March, 2013 PLEASE TYPE the UNIVERSITY of NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING PRACTICE: ANALYSIS OF SYDNEY METROPOLITAN STRATEGY 2005

Zeenat Mahjabeen

A thesis in the fulﬁlment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES FACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES NSW 2052, AUSTRALIA March, 2013 PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name:

First name: Other name/s:

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar:

School: Faculty:

Title:

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

…………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….……………………...…….… Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... Abstract

Effective participation of local urban communities in urban planning is considered fundamental to promote social justice, sustainability and democracy in contemporary urban planning practice. Despite many decades of such practice, the needs and concerns of local communities remain largely unaddressed.

Consequently,an important question which emerges is how it can (and should) engage with local communities in such a way that the decisions are made and implemented by placing the needs and concerns of local communities at the centre, not at the periphery.

The aim of the thesis is to understand and help improving the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice. To address this aim it is hypothesised that effective community participation must empower local communities, particularly disadvantaged community groups within communities; and this empowerment must meet at least two basic requirements: a)the representative participation of local communities in the participation process,and b)the accountability of government agencies towards the local community. To investigate this hypothesis,community participation in the Sydney Metropolitan

Strategy was analysed in terms of process, outcomes and the stakeholders involved.

The study was designed using a mixed method approach. Data collection methods included sending a mail-out questionnaire survey(163 persons completed the questionnaire),conducting 35 semi-structured interviews,attending community participation workshops and analysing documents. The analysis of the results indicates that the limited representation and downward accountability resulted in the current urban planning not achieving empowerment for local community groups. The thesis argues that the community participation process is operated in a way which centralises decision making, exploits opportunities for the purpose of serving capital and marginalises community groups. This thesis maintains that in order to further the effectiveness of community participation, there is need to emphasise why community participation is critical and to engender cultural and systemic changes in the existing political and economic environments.

ii Acknowledgement

I am truly indebted and thankful to my primary supervisor, Dr Krishna K. Shrestha, for his motivation, guidance, enthusiasm and immense knowledge. His persistent and convincing supervision helped me throughout my research and the writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better supervisor and mentor for my PhD.

I am also grateful to my associate supervisor, Dr Christopher Walker, whose suggestions on policy analysis gave me more conﬁdence while I was writing my policy analysis chapter. I appreciate his encouragement and his insightful questions. My sincere thanks also go to Dr Paul Jones and Dr Rogelia Pe-Pua, for academic support in the faculty and school.

Thanks must go to my employer institution, the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, for granting me full-ﬂedged study leave to allow me to complete my PhD degree. I am also obliged to the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning at the University of Sydney for several semesters of my PhD candidature with them and for the academic support I received from the university and the faculty members. Special thanks to Dr John Dee, who was in my supervisory team, for his insightful intellectual input which helped me with my literature review and my research design.

This thesis would not have been possible without the support from the respondents living in different suburbs of Sydney, and the State and Local Government authorities who took time to participate in my questionnaire survey and interviews, and helped me access the respondents. I am particularly thankful to David Watson, Freedom of Information section of Department of Planning, Steven Liaros and Leslie Unsworth of Fairﬁeld City Council and Karen Armstrong of Randwick City Council.

I am obliged to many of my colleagues who supported me by assisting in data analysis, editing and proof reading of the thesis. I would like to mention Dr Santosh Bista for his generous help in

iii analysing my quantitative data and Annie Burgess, of the University of Sydney for helping me and sharing her experience in using NVivo for qualitative data analysis. Special thanks to my colleagues and friends; Adrienne, Graham, Amit, Anisha, Donna and Abbie for offering me help and company when needed and providing me with ever welcoming environment. I am grateful to the Learning Centre of UNSW for assisting my academic writing, and special thanks to Ms Bronwen Phillips for her editorial assistance.

Last but not least, I am heartily grateful to my family, especially my parents, my husband, my son and my sisters who have given me their unequivocal support throughout my thesis. My mere expression of thanks can never repay them. I particularly miss my father-in-law Mr Ashraf Ali Khan, who died in 2011. He would have been so happy to see me completing the degree. Thanks go to my extended family. Special thanks must go to my aunt, Dr Raquiba Jahan, for her intellectual and emotional tips both academically and personally. I owe my husband Mr. Khan Abdullah Al Mamun and my son Zaeem Muttaqui Khan, for their encouragement through love, sacriﬁce and wonderful distractions. My father’s grasp of knowledge and my mother’s love for humanity motivated me to build my career as a social science researcher. This thesis is one of the results of that motivation. I dedicate this thesis to both of my parents, to Professor Jalal Uddin Ahmed and Mrs Khursheed Jahan.

iv Contents

Abstract i

Acknowledgement iii

Table of Contents v

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xiii

List of Publications xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Research problem ...... 5 1.3 Rationale ...... 8 1.4 Aims and objectives ...... 10 1.5 Research method ...... 11 1.6 Organisation of the thesis ...... 12

Chapter 2 Community Participation and Urban Planning Practice: Mapping Theories and Concepts 14 2.1 Introduction ...... 14 2.2 Community participation: A conceptual overview ...... 15 2.2.1 Understanding community ...... 15 2.2.2 Understanding participation ...... 16 2.3 Community participation in planning theory and practice ...... 18 2.3.1 Historical context of planning theories ...... 18

v 2.3.2 Communicative turn in urban planning ...... 20 2.3.3 Critiques of communicative planning ...... 26 2.4 Theories of participation ...... 32 2.4.1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation ...... 33 2.4.2 IAP2’s Spectrum of Participation ...... 36 2.4.3 The NSW government approach to participation ...... 36 2.5 Participation in planning practice: Empirical issues and insights . . . . 39 2.6 Key elements of effective participation: An analytical framework . . . 52 2.7 Conclusion ...... 67

Chapter 3 Contextualising Community Particiption in Sydney’s Planning and Policy 69 3.1 Introduction ...... 69 3.2 History of community participation in urban planning ...... 70 3.3 Community participation in Australian urban planning ...... 71 3.4 Community participation and urban planning practice in NSW . . . . . 72 3.4.1 NSW planning practice: a historical overview ...... 73 3.4.2 Planning reforms in NSW since 1990s ...... 74 3.4.3 Statutory planning under EP& A 1979 and community participation . . . 76 3.5 Strategic planning and policy in Sydney ...... 83 3.5.1 History of urban planning in Sydney ...... 83 3.5.2 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 and community participation . . . . 84 3.5.3 Sub-regional Strategies in Sydney ...... 88 3.5.4 Review to Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 ...... 89 3.6 Issues of community participation ...... 91 3.7 Conclusion ...... 94

Chapter 4 Research Method 96 4.1 Introduction ...... 96 4.2 Research design ...... 97 4.2.1 Pragmatism as epistemological basis for research ...... 98 4.2.2 Mixed method as strategy of inquiry ...... 100 4.2.3 Case study as a methodological strategy ...... 101 vi 4.3 Research methods for data collection and analysis ...... 104 4.3.1 Primary data collection ...... 105 4.3.2 Secondary data collection ...... 111 4.4 Data analysis and interpretation ...... 112 4.4.1 Quantitative data analysis using SPSS ...... 112 4.4.2 Qualitative data analysis using Nvivo ...... 113 4.5 Research rigour ...... 114 4.5.1 Credibility ...... 114 4.5.2 Transferability ...... 115 4.5.3 Dependability ...... 115 4.5.4 Conﬁrmability ...... 115 4.6 Limitations ...... 116 4.7 Conclusion ...... 116

Chapter 5 Representative Participation Evidence From Sydney’s Urban Plan- ning 117 5.1 Introduction ...... 117 5.2 Attendance of community groups in the forums ...... 118 5.3 Voice effects: whose voices counted? ...... 125 5.4 Why unrepresentative participation? ...... 127 5.4.1 Problems in ‘random’ selection of participants ...... 127 5.4.2 Insufficient opportunities for participation ...... 129 5.5 No representation of disadvantaged community groups ...... 130 5.5.1 No representation of disadvantaged groups in future forums ...... 130 5.5.2 No representation of disadvantaged groups in local government forums . 132 5.5.3 Exclusion of community interests in the final decision ...... 132 5.6 Why do people participate? ...... 133 5.6.1 Why do community groups participate? ...... 134 5.6.2 Why to create opportunities for participation? ...... 136 5.7 Problems of participation ...... 137 5.8 Factors affecting motivation for participation ...... 139 5.9 Increasing representative participation ...... 141 5.10 Conclusion ...... 142 vii Chapter 6 Community Empowerment Through Participation: Rhetoric or Reality? 144 6.1 Introduction ...... 144 6.2 Empowering the local community through participation? ...... 145 6.2.1 Sharing decision making power ...... 145 6.2.2 Government strengthening control over participation ...... 148 6.2.3 Marginalisation of community input ...... 150 6.2.4 Increasing participant knowledge and skill ...... 155 6.2.5 Participants’ confidence, satisfaction and ownership ...... 158 6.3 Why was community empowerment compromised? ...... 164 6.3.1 Insufficient opportunities for effective community participation . . . . . 164 6.3.2 Limited financial resources and time ...... 165 6.3.3 Top-down bureaucracy ...... 165 6.3.4 Instrumental use of forums as political showdown ...... 166 6.3.5 Competition between community and scientific knowledge ...... 166 6.3.6 Limitations inherent in the planning system ...... 167 6.4 Towards community empowerment through participation ...... 167 6.4.1 Understanding concepts of community, participation and planning . . . . 167 6.4.2 Facilitation ...... 168 6.4.3 Small roundtable workshops with provisions for translators ...... 170 6.4.4 Capacity building through education and training ...... 170 6.4.5 Open access to information about planning process ...... 171 6.4.6 Creating on-going participatory opportunities ...... 172 6.5 Conclusion ...... 173

