 45-74. Lane, M. 2005, Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history, Australian Geographer, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 283-299. McNeill, J. & Dollery, B. 1999, A note on the use of developer charges in Australian local government, Urban Policy and Research (online), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 61-69. Salzano, E. 1999, The future of town planning, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 23, pp. 187-192. Sandercock, L. & Berry, M. 1983, Urban political economy: the Australian case, Ch 2. Educating planners, pp. 34-44. Sorensen, T. & Auster, M. 1999, Theory and Practice in Planning, Australian Planner, Vol. 36, No.3, pp. 146-149. Wildavsky, A. 1973, If Planning Is Everything, Maybe Its Nothing, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 127-153.
Relationship Between Planned and Unplanned Land Uses and Their Implications On Future Development. A Case Study of Industrial Division in Mbale Municipality
Summary: 12 Months to $1 Million: How to Pick a Winning Product, Build a Real Business, and Become a Seven-Figure Entrepreneur by Ryan Daniel Moran: Key Takeaways, Summary & Analysis
The Private Pilot License Exam Test Prep: Everything You Need to Know to Pass the Check-Ride and Get Your PPL on the First Try with Flying Colors. Theory, Tests, Explanations, +130 Q&A, Vocabulary