TSI Eco-modernity Flashcards

Rittel & Webber (1973) - Dilemmas in Planning

Wicked problems - difficult to define, socially complex and not obvious to solve

Why are planning problems wicked? 1 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

No definitive formulation (definition and solution are intertwined)

Why are planning problems wicked? 2 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

No stopping rule (no clear point where an issue is solved)

Why are planning problems wicked? 3 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Solutions are good/bad, not true/false (not objectively correct)

Why are planning problems wicked? 4 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

No immediate/ultimate test (unpredictable consequences happening over time)

Why are planning problems wicked? 5 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Solutions as one shot operations (no trial and error, causes lasting impact)

Why are planning problems wicked? 6 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

No set number of solutions (new ideas always possible, no set number of solutions)

Why are planning problems wicked? 7 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Unique (problems one of a kind, however some may be connected)

Why are planning problems wicked? 8 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Every problem is a symptom of another (e.g: crime as a symptom of poverty)

Why are planning problems wicked? 9 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Explanations vary based on worldview and shape solutions

Why are planning problems wicked? 10 (Rittel & Webber, 1973)

Planners cannot be wrong (responsible for real-life consequences of their actions)

Banfield (1973) - Ends and Means of Planning

Comparison between planning theory and planning practise

Planning theory: Planning as a rational adaptation of means to end (Banfield, 1973)

Actor sets a goal, selects appropriate means to achieve the goal

Planning theory: Ideal rationality (Banfield, 1973)

Assumption that planners have considered all consequences to maximise goal acheivement

Planning theory: Rational planning step 1 (Banfield, 1973)

Analysis of the situation: possible actions, resources, constraints

Planning theory: Rational planning step 2 (Banfield, 1973)

End reduction and collaboration: clarify, operationalise and prioritise vague ends

Planning theory: Rational planning step 3 (Banfield, 1973)

Design courses of action: develop alternative strategies (from general to operational)

Planning theory: Rational planning step 4 (Banfield, 1973)

Comparative evaluation of consequences: weigh in all consequences and choose the best option

Planning practise 1 (Banfield, 1973)

Immediate response to problems (opportunistic decision-making) instead of long-term rational plans

Planning practise 2 (Banfield, 1973)

Ends are fragmented, vague and contradictory

Planning practise 3 (Banfield, 1973)

Decisions based on political compromises, accidents and constraints, not systematic evaluation

Planning practise 4 (Banfield, 1973)

‘Satisficing’ instead of maximising efficiency

Planning practise 5 (Banfield, 1973)

Aim is survival and stability (organisational maintenance), not substantive societal goals

Gap between theory and practise (Banfield, 1973)

Planning theory: clear ends, alternatives considered

Planning practise: shaped by uncertainty, politics and conflicting interests

Campbell (2003) - Green, growing, or just cities?

Urban planning contradictions in sustainable development and planners’ roles (Planner’s Triangle)

The economy (Campbell, 2003)

City as location for production, consumption, distribution, innovation, competition

The environment (Campbell, 2003)

City as consumer of resources, producer of waste, competition for land and resources

The equity (Campbell, 2003)

City as site for conflict, distribution of resources, opportunities and services, competition between inhabitant groups

The property conflict (Campbell, 2003)

Economic growth vs. equity conflict, e.g: management vs. labour, landlords vs. tenants, gentrifying professionals vs. long-time residents

The resource conflict (Campbell, 2003)

Economic growth vs. environmental protection, e.g: businesses vs. natural protection

The development conflict (Campbell, 2003)

Equity vs. environmental protection, e.g: environmental protection as luxury, slows down economic growth leading to lower life quality

Godschalk (2004) - Conflicts in Sustainable Development Visions

Sustainable development and liveable communities as key and sometimes conflicting planning values; build off of Campbell

Value conflicts in sustainable development (Godschalk, 2004)

New Urbanism vs. Smart Growth; balance between EEE

Value conflicts in liveable communities (Godschalk, 2004)

New visions of sustainable development: land-use design, micro/macro scale

Sustainability vision (Godschalk, 2004)

Future-oriented, environmental protection goals; long-term ecological health and mitigating climate change to ensure equity

Liveability vision (Godschalk, 2004)

Emphasises current urban life quality, safety, well-being and ammenities

Sustainability/liveability prism (Godschalk, 2004)

Balance between sustainability and liveability visions; based off of Campbell’s triangle

The gentrification conflict (Godschalk, 2004)

Liveability vs. Equity

The green cities conflict (Godschalk, 2004)

Liveability vs. Ecology

The growth management conflict (Godschalk, 2004)

Liveability vs. Economy

Sources of conflict (Godschalk, 2004)

Time, concern, trade-offs

Hajer (2004) - Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process

Ecological crisis management through policy making

Ecological modernisation (Hajer, 2004)

Environmental problems as correctible flaws which are compatible with modern institutions

Environment and economy (Hajer, 2004)

Pollution prevention pays: making environmental reform politically attractive to governments reinforces both interests

Environmental problems, policy discourse and science (Hajer, 2004)

Policy redefines environmental problems into issues that can be addresses with technical expert knowledge instead of political conflict

Ecomodernity and power (Hajer, 2004)

Ecomodernity appears progressive through absorbing environmental issues into governing systems without altering power structures

Limited shift toward reflexive modernisation (Hajer, 2004)

Increased societal awareness of manmade risks (e.g: acid rain) still leaves long-term uncertainties and contradictions