Chapter 7 Accountability of Community Participation Process 175 7.1 Introduction ...... 175 7.2 Accountability of community participation process ...... 176 7.2.1 Access to information about planning rules and legislation ...... 176 7.2.2 Transparency in decision-making processes ...... 181 7.2.3 Public provision of information on performance of government actions . 182 7.2.4 Access to, and availability of, appeals ...... 183 7.2.5 Public perception of the integrity of the process ...... 184 viii 7.3 Limited downward accountability: Reasons and implications . . . . . 186 7.4 Conclusion ...... 191

Chapter 8 Towards Effective Community Participation: Analysis of Urban Planning Practice 193 8.1 Introduction ...... 193 8.2 Planning policies for participation: Intentions and provisions . . . . . 194 8.2.1 Neo-liberalism in planning reforms ...... 194 8.2.2 Failure to adapt the ideals of participatory democracy ...... 195 8.2.3 Policy silence on representative participation ...... 196 8.2.4 False legitimacy and upward accountability of decisions ...... 197 8.2.5 Empowering whom? ...... 199 8.2.6 Contradiction to community inclusion ...... 201 8.2.7 Explaning limited opportunities for community participation ...... 203 8.2.8 Insights for enhancing opportunities for community participation . . . . 205 8.3 (Un) representative participation: Reasons and implications ...... 207 8.3.1 No representation of demography and socio-economics ...... 207 8.3.2 Exclusion of disadvantaged community groups ...... 209 8.3.3 Reasons and actors behind unrepresentative participation ...... 210 8.3.4 Drivers of participation ...... 213 8.3.5 Insights for enhancing representative participation ...... 216 8.4 Explaining upward accountability in planning practice ...... 219 8.4.1 Access to information and planning rules ...... 219 8.4.2 Absence of transparency ...... 222 8.4.3 Limited provision of information on performance of government actions . 222 8.4.4 Limited access to appeals ...... 223 8.4.5 The absence of integrity ...... 223 8.5 Lack of community empowerment and the rhetoric of participation . . 225 8.5.1 Participation without sharing decision-making power ...... 226 8.5.2 Community groups as the least influential stakeholder ...... 226 8.5.3 Nominal reflection of community’s views in the final outcome ...... 230 8.5.4 Failure to increase community understanding and knowledge ...... 233 8.5.5 Failure to increase community satisfaction, confidence and ownership . 235 ix 8.5.6 Towards empowerment: Insights from below ...... 236 8.6 Model for effective community participation in planning practice . . . 239 8.6.1 Community participation model for local planning practice ...... 239 8.6.2 Community participation model for strategic/regional planning practice . 243 8.7 Conclusion ...... 246

Chapter 9 Conclusions 249 9.1 Introduction ...... 249 9.2 Summary of key ﬁndings ...... 251 9.2.1 No effective community participation ...... 251 9.2.2 Silent planning and policies ...... 251 9.2.3 (un)Representative participation ...... 252 9.2.4 Accountability as “missing link” ...... 253 9.2.5 (dis)Empowering local communities ...... 253 9.3 Implications of the study ...... 254 9.3.1 Implications for theories ...... 254 9.3.2 Implications for policies and practice ...... 256 9.4 Future direction of research ...... 257 9.5 Final reﬂections ...... 258

Reference 259 Appendix I ...... 273 Appendics II ...... 274 Appendics III ...... 279 Appendics IV ...... 285 Appendics V-1 ...... 287 Appendics V-2 ...... 302

x List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation and IAP2 spectrum of participation ...... 37 Figure 2.2: Ideas of participation embedded in the NSW approach ...... 38 Figure 2.3: Techniques of participation employed in NSW ...... 38 Figure 2.4: Relationship between representation and empowerment ...... 57 Figure 2.5: Framework for analysing the effectiveness of community participation . 67

Figure 3.1: Community participation opportunities in LEPs ...... 77 Figure 3.2: Community participation opportunities in SEPPs ...... 81 Figure 3.3: Geographical area covered by Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 . . . 85 Figure 3.4: Stakeholder consultation process in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy . . . 86 Figure 3.5: Steps of stakeholder participation in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy . . . 87 Figure 3.6: Sub-regional strategic divisions of Sydney ...... 89

Figure 4.1: Research design employed in this study ...... 98 Figure 4.2: Data collection and analysis procedure ...... 105 Figure 4.3: Photo of a community consultation event organised by Local Governments 111

Figure 5.1: a Respondents’ gender distribution in the community forum (top) and Sydney population (bottom) ...... 119 Figure 5.1: b Respondents’ age group distribution in the community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom) ...... 120 Figure 5.1: c Education of attendants of community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom) ( ...... 121 Figure 5.1: d Respondents’ employment in the community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom) ...... 122 Figure 5.1: e Income of community forum attendants (top) and Sydney population (bottom) ...... 123 Figure 5.1: f Ancestry of the participants (top) and Sydney population (bottom) . . 124 Figure 5.2: Community forum attendants’ living period in Australia ...... 125 Figure 5.3: Respondents’ membership of social and other organisations ...... 125 Figure 5.4: Expression of views by respondents in the community meeting . . . . . 126 Figure 5.5: Respondents’ view for the reasons of participation in community forums 134 Figure 5.6: Respondents’ views as to why do people participate ...... 135 Figure 5.7: Respondents’ view for reason for no effective participation ...... 136 Figure 5.8: Respondents’ expectation for incentives ...... 139 Figure 5.9: Respondents’ view on whether participation if no incentives ...... 140 Figure 5.10: Respondents’ view on probable causes of non-participation ...... 141

Figure 6.1: Respondents’ view on the effect of community participation on outcomes 148 xi Figure 6.2: Respondents’ view of the least influential communtiy groups ...... 149 Figure 6.3: Responents’ view of the most influential stakeholders ...... 149 Figure 6.4: Respondents’ view about the consideration of community in the decisions 153 Figure 6.5: Respondents’ view on the community understanding of participation . . 156 Figure 6.6: Respondents’ awareness about planning policies and legislation . . . . 156 Figure 6.7: Respondents’ preference on the statement “There are elected representatives, and my participation is not required” ...... 157 Figure 6.8: Respondents views on whether there should be more input from local communities ...... 157 Figure 6.9: Respondents’ views about the inclusiveness of Sydney’s planning process 158 Figure 6.10: Respondents’ views about Sydney’s planning system ...... 159 Figure 6.11: Respondents’ views about participation process of SMS ...... 159 Figure 6.12: Respondents’ views about the final decision ...... 160 Figure 6.13: Respondents’ views on the statement “There will be no change of the decision with my participation” ...... 161 Figure 6.14: Respondents’ views on the statement “Decision is made before my participation” ...... 161 Figure 6.15: Respondents’ views on the statement “I do not think these policies or plans really affect me” ...... 162 Figure 6.16: Respondents’ views on the statement “I could not justify my participation” 163 Figure 6.17: Respondents’ intention of future participation ...... 163 Figure 6.18: Respondents’ views on the factors facilitating effective participation . . 169

Figure 8.1: Accountability as the missing link in ensuring effective participation . . 237 Figure 8.2: Community participation in local level planning practice (Drawing on local environmental planning practice of NSW) ...... 240 Figure 8.3: Proposed model for community participation in strategic/regional level planning practice ...... 241

xii List of Tables

Table 2.1 Evolution of planning theories in relation to community participation . . . 32 Table 2.2 Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation ...... 34 Table 2.3 Synthesis of ideas from the literature about planning and participation . . . 52 Table 2.4 Evaluating criteria linking research questions ...... 66

Table 3.1 Opportunities for community participation in Sydney’s previous plans . . . 83 Table 3.2 Community participation opportunities in planning instruments and policies 91

Table 4.1 Linking research questions with methods and analysis ...... 101 Table 4.2 Description of the mail-out questionnaire survey ...... 107 Table 4.3 Composition of interviewees in SSI ...... 110 Table 4.4 List of documents and archival records ...... 112

Table 6.1 Participation of local communities in the making of SMS ...... 147 Table 6.2 Motivational map for community participation ...... 173

Table 7.1 Different steps of the planning and consultation process and access to information ...... 179

Table 8.1 Summary of CP opportunities in Planning Instruments in NSW ...... 201 Table 8.2 Summary of CP opportunities in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 . . . . 202 Table 8.3 Summary of the key recommendation in ensuring representation ...... 218 Table 8.4 Summary of the key recommendation in ensuring empowerment ...... 225 Table 8.5 Summary of the key recommendation in enhancement of empowerment . . 239

xiii List of Publications

The following publications have been written during the course of my ﬁrst year:

1. Mahjabeen, Z. and Shrestha, K. K. (2012). City planning with communities: Effectiveness of community participation in Sydney. The 3rd International Academic Consortium for Sustainable Cities Symposium, 8 September, 2012, Bangkok, Thailand (accepted to be published in the proceedings).

2. Mahjabeen, Z. and Shrestha, K. K. (2012). Social justice in urban planning: investigating opportunities of participation in community participation in Sydney Metropolitan planning, Australia. Presentation in the Annual meeting of Association of American Geographers, 24-28 February, 2012, New York, USA.

3. Shrestha, K.K. and Mahjabeen, Z. (2011). Civic science, community participation and planning for knowledge-based development: Analysis of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Urban Development, 2(1), 412-432.

4. Mahjabeen, Z. and Shrestha, K.K. (2011). Towards inclusive urban governance: access to opportunity for community participation in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, NSW. Paper in World Planning School Congress 2011, 4-8 July. Perth. University of Western Australia.

5. Mahjabeen, Z. and Shrestha, K.K. (2009). Social justice and city: community participation in Sydney’s metropolitan planning. Paper in State of Australian Cities National Conference: city growth, sustainability, vitality and vulnerability, Perth 24-27 November. University of Western Australia, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University and Edith Cowan University.

6. Mahjabeen, Z., Shrestha, K. K. and Dee, J. (2009). Rethinking community participation in urban planning: The role of disadvantaged groups in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 15(1), 45-64. xv Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In an increasingly complex and urbanised world, urban planning has become one of the most important practices for improving both human and environmental conditions. By the mid-twentieth century, three out of ten people on the planet lived in urban areas. In the following three decades, demographic expansion was at its fastest in cities around the world and by the middle of this century all regions will be predominantly urban, with the tipping point in Eastern Africa anticipated slightly after 2050 (UN-HABITAT, 2010). In 2008, 3.3 billion people lived in urban areas; a ﬁgure that represents, approximately, half of the world’s population (UNFPA, 2008). In this context, ensuring social justice and sustainability are the major challenges for the cities and urban planners. Understanding how urban planning practice can (and should) guide the current and future development of cities in a socially just and sustainable manner has never been so crucial.

To address these challenges community participation is considered as one of the most critical elements in contemporary urban planning practice. The notion of community participation to be considered as central component in urban planning has come a long way. The term “community participation” entered the lexicon of urban planning in the 1950s and was introduced in the United Kingdom through the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. This spawned similar legislation throughout the world, such as the United States National Environmental Policy Act 1969, the Canadian Environmental Assessment and Review Process 1973 and the Australian Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. At the regional level, the NSW government introduced the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It was the communicative turn in planning theory in the 1980s which has been identiﬁed as a paradigm shift 1 in planning thoughts (Forester, 1989; Habermas, 1984; Innes, 1996) and which gave rise to the participation of communities becoming the central ideology of planning practice.

Urban planning has shifted its focus from “what governments do for communities” to “what governments do with communities”, or even to “how governments and communities do together to do” to guide the future of the city. Current communicative planning theories encourage the shifting of power relations to empower marginalised stakeholders through democratic planning processes (Forester, 1989). The aim of this form of planning practice is not only creating acceptable solutions but also ensuring participants’ ownership of them, along with social learning, team spirit, trust and networks (Innes, 1996). Clearly, communities have become the centre of urban planning practice. However, despite the wide spread use of the term, and their advantage, community participation is still a contested concept in planning.

Deﬁning the term community is an important step in understanding community participation in planning, as the term itself is ambiguous. It has been argued that it is place centred, that is, people living in the same region are in the same community as they share “place centred ethical and aesthetic norms” (Maida, 2006, p. 3), while others argue that a community shares interests or concerns; “a group of people who have similar sets of interests in respect to the particular situation” (Gilmour & Fisher, 1991, p. 69). But communities do not necessarily share the same ethnicity or customs, neither do they always have the same interests (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). Community groups, acknowledging their ambiguity, are deﬁned in this thesis as a group of people who share the same geography and economic system and are also affected by the same policies.

Similar to “community”, the term “participation” is also a contested concept. It is conceptualised in many ways. One deﬁnition is offered by Nelson and Wright (1995, p. 7-8) who identify two types of participation: “participation as a means” that is, a process of achieving the aims of a project more efﬁciently, effectively or cheaply, and “participation as ends” that is, a process of giving some degree of control of a development agenda to a community or a group. In an ideal participatory planning process, participation can be considered as an end (the issues and debates on the concept of community participation are discussed in Chapter Three).

Community participation as one of the central themes in planning practice is embraced for a number of crucial reasons—philosophical, political and practical. From a philosophical point of 2 view, community participation is essential because it develops the highest human capacities (Warner, 2001) and promotes moral character which ultimately helps to achieve virtues and to realise one’s potential (Hart, 1972; Stiver, 1990). Politically, it legitimises the plan by engaging communities as well as meeting the requirements of national and international legislations and treaties. The practical advantage of community participation is to achieve more sustainable and acceptable urban and environmental management outcomes. It is now recognised that the engagement of different segments of communities in the planning and implementation processes will lead to more sustainable solutions (Gray, Enzer & Kuzel, 2001; Redcliff, 2005; Ribot, 2003; Shrestha & McManus, 2008). Overall, urban planning practice is considered successful if the practice engages effectively with various sections of communities (representation) and views being appropriately considered or reﬂected in the decisions that affect them (accountability) and they are empowered (empowerment).

Effective community participation is, however, a major challenge. The urban planning practices of governments around the world, while highlighting the needs and beneﬁts of community participation, provide little solid information on the question of whether and how planning practice can engage with communities in such a way that it enhances the “representation of communities”, the “accountability of government agencies to the communities” and “community empowerment” in the process of future making. An important question which then emerges is how urban planning practice can (and should) engage with local communities in such a way that the decisions are made and implemented by placing the needs and concerns of local communities at the centre of the process, not the periphery. This thesis discusses how effectively local communities can (and should) be engaged in urban planning practice, with a “retrospective analysis” of the process and outcomes of community participation employed in the development of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy in 2005 – the Plan of the Australia’s biggest city that claims to have placed community participation at the centre of planning process and implementation activities.

Issues of community participation can be classiﬁed into three categories. First is the issue of representation. One of the critical issues of community participation is to what extent are different groups from a cross-section of the society engaged (representative participation). The literature highlights that, most often; it is the more advantaged groups and individuals who participate from community groups. As a result, the planning practices are not representative of 3 the cross section of the society and the decisions made are likely to be dominated by certain interests which are often counter-productive for the majority of population (such as, negative impact on livelihood of local poor and disadvantaged groups which lead further disempowerment).

Secondly, even when individuals and groups have participated in the decision making process, their views and concerns are not necessarily reﬂected (and appropriately translated) in the decisions. The decision making process is not often transparent. There are many examples of government planners being the drivers of the policy and of decisions and are accountable to a higher layer of bureaucracy and political hierarchy, not downwardly towards local communities (the issue of accountability).

Thirdly, participation, while aiming to empower local communities can actually fail to do so. Often local communities are further disempowered as the planning process has been legitimised by their attendance but the decisions are not their own (i.e. the issue of empowerment of communities). The questions emerge - what makes the participation of local communities in urban planning practice more effective in terms of empowering local communities?

The thesis retrospectively investigates the community participation process and outcomes in urban planning practice through a case study of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005. The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 known as the “City of Cities” presents a rich case by which to understand the process and outcomes of empowerment through participation in terms of

a representative participation and

b the accountability of decisions.

That is, who participated, why some groups participated (and others did not), who voiced their opinions (and who did not), and whether and how the voices of community groups were reﬂected in the ﬁnal decisions and why. In sum, there are two overarching research questions of this thesis:

a what are the opportunities for representative and accountable community participation in urban planning practice?

b how do these opportunities affect the effectiveness of community participation in terms of empowering local communities? 4 The results of this analysis can help to inform both planning theory and practice in relation to community participation in urban planning practice. Traditionally, adaptive ﬁlters have been deployed to achieve echo cancellation by estimating the network echo response using algorithms such as the normalized least-mean-square (NLMS) algorithm. For sparse systems such as encountered in network echo cancellation (NEC), the NLMS algorithm suffers from slow convergence and therefore new algorithms have been proposed for sparse adaptive ﬁltering.

1.2 Research problem

Urban planning practice includes at least three critical components:

a actors,

b processes (decision-making, implementation and evaluation) and

c outcomes.

The actors involved in the process are different types of stakeholders, including community groups, planning professionals, experts, state agencies, local governments, community representatives and the planning agency. Previous studies indicate that the planning process does not necessarily deliver fair and equitable outcomes because of the clash of interests among stakeholders with varying degree of power and authority. This is despite the government’s claim of making concerted efforts for equitable collaboration among communities, through the provision of legislation and the use of many participatory forums. The literature suggests that there are a number of major challenges in instigating fair community participation in planning practice.

Foremost among these challenges is ensuring empowerment which has been identified as the major goal of effective participation (Arnstein, 1969; Choguill, 1997; IAP2, 2007a,b). Empowerment is conceptualised in many ways. This study uses it to mean the community’s capacity to pursue their lives and livelihoods by means of three different types of power: social (including access to social organisations, financial resources and information), political (including opportunities to partake in decision-making) and psychological (including an individual sense of potency) (Firedmann, 1992). But the community participation process in urban planning is marked with superficiality in that it does not fully realise the power imbalances 5 among stakeholders and their capacities, resources and expertise. This ultimately leads towards co-optation of local communities, particularly disadvantaged groups and domination of some groups who have resources, expertise and political favour (Flyvbjerg, 1995, 1998, 2002; Maginn, 2007). This, coupled with very limited transparency, leads to the co-optation of the local community groups (Brody, 2003; March, 2004; McGuirk, 2001). There is very limited reflection of the community’s views in the final outcome which does not lead towards empowerment; it can even further disempower some of the groups (Fraser, 1995; Neumann, 2000). The questions emerge: does the planning process empower communities those who participated in terms of increase of skill and knowledge, sense of ownership, community group’s satisfaction and confidence in the system along with their influence in the outcome and how? However, the above mentioned issues are related to the challenges of representation of the cross section of the society and downward accountability of the system which would enhance local community groups’ participation and inclusion of their inputs.

The representation of communities is one of the pivotal components of effective participation (Blair, 2000; Moser, 1989) for a democratic and sustainable outcome (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Mawhood, 1983; Ribot, 2002). The community participation process of urban planning practice is over-represented by social elites, while the cross-section of the society is not sufficiently represented (Gray et al., 2001; Lane, McDonald & Morrison, 2004). One of the major reasons of this failure is the simplistic treatment of the concept of ’community’ (e.g., insufficient attention is given to differences in relation to gender, class, ethnicity etc.) (Alfasi, 2003; Lane et al., 2004). Another significant reason is the use of community participation exercise as a means to give a sense of political legitimacy for planners, policy makers and politicians (Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; McGuirk, 1995; 2001; 2008; 2009). This instrumental view of participation does not take into consideration the heterogeneous nature of the community, neither does it sufficiently bring forward the views and interests of the cross-section of the society (Alfasi, 2003; Gray et al., 2001; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). The questions emerge: is there a genuine opportunity for the participation to be representative of the overall population? Who are participating? Can different community groups (particularly the disadvantage groups) utilise the opportunities to voice their opinions in the current planning process? The probable causes of their limited voice and attendance might be because of the limited opportunities, the limited ability of the community groups, and time and resource constrains.

6 Accountability is another signiﬁcant component of effective community participation to ensure representation and empowerment (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; IAP2, 2007a; Lane et al., 2004; Lane & McDonald, 2005). For Kakumba (2010, p. 181-2) “the doctrine of accountability places a liability and an obligation on public functionaries (elected and appointed ofﬁcials) to give a satisfactory explanation to the public (tax payers) of their exercise of power, authority and the resources entrusted to them”. However, in urban planning practice the goal of effective community participation is hindered due to the absence of downward accountability measures, such as not disclosing relevant information, limited transparency, absence of appeal and not communicating with communities about the decision taken or about its impacts (Cowell, 2004; Illsley, 2003). The questions that emerge here are: whether the community participation processes as practiced enhances downward accountability of decision makers, whether local community groups can hold the planning authorities to explain the use of power and resources and whether they can ensure their opinions are considered.

From above discussions it can be hypothesised that effective community participation must empower local communities, particularly disadvantaged community groups within the community; and this empowerment must meet at least two basic requirements: a) the representative participation of local communities in the participation process, and b) the accountability of government agencies towards the local community. Following research sub-questions have been formulated to investigate the hypothesis:

Empowerment of communities: Does the process and outcome of participation empower • people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged groups?

Representative participation: who participated? Why did some people participate and • others not (or could not)? Was there a genuine opportunity for the participation to be representative of the overall population?

Accountability in decision-making: Is input from community participation reﬂected in the • ﬁnal decision and how (or if no, why not?) Is the process transparent to the communities?

What are the insights that help to improve the effectiveness of community participation in • urban planning practice?

7 The first research question involves evaluating the effectiveness of community participation in relation to empowerment. Empowerment will be investigated in terms of improving the quality of local decision-making through assessing the variables, such as the incorporation of local knowledge, the degree of influence in the process and outcome, the sense of ownership of the plan, the increase of knowledge and expertise and the participants’ satisfaction and confidence in the current planning system. The second research question involves examining who attended the forums (and who did not) and who voiced their opinions (and who did not) and why they did (or did not). This will reveal whether there were genuine opportunities for community participation to bring forward the concerns of the cross section of the society.

The third research question will investigate the accountability of the process and the outcome for community groups. This question involves investigating whether there is an accessible authentic and sufficient information flow, transparency of the process, community groups’ access to appeal, communication with the participants about the decision and its impacts and a reflection of the community’s input in the outcome. The fourth research question is about critical review of planning theory, policy and practice in relation to a better understanding of community participation. It will also inform policy provisions to help understand and enhance the effectiveness of community participation in contemporary planning practice.

1.3 Rationale

From the late 1980s and 1990s participation became a central ideology in urban planning practice, driven largely by the communicative planning theories (Forester, 1987; Healy, 2005; Innes, 1996). Based on Habermas’ (1987) and Healey (1988; 2006) and Forester (1989), the communicative theory of planning decision-making focused on planning decisions and how they can better account for the language of practical conversation and communication. Innes (1996) advances the concept of consensus building with equality in the collaborative process. The question is whether open dialogue among equals can be achieved in fundamentally unequal societies, especially for the least powerful groups like, poorer community members. In other words, to what extent are Forester’s recommended “practical arts” of negotiation and mediation in planning practice useful in enabling heterogeneous community groups to participate in planning in the context of globalisation and the open market economy? Ensuring effective community participation, that is, the representation of the cross section of the community along 8 with its empowerment and accountability (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Blair, 2000; IAP2, 2007a) is a challenge, on the grounds of community groups’ heterogenic natures and marginalised positions, which requires in-depth study and understanding.

The issues of the differences among participating stakeholders with different authorities and stakes in communicative planning practices and how to meaningfully include marginalised stakeholders (in particular the disadvantaged groups within local community groups) are yet to be investigated, especially when a large number of stakeholders act with widely differing interests at city and regional levels. Different types of stakeholders are likely to participate in the urban planning process, especially in the case of metropolitan planning for different purposes and with their different levels of authority. Questions of how the community participation activity is conducted, how opportunities are created and how community groups utilise those opportunities to participate, as well as how a community group’s participation is being shaped by other actors and issues are worth investigating to understand the issues of empowerment of community groups along with their representation in the process. This is because community participation is different from other stakeholder participation in the sense of the heterogeneity and limited capacity of local community groups and the participation process is such a complex concept with many different levels that many people can easily be marginalised or even disempowered in the decision-making processes instead of being empowered through it (Arnstein, 1969) which results in a waste of time and resources and in the failure to achieve the participation process’s fundamental goals.

There is limited understanding of how opportunities for community participation in current planning practices affect the type of outcomes produced. The literature suggests that while the community participation process may often seem to comply with legislative requirements, there can still be very limited reflections of the community’s views and input in the final outcomes (Flyverj, 1998; Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; McGuirk, 2001). Hence it is critically important to analyse how the inputs of local community groups can fit into the planning process so as to meaningfully reflect their interest in the outcome. It is then essential to analyse how community groups participate throughout the process and whether, to what extent and why their input is reflected in the outcome. This will unearth the issues of the empowerment and accountability of the community participation process in urban planning practice. The study will therefore critically examine the community participation process and the outcome of the Sydney Metropolitan 9 Strategy, 2005, known as the “City of Cities”.

The study of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy is interesting and it is a critical case for several reasons. Firstly, Sydney is considered a global city and it is often argued that its planning processes include different sections of communities.

Secondly, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 is an active case (with ongoing implementation and amendments, although later in December, 2010 it was superseded by Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 which adopted the strengths and principles of 2005’s Metropolitan Strategy and combined the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010) and was prepared with a close consideration of the requirements for community participation in planning as prioritised by national and international policies and agreements (Department of Planning, 2005; Searle, 2006).

Thirdly, Sydney is a typical global city; in terms of ethnicity, it is one of the most diverse cities in Australia as well as in the world (Baum, 1997; Lepani, Murphy & Mcgillivray, 1995).

1.4 Aims and objectives

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice, focusing on the retrospective analysis of the representation, accountability and empowerment of local urban communities in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005. To achieve the aim, the thesis has following inter-related objectives.

To map and review relevant conceptual, policy and empirical literature on community • participation in urban planning practice with a view to identify gaps and opportunities for effective community participation.

To analyse historical shift in policy provisions with regards to community participation in • urban planning practice at the Australian federal, state and local level to identify policy gaps and areas for improvement in relation to achieving empowerment of community groups through their representation and downward accountability.

To analyse, retrospectively, the process and outcome of community participation employed • in the development of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005, focusing on the:

10 – Empowerment of communities [skills/knowledge, resources, inﬂuence of the outcome, trust/conﬁdence/satisfaction],

– Representative participation of communities [actors, voice and opportunity],

– Accountability of decisions to communities [transparency, responsibility and legitimacy];

To improve understanding of participation in urban planning theory and practice, and • develop a framework for improving the effectiveness of community participation at the regional local levels of urban planning practice.

1.5 Research method

A mixed method approach with an in-depth case study analysis was selected as the methodological strategy. The case study offers a method of learning about a complex instance through extensive description and contextual analysis (Yin, 2002). The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 was selected to study community participation in planning processes. This study focuses on the effectiveness of community participation in the planning process and the outcome of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were used in this study. Given that the study is examining a situation which involves clarifying patterns of relationships between two or more variables (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005), a quantitative approach was useful. Similarly, since the study was aimed at understanding the contextual factors that drive the effectiveness of a process, and at understanding the speciﬁc context within which participants act and engage in the planning process, a qualitative approach was selected (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Data collection methods included a combination of a mail-out questionnaire survey, semi-structured interview, informal discussion and observation by attending community participation workshops. Community members from different suburbs of Sydney who had directly participated through community forums organised by the Department of Planning were surveyed by a mail-out questionnaire survey. Semi-structured interviews were carried out among State and Local Government planning ofﬁcers and representative stakeholders from different sectors who were involved in planning process. At the state level, those interviewed included the staff involved in the planning process of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 from the

11 Department of Planning. At the local level, Local Governmental staff members from four local governmental areas, representatives of particular community groups and key stakeholders other than individual community members were interviewed to understand the context and to know its associated factors.

Existing policies, legislation and documents related to the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 was reviewed and analysed. Discussion papers, submissions and the database - Factiva.com, were all used to collect relevant information on the development of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Two community participation workshops organised by two local councils were attended and observed by the researcher with a focus on particular themes according to the research questions. An in-depth discussion about the research approach and the data collection tools used for this study, and their advantages and disadvantages, is provided in Chapter Four.

1.6 Organisation of the thesis

The thesis is divided into nine chapters. The basis for this division is the aims and contents of the chapters. The organisation of the chapters is provided below with a brief summary of their contents.

Chapter One is a general introduction to the thesis. It has provided the context of the study, the research problem and its rationale, as well as its aims, objectives, research methods and structure.

Chapter Two is the literature review. It reviews the relevant literature in the ﬁeld of planning and community participation. It is intended to reveal the existing knowledge base and to identify the ’gaps’ in the literature that this present study intends to ﬁll.

Chapter Three provides the urban planning context of Sydney with preliminary case study background. The chapter contains a critical analysis of the planning policies of Australia and NSW. It then focuses to Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 in regards to the effectiveness of the community participation process in planning. Chapter Four contains the methodology employed in this research. It details the approach, methods and a description of the data requirements. In addition, it justiﬁes the case selection and the rigour of the research as well as presenting the limitations of the study.

12 Chapters Five, Six and Seven discuss the results of the questionnaire survey, interviews, document analysis and observation. The chapters present the results according to the above-mentioned three evaluative criteria of community participation. To understand the insights of the investigation of the research questions and the hypothesis, to understand how empowerment is related to representation and accountability, at first results related to representation (Chapter Five) have been presented, then empowerment (Chapter Six) and then accountability (Chapter Seven). In Chapter Five results are displayed on comparison of the demographic and socio-economic variables of the participants, whether disadvantaged groups were included, the reasons for participation and non-participation, the reasons for unrepresentative participation, the associated problems and the factors in relation to their utilisation of the opportunities for participation. Chapter Six provides the results of the questionnaire survey in relation to the community group’s influence on the final outcome, reflection of their inputs in the outcome, their satisfaction level, their perceptions about the urban planning system and authority and ownership. Chapter Seven presents the results in relation to the issue of accountability by investigating information providing, communicating with community groups about government’s actions, community groups’ accessibility to appeal and the issue of transparency.

Chapter Eight analyses the ﬁndings by providing reasons and implications of the study. It also co-relates the ﬁndings with the existing literature and highlights the contribution of the thesis. This Chapter then develops a framework for effective community participation in urban planning practice.

Chapter Nine summarises the key ﬁndings and implications, outlines the contributions of this research to theory, policy and practice and concludes the thesis. It also points to future research directions.

The next chapter reviews relevant literature and theories of community participation and communicative planning practices.

13 Chapter 2

Community Participation and Urban Planning Practice: Mapping Theories and Concepts

2.1 Introduction

Community participation has become fundamental to contemporary urban planning practice. Theories of urban planning, particularly communicative planning, provide important explanations on the question of how and why local communities can (and should) participate in the planning process. Theories of participation, on the other hand, provide critical insights on the principles and processes of bringing about the effective participation of communities. It is then useful to review and synthesise the ideas from these two relevant theoretical trajectories to improve our understanding of the issues and opportunities of local community participation in urban planning practice, and to enable us to ascertain what brings (or hinders) effective community participation in planning practice of a city.

This chapter aims to review the relevant literature from theories of planning and theories of participation in order to establish a frame that is useful to the thesis. In the second section, the chapter details the issues and opportunities of community participation in urban planning practice (process and outcomes) as highlighted by the existing literature. The third section develops a conceptual framework for this study informed by the previous two sections. Finally, the chapter concludes by summarising conceptual ideas, key issues and a conceptual framework and hypothesis for the study to investigate the effectiveness of community participation—the central element of this thesis.

14 2.2 Community participation: A conceptual overview

This section provides an overview of the idea of community participation and the fundamental components for effective participation. The theories of community participation will be discussed latter of this section. The section establishes the background required to understand the intentions and provisions of community participation in urban planning policies.

2.2.1 Understanding community

Community is a popular but contested concept. In the neo-liberal political economy, community has become the focus of urban planning, development, environmental governance, and so on. Despite the term’s widespread popularity, its conceptualisation is highly complicated. This is because, sometimes, participation is conﬂated with the involvement of communities; sometimes it is discussed in the context of planning and decision-making processes, or implementation activities, and it is often affected by the shaping of the deﬁnition of community in political agendas or even a community’s sense of identity (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994; Raco & Flint, 2001).

Community has different inflections in different fields. Sociologists view community as a place for social interaction or ethnical construct-based groups of people (Hillery, 1955; Irvine, 2006). In political science, it is conceived as a means of government (Rose, 1999), while it is sometimes defined as a social system (e.g., Judy, 2008), and also as a process of renewal and evolution (Ikeda, 2009). According to Willmott (1989), community refers to people who have things in common. These might be territory such as common street, common interests such as profit motives or religion and common attachments to a place, like a migrant community.

The two most common elements of conceptualising community are based on locality and interest. In the locality-based (or place-centred) concept, communities are deﬁned when people live in the same region and interact with each other, as they have “place centred ethical and aesthetic norms” (Maida, 2006, p.3). However, any attempt to equate the concept with a geographical or spatial area assumes the homogeneity of interests within them (Massey, 1997). This is misleading in the sense that communities living in the same geographical area do not necessarily share same ethnicity or customs, neither do they always have same interests (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). A community of interests or concerns is deﬁned when “a group of people

15 ...have similar sets of interests in respect to the particular situation” (Gilmour & Fisher, 1991, p. 69). These two notions are grouped together in the following deﬁnition: “Community as a locality refers to the territorial or geographic notion of community-the neighbourhood, town or city. The second meaning of community, the relational community, refers to qualities of human interaction and social ties that draw people together (Heller, 1989, p. 3)”.

Community is sometimes seen as a process. For instance, the identity of a community can be created as a means of resisting environmental threats in the context of economic and political globalisation (Dalby & Mackensie, 1997), or as a result of increased interaction between a place and people or within peoples (Ikeda, 2009). The sense of a community depends on contexts and only empirical studies can identify different communities in different contexts (Dlaby & Mackesie, 1997). In examining the notion of community through empirical studies, some studies identiﬁed the core elements of a community as: locality or place, sharing, joint action, social ties and diversity (MacQueen et al., 2001) or social interaction and relationships between people (Judy, 2008).

The above deﬁnitions clearly signify that whatever the basis of deﬁning a community, it is both dynamic and is heterogeneous. The important question to emerge is how and when such heterogeneous community members can participate in the urban planning process in an effective manner.

2.2.2 Understanding participation

Participation is a key concept within communicative planning. It is a process that has been identiﬁed as the paradigm from below, from the grassroots (Chambers 1983; 1995). The Brundtland Report places participation at the heart of sustainable development: –the recognition of traditional rights must go hand in hand with measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility in resource use. And this recognition must also give local communities a decisive voice in the decisions about resource use in their area. (Brundtland, 1988, p. 115-116)

Nelson and Wright (1995, p. 7-8) deﬁne participation in two ways: “participation as a means” and “participation as ends ”. Participation as a means refers to a process in which community groups participate to achieve the aims of a project more efﬁciently, effectively or cheaply. On the other hand, participation as ends refers to a process of giving some degree of control of a development agenda to a community or a group (Nelson & Wright, 1995). 16 These two types of participation represent a continuum in an ideal participatory planning process where participation can be considered as ends. In practice, however, it is generally seen as a means to achieve certain prescribed outcomes.

The term “community participation” is interchangeably used as public participation, citizen participation or sometimes as public consultation/involvement. It is deﬁned in Encyclopaedia of Urban Planning (1974) as: “the means by which members of the community are able to take part in the shaping of policies and plans that will affect the environment in which they live” (Lewis, 1974, p. 850). For Ribot (1996, p. 40), community participation is: –about communities having decision-making powers or control over resources that affect the community as a whole, such as forests and grazing commons or community development. But, for such decisions to internalise social and ecological costs or to assure equitable decision-making and use, they must be devolved to a body representing and accountable to the community.

A crucial element of the above deﬁnition is power which must be devolved to a body, representing and accountable to the community. The community’s decisions may then internalise social and ecological costs or assure equitable decision-making and use (Ribot, 1996). From the above deﬁnition, decision-making power, accountability and the representation of community groups are three essential components of community participation.

The World Bank (1993) offers a definition of the terms “participation”, “consultation” and “involvement” in different senses. As explained: “Involvement can be brought about through either consultation or participation, the key difference being the degree to which those involved in the process are able to influence, share or control the decision making” (The World Bank, 1993). Here consultation is inclusive of education, information sharing and negotiation with the public, while participation enables the public to share decision-making. The inclusion of information sharing as well as keeping participants informed after a decision has been made have also been highlighted in the definition of public participation by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). As it states: Public participation means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision-making process. It promotes sustainable decisions by providing participants with the information they need to be involved in a meaningful way, and it communicates to participants how their input affects the decision (IAP2, 2007a).

Researchers have identiﬁed certain characteristics of participation. Pretty (1995), for example, classiﬁed participation as: manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by

17 consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation and self-mobilisation. Here participation, up to the ﬁrst four levels, is assigned as manipulation, as community groups have no say in the decisions. One critical point the author emphasised is that the term “participation”, in many cases, is misused by the authorities as a mechanism to manipulate the community development process. Tosun (2000) offered three categories of participation:

a participation,

b induced participation and

c coercive participation.

This classiﬁcation stressed the participant’s self-motivation and active involvement, based on which spontaneous participation was placed at the top level and coercive participation at the lowest. In coercive participation community groups’ participation is limited and the authority is reluctant to involve community groups.

The problem of understanding participation is that it means different things to different people. As White (1994, p. 16) notes: the word “participation” is kaleidoscopic; it changes colour and shape at the will of the hands in which it is held. And, just like the momentary image in the kaleidoscope, it can be very fragile and elusive, changing from one moment to another. The kaleidoscope analogy ﬁts because participation is a complex and dynamic phenomenon, seen from the “eye of the beholder”, and shaped by the “hand of the power-holder”.

Ideally, participation results in community empowerment and the devolution of decision making to local and regional communities. Inherent in this devolution is an acknowledgment of the value of local knowledge and ways of doing things. Yet, community participation can be tokenistic. Governments can, if they wish, keep “a lid on” communities by setting up processes that diffuse rather than harness community energies.

2.3 Community participation in planning theory and practice

2.3.1 Historical context of planning theories

Community participation in urban planning has a very long history dating back to ancient Greek cities. The ﬁrst written record of citizen participation found in the Greek-city states was the Ecclesia of Athens (Roberts, 2004). In later periods town meetings were held by New 18 England colonists and attended by free, white, property-owning, adult male citizens who jointly held certain decision-making powers. Property qualiﬁcations as a pre-requisite for participation were dropped in the USA in early 1880s and from then on self-educated citizens instead of elites became part of the civil service. The 1900 to 1930s in the USA was marked by the emergence of more direct citizen participation with the City Beautiful Movement (albeit marked with participation by educated experts) or Slum Eradication (sometimes criticised for forced participation of unwilling citizens) (Day, 1997; Roberts, 2004). However, until after the Second World War public participation was not mandatory in the world.

In the USA, the Housing Act of 1949 required participation through public hearings. The Housing Act of 1954 and the Juvenile Delinquency Demonstration Projects involved citizen participation. The Urban Renewal Act of 1954 mandated citizen participation through city wide advisory projects (Day, 1997, Hallman, 1972). In the 1950s citizen participation was a “tell and sell story” when usually keeping the public informed was enough. During the late 1960s and early 70s a number of government agencies established requirements for public hearings so citizens could comment before decisions were adopted. But the public hearing process was unsatisfying for a number of reasons. Firstly, the hearings were positioned at the very end of the process and after smaller decisions had already been made; secondly, the public were faced with one ﬁnal predetermined proposal, with little or no insight into alternative decision options within the process. Thirdly, as a result in this type of participatory technique, the sophisticated scientiﬁc explanations provided by the planners only deepened the communication gap between the experts and decision makers and the general public (Day, 1997). People were thus deprived of the opportunity to contribute effectively and creatively on decisions about their own future. The only option they had was to agree or oppose the proposed solution and opposition often became the only way to show their disagreement with the process from which they were effectively excluded (Creighton, 1995; Day, 1997). In the UK, public consultation used to be conducted by professional planners as a part of systematic process. Local communities only had the opportunity to comment on the goals of planning (Hall, 1983; Lane, 2005).

Over time, in urban planning practice, the form of community participation changed according to the central idea of planning itself changed. Hall (1992), Lane (2005) and Taylor (1998) summarised the history of community participation in urban planning according to the epistemology of planning. In the early conceptions of planning, it was about making sure of the 19 orderly society by the application of technical know-how. As such there was no actual scope or opportunity for community participation. For example, in the blueprint or comprehensive planning approach the only opportunity for community participation in decision-making was a referendum during an election. In this planning model professional experts were employed by the government and developed the plans as if they were an “omniscient ruler”..without interference or question (Hall, 1992, p. 61). In the early 1960s blueprint planning was challenged by the system or synoptic model of planning (Faludi, 1973; McLoughlin, 1969). The planning models in this approach were actually a modiﬁed form of rational comprehensive planning models but they are remarkable for the institutionalisation of public comment and the inclusion of actors from outside of the formal policy making arena in terms of providing opportunity for community participation. In this planning model society is assumed as homogeneous entity, which implies that community participation opportunities created under these policies were parochial and only required to legitimise the planning goals (Hall, 1983; Lane, 2005).

Peter Hall identified 1965-1980 as the emerging period for community participation in urban planning practice which he named “City Grass Rooted” (Hall, 1992). The demand of participation in the form of advocacy planning, which is based on grass roots involvement, was first marked in this period. Advocacy planning offered an important change for community participation from traditional planning to the pluralistic nature of planning (Davidoff, 1965). In the advocacy planning system, planners should work as advocates in the interest of less articulate, under-represented groups as lawyers represent a client. For example, a planner might develop a plan which will meet the need of poor migrants, another planner might develop a plan with the inclusion of particular business group’s interest and another planner will include environmentalists’ concerns. The local planning commission could then weigh the merits of the competing plans. The final plan, which develops through such a process, will better meet the needs of the poor and powerless. Yet, the direct provision for community participation is not emphasized in this theory.

2.3.2 Communicative turn in urban planning

Community participation has become central to the most recent development in planning theory, called communicative planning. In the late 1980s and 1990s communicative planning theories emerged when participation took its place as a central ideology (Forester, 1987; Healy, 2005; Innes, 1996). The emphasis of planning practice here is on the communication, interaction and 20 deliberation of various stakeholders to which the planning is closely related. Drawing on Habermas’ (1987) theory of communicative action, a body of theoretic knowledge developed on how to connect the systemic side of human life and the value-driven side of human introspection—the latter being deﬁned as the “life world”. Prominent writers in this ﬁeld were Healey (1988, 2006) and Forester (1989) who attempted to interpret and apply communicative action theory to planning decision-making focusing on ways that planning decisions can better account for the language of practical conversation and communication. Its early conception can be traced back to works of Friedmann in 1970s (1973, 1987).

Friedmann was one of the pioneers who introduced two-way communication in planning practice, instead of traditional one-way communication between planners and clients. He emphasised dialogue, which is combined with learning, and ’transactive’ planning and which turns knowledge into action. According to his arguments, if dialogues are conducted in such a way to accept other’s views, fused with moral judgment, thinking, shared interest, commitment and sympathy, ways of complete communication, maintain reciprocity and mutual obligation, people would accept decisions through dialogue, which ultimately will lead to transactive planning (Friedmann, 1973). Though he wrote of the inequality between client and planner when addressing the issue of the communication gap, there is no clear indication of how to overcome it. His ideas were further developed in Forester, Healy and Innes’s works.

Communicative planning theories can be seen from three dimensions:

a Planning as a power struggle process (e.g., Forester, 1993),

b Planning as a collaborative process (e.g., Healy, 1992; 1998); and

c Planning as a consensus building process (e.g., Innes, 1996). a. Planning as a power struggle process Forester’s works were inspired by the German Philosopher Habermas’s concepts of “communicative action”, in “ideal speech situation” and the “force of better argument” (Habermas, 1983, 1985, 1987). Habermas summarised communicative action as: – the conviction that a humane collective life depends on the valuable forms of innovation-bearing, reciprocal and unforcedly egalitarian everyday communication (Habermas, 1985, p. 82).

21 An ideal speech situation is a set of general and unavoidable communicative assumptions which a subject capable of speech and action must make every time he or she wishes to participate seriously in argumentation (Habermas, 1985).

The simpliﬁed form of Habermas’ hypothesis is that in absence of coercion the force of better argument will prevail. Introducing this idea in planning theory and practice, Forester emphasised the practical arts of negotiation and mediation in planning practice (Forester, 1989). To make possible democratic deliberation he argues for some normative pre-requisites. Forester offered a number of diagnostic questions regarding the comprehensibility, sincerity, legitimacy and truthfulness of planners speaking when they communicate with stakeholders or clients in planning practices to insure that they are effective in their communicative action and argumentation in the face of power. He warned against the effects of “distorted information” which can further boost the power differences and argued that planners, by proper use of information, can shift power relations. Marginalised people can also be empowered through democratic planning processes (Forester, 1989).

Forester analysed the effects of political and social influence on social action and showed how planners can modify the exertion of political power in planning processes. He demonstrated in conflicting situations, how city planners can use a number of strategies to bring together the developers and the neighbourhood people to achieve an optimum planning outcome (Forester, 1987). These are: professionally judging of appropriate facts, anticipating concerns well before open conflict, encouraging clients to meet, probing and advising both sides, acting as a mediator, acting as or hiring negotiator or advisor and mediator. He not only emphasised the importance of planners’ skill of speaking and writing comprehensively, sincerely and legitimately but also the planner’s attention towards the context of the interaction (Forester, 1996) and anticipating pressure (Forester, 1996).

Forester particularly emphasised planners’ skilful mediation (Forester, 2006). He argued that public deliberation should consist of three interlinked processes of dialogue, debate and negotiation which require promotion through deliberative practices of facilitating, moderating and mediating (Forester, 2008). In a similar way, Sager (1994) used Habermas’ critical theory of communicative action to examine how mainstream planning theories are related to the concept of power and conﬂict (Sager, 1994). He showed that a critical communicative perspective provides 22 an informative lens to view these old debates in a new way.

Forester suggested a number of diagnostic questions for successful negotiation and mediation among planner to planners or planner to politicians or to planning stakeholders. In regards to communication with community groups, given their heterogeneity and limited capacity, the critical question is whether and to what extent this approach of using practical arts of negotiation and mediation is compatible today. Though Forester suggested skills for planners to use in the conflicting situation of a highly capitalist society, it is time to rethink their suitability in the context of current globalisation and economic neo-classism. The suggested strategies to address the pre-existing power imbalance depend mainly on the planner’s significant professional discretion rather than involving weaker parties in the power sharing process. As Huxley (2000) pointed out, communicative planning theory considers planners to be capable of reflecting on their own framing in a knowledge network, their rationality, and their power as well as being able to explore that of others. But she questioned the objectivity of planning as well as the planner’s role as a critical friend in practice because planning is contextualised in its institutional, administrative/legal and discursive framework. b. Planning as a collaborative process Forester’s work of developing theories from a planner’s practical day’s experience inspired others, like Patsy Healey. Her article “A Planner’s Day” showed how planners’ ways of communication are of utmost importance. By analysing detailed stories of practitioners she elaborated on how to make planners’ expertise, skill and resources available and transparent to clients and the community they serve (Healy, 1992). She emphasised not only planner’s choice in picking the right option but also the institutional surroundings which compel the planner to act with an “honest, open and reasoning approach”. The importance of ethical conduct and the need for further studies on ethical dimensions were also highlighted (Healy, 1992). However, the study mainly deals with relations between planner and politicians or clients, not between planners and the individual community members or the suburban local people. Here, the need for institutionalisation of accountability measures is highlighted, along with providing information (which should be transparent, open and not distorted) and about the institutional surroundings, which should enable planners to act in a deliberative, democratic way.

Healy (1998; 1999; 2005) further refined communicative planning theory in relation to its societal and institutional capacity. Healey defines institutional capacity as a combination of 23 social, intellectual and political capital. As this capital grows and spreads through collaboration and networks, the “civic capacity” of a society will grow and participants will be more confident in their ability and competencies to solve their problems (Healy, 2005, p. 428). She offered an institutional approach to collaborative planning, outlining, in detail, from the starting of collaboration, such as taking initiatives or selecting stakeholders, then how to engage in discussion, which style to follow, what kind of language to use, how to build trust through interaction, the translation of jumbles, sorting ideas, how to create a discourse or how to convert discourse to policy and finally, how to monitor or appeal.

Although the process follows every step of the conventional rational planning process; for example, information collection, analysis, evaluation, choice of strategy and monitoring; the difference is in the process being parallel rather than sequential and based on interactive actions (Healy, 1999; 2005). To act against domination in discussion or in dialogue she continuously referred to Habermas and Forester’s communicative ethics. However, her suggested institutional approach requires the long-term engagement of stakeholders to build trust and networks. This can be difficult in some cases where there are limited resources and time constraints. It is also difficult to guarantee participant’s commitment particularly for community participation, where drop-outs and community’s apathy are the problems. However, collaborative planning is predominantly based upon the belief of consensus building, as explained by Innes (1996). c. Planning as a consensus building process Judith Innes (1995) and her associates claimed “communicative action” and “interactive practice” as an “emerging paradigm” of planning theory (also see Hillier & Healy, 2008, p. 118). Innes argued that exercising “communicative rationality” in planning could assist planners in their dilemma with instrumental rationality or in answering many unanswered questions. She emphasised that by cautiously creating a process of social interaction, where the planner’s role will be to guide and facilitate, then social information can be turned into knowledge and knowledge into action. In collaborative planning stakeholders apply a variety of methods to “play” with the discourses, which might turn into “collaborative tinkering”, which is consensus building (Innes & Booher, 1999a; 1999b; Susskind, McKearn & Thomas, 1999). It has more discretion than scientific inquiry.

Criticising Forester’s views on communicative action, Innes questioned about the planner’s role in drawing attention in dialogue or how much to emphasise or what the structure is. She 24 suggested communicative rationality to be integrated into planning through a deliberative process but indicated the need for further research on institutionalism and ethics. Innes (1996) advances the concept of consensus building in her seminal article with equality in the collaborative process. She argued that all types of stakeholders—public agencies, powerful private interests and disadvantaged citizens are supposedly treated equally within the process of collaborative decision making where actors reciprocally share knowledge and meanings and have the potential to create a consensus building process (Innes, 1996).

In her further explanation of consensus building, Innes and Booher (1999a) described it as a deliberative process which begins with something like storytelling, a dialogue where all stakeholders play their own roles and, through exploring the discussions, laws and practice, slowly participants reach a decision which is both satisfactory to all and spontaneous. Based on their participant observation studies and long term experience, the term has been deﬁned by Innes and Booher as: – a long term effort to develop a shared understanding and agree on a strategy to deal with an uncertain and evolving future, while addressing a broad, shared concern with planning and policy (Innes & Booher, 1999a, p. 11).

The method of interaction has been referred here as “role play simulation” and the mode of collective reasoning as “bricolage”. According to their thesis this type of planning not only creates solutions which are acceptable to all and allows each of the participants to claim of them ownership but also social learning, team spirit, trust and networks are created among stakeholders as by products.

One major challenge of collaborative planning, as identiﬁed by Innes and Booher (2010), is its coexistence with formal government and its mismatch with the bureaucratic tradition of decision-making. In the current governmental system, planning ofﬁcials are cynical about any type of public decision making other than that of representative government, whereas the practice of collaborative planning offers an open ended decision making approach to deal with the current complex, changing and fragmented societal system. To overcome this challenge, a fundamental change of current governance and institutional arrangements is urged.

Though it is acknowledged that the power of consensus building inheres in making participants play their role, which needs motivation, in-depth understanding and careful facilitation, a 25 question remains concerning the viability of such an exercise which demands a long term-commitment from the participating stakeholders. Such a commitment is especially hard for community groups, where the dropout rate in community participation practices is high. Innes also warned that ethical aspects are more important for planners in communicative planning.

2.3.3 Critiques of communicative planning

Communicative planning theories brought pragmatic ideas to the planning practice in adopting a practically situated and social learning oriented approach to deal with conﬂicting issues. However, communicative planning theories are criticised by many scholars on several fronts, such as the ignorance of power relations, the further marginalisation of less powerful stakeholders and the question of expertise, or scientiﬁc knowledge, of the planning discipline. It is argued that Innes’s consensus building approach is misrecognised and misrepresented, while Healy’s collaborative planning has been used and misused by politicians and policy makers (Hillier & Healy, 2008). Some of the major critiques are discussed below.

Communicative planning theory ignores issues of power. The main criticism regarding communicative planning is its ignorance of a credible strategy to deal with biased power relations in planning practice (Flyvbjerg, 1996; 1998; Hillier, 2003; Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000; Margerum, 2002; McGuirk, 2001; Neuman, 2000). The argument of communicative rationality, which is the basis for communicative planning, is criticised on the grounds that any process that ignores power relations is simply “meaningless or misleading” as claimed by Flyvbjerg (1998, p. 227). He contrasted power with rationality with his empirical study and argued that the greater power an actor possesses, the less is their need for rationality as they can achieve their aims by other means (Flyvbjerg, 1998). Flyvjberg also argued that in practice opportunities for community groups to participate are set in such a way and in such a stage that (to give input through formal channels about some predetermined sets of issues/agendas) they have very little or no inﬂuence on the policy outcome compared to the other big stakeholders. This is due to their less powerful position compared to business groups or political lobbyists who have informal connections and channels to determine the outcome (Flyvbjerg, 1996).

Many case studies supported the argument that communicative planning theories pay insufficient attention towards the practical context of power. One of them is McGuirk’s research from Newcastle, Australia, where planners collaboratively tried to make a Development Control 26 Plans (DCPs) for the Local Government Area. Through her case study she concluded that to reach a consensus was quite difficult because of the impossibility to set power and differences aside. She analysed the nexus between power, knowledge and rationality, where she identified power variations between expertise, knowledge and rationality which have been validated already and the knowledge/rationality forms of other knowledge such as experiential, local, intuitive and moral inputs which finally were undermined for the sake of lesser validity. In this study, the position of local communities clearly depicts how and why participation became ineffective in terms of influencing the outcome. There is a call for figuring out how to advance planning practice without consensus and in conflicting situations and to define institutional conditions (McGuirk, 2001).

In response to the above criticisms, Innes emphasised an ideal speech situation, and drew attention to the difference between power around the table and power outside the table and network power for consensus building (Innes, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2002). Including of a full range of stakeholders, setting ground rule behaviour at the outset, creating a dialogue where all should be equally able to participate, fully sharing information, instilling a self organising capacity, exploring all the interests and making every effort are the conditions for successful consensus building (Innes, 2004). She argued that the skilful management of dialogue; shared information and the education of the stakeholders neutralize power around the table. This is also mentioned by Forester (2006). But the role of facilitators as skilled managers of dialogue is questioned on the grounds of their little knowledge of planning (Neuman, 2000). Regarding the power outside of the table, she recommends its redistribution prior to the dialogues by giving resources to marginalised stakeholders either to hire experts or to provide them with enough information (Innes, 2004). However, a number of other ideas have been developed to cope with power imbalances in communicative planning; for example, network power, transaction costs or using trust and reasonableness.

In communicative planning theories, network power and transaction cost alterations are often proposed in facing power issues (Healy, 1999; Innes, 2004; Sager, 2006). Network power is created when stakeholders collectively have the power to change/influence/produce their desired outcome. This is a form of power from which both the most and least powerful stakeholders can benefit (Innes, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2002). Sager uses the argument of transaction costs in communicative planning. He defined transaction costs as the costs which are incurred when 27 transacting parties are brought together for exchange of information and arguments, and when procedures are established to make them deal with each other according to an informal agreement (Sager, 2006). However, he proposed that in communicative planning a planner can advocate increasing transaction costs to counter the repressive power of the powerful stakeholders. Though it is agreed that in the consensus building process, as proposed by Innes and Booher, transaction costs are already high (Sager, 2006).

Contrary to the perspectives of power being central to understand legitimate social processes, including planning, Stein and Harper (1996, 2003, 2005) proposed the idea of “Trust” and “Reasonableness”. They counter the Foucauldian, and Flyvjberg’s concept, that those who have more power are more influential in getting their stake in the planning process. They believe that trust is as basic as power because it is a necessary condition for any type of communication, knowledge or learning. So not just power, but the assumption of trust needs to be understood. Harper and Stein also analysed the Wide Reflective Equilibrium (WRE) of Rawl’s procedural theory of social justice (Rawls, 2001) and compared it with Innes and Healey’s consensus-building planning process. Indicating the similarity of reflexivity and critical mutual learning between these two ideas they pointed out the contrast of the planner’s roles as both facilitator and mediator in Innes’s concept and Rawls’s detailing of the elements and ways of interaction, transformation in the WRE idea, even in the context of serious conflict.

Instead of beginning with the universal concept of power and then explaining everything, the concept of WRE starts in the middle then goes back and forth between the principles of rationality and reasonableness. By “reasonable” Rawls meant an acceptance of the fair terms of cooperation, and a commitment to abide by them, provided everyone else is also similarly committed. Thus reasonable entails the notion of reciprocity. Finally, Stein and Harper (2005) argued that if citizens and professional planners were to believe that power is inescapable there would seem to be no hope. On the contrary, reasonableness embodies rationality and morality, which gives hope and purpose to the public planning. Here, to deal with power, there should be reasonableness and morality, which are also indicated by Innes and Healy when identifying importance of the planner’s ethical position.

Consensus building produces insubstantial and vague agreements. Communicative planning theories are often criticised for producing bland and overly processed agreements, sometimes 28 failing to address the tension between the knowable world and social problems, avoiding important issues, overlooking norms and meanings, working with a vague agenda and general agreements, and lacking a clear boundary of subject matter (Cameron, Grant-Smith & Johnston, 2005; Huxley, 2000; Neuman, 2000). However, Innes argued that any agreement or plan can be flawed but consensus made in an ideal speech situation fulfilling all the criteria can produce joint learning, intellectual social and political capital, feasible action and innovative solutions (Innes, 2004). Sometimes so many other things are achieved as by products, agreements are the least outcomes (Innes & Booher, 1999a). However, the question remains on the plausibility of creating an ideal speech situation particularly in a highly conflicting context.

One of the important roles of a professional planner is to define problems, which are required for public action. But when local solutions become a professional tradition, the success of the expert role of the professional planner, in short-term interventions, is doubtful (Sandercock, 1997). Neuman (2000) questioned the position of the graphic image based representation and maps in the discursive planning practice. He raised the issue of immense role of the image in planning which texts cannot replace. Some argue that collaborative planning also pays too much attention to the planner as the central element of communication, at the expense of dealing with the visions, content, and distribution of the outcomes of planning (Campbell & Marshall, 1999). This is critical for community participation, as local communities have often seen to possess lay knowledge about planning issues and can provide significant local knowledge to improve the plan quality which indicates the dichotomy of local versus expert knowledge in the final outcome. Rafael Fischler, by analysing Foucauldian social theory, offered to understand planning theory not simply as a discursive practice of interpersonal communication but also as a practice of Government (Fishcler, 2000). He questioned whether “open dialogue among equals” can be achieved in fundamentally unequal societies (Fishcler, 2000, p. 194). Communicative planning to be successful requires institutional changes - as recommended by these studies.

In consensus-based decision making, open communication channels let the actors be open about their individual values, needs, feelings, fears and vulnerabilities. However, there is a critical question of whether this transformation of personal and cultural issues into the public forum leads to further economic exploitation (Fraser, 1995). Innes emphasised the need for the speciﬁc leverage of each stakeholder to avoid this type of co-optation. She claims that open dialogue creates empathy among stakeholders rather than the action of some marginalisation 29 (Innes, 2004). However, sometimes in dialogue, marginalised stakeholders might remain dissatisﬁed but voiceless (Neuman, 2000). This is particularly important in the case of community participation when community groups are the subject of exploitation in the name of community based management or decentralisation (e.g. Ribot, 1999; 2003).

There are criticisms made about the use of the term ’stakeholder’ and the account of context. The term ’stakeholder’ implies some strategic interest, yet there is little discussion in communicative planning theories how individuals or community groups can be induced to give up instrumental and strategic action (Neuman, 2000). This is consistent with the concern raised by Horelli (2002) in collaborative planning about the position of women as a comparatively weak stakeholder competing with a number of stakeholders. He identiﬁed gender neutrality or gender blindness as detrimental to achieving the goal of communicative planning. Besides, there is a limited emphasis on context. Communicative planning practice often relies on detailed studies of planning practice with reduced emphasis on external constraints. This ethno-methodological approach downplays social relations which contribute to understanding context (Neuman, 2000), whereas social relations are important in understanding stakeholders relationships in a planning process aiming for consensus based planning outcome.

In sum, communicative planning theory places stakeholders (including local communities) at the centre of the planning practice, with an emphasising on engaging them with the process through deliberative dialogue and careful facilitation. However, a number of weaknesses in communicative planning in regards to community participation have been identiﬁed, as summarised below:

a Communicative planning theories outline the opportunities and the institutional setting needed to create a deliberative process. But the empirical studies which signal the success stories of the application of communicative planning theories mainly deal with stakeholders. How to ﬁt an individual community or community groups to the process is not clear.

b It is very difﬁcult for community groups, with their limited capacity to provide meaningful input, into an open forum of face-to-face dialogue with a range of stakeholders. It is consistent with the analysis that power relations are unavoidable in collaborative planning. Though Innes suggested that providing information and resources to marginalised 30 stakeholders so that they can hire experts could help community groups to contribute, the issue of the ability of community groups to participate meaningfully is absent.

c Community participation is situated in a broader social context. Social relations are the important factors in the context of planning. The current planning theories are limited in dealing with social relations which need to be investigated for effective community participation.

d Participation in current planning theories is criticised for being an expensive and time-consuming exercise that generates a vague result. Several studies on environmental management suggest that community participation exercises maintain the status quo and this outcome does not reﬂect the community’s views and aspirations and the process does not bring forward the cross section of the community groups of the society (Gray et al., 2001).

e Collaborative planning and consensus building need long term commitments from stakeholders, which is not easy for community groups to maintain unless there are any direct threats on them. Drop outs are also a common problem for the community participatory exercise in the planning process.

The above discussion of the historical context of planning theories and their focus (or lack of focus) on community participation is outlined in Table 2.1.

Degrees Planning theories Ideas for community Issues relating to com- of Citizen participation munity participation Power - Smaller decisions made before hearing - Consultation led by pro- - Participation late in the process 1960-1970s Synoptic fessional planners - Public hearing only - Participation process just to validate and legitimate the goal, not for empowerment Pluralistic (Advocacy planning) - Facilitating for articu- No direct participation of 1970-1980s lation of weaker groups stakeholders, but to work and their interests on behalf of them Pluralistic (Transactive Planning) Inter-personal dia- Communication gap be- logue fused with moral tween clients and plan- judgment and sympathy ner as there are unequal power relations

31 - Mainly about planner to planner or planner to - Information sharing politicians - Using information as - Communication and me- Planning as a source of power to diation questionable in the power strug- Pluralistic mediate (for planners) current globalised hetero- gle process 1990s on (Communica- - Restraining from dis- genic societies (Forester) tive torted information (for - Highlights mainly plan- planning) planners) ner’s personal skill rather than capacity to empower the participants - Collaborative initiative - Ignorance of unequal Planning as from agenda setting, dia- power relations collaborative logue, sorting information - Little consideration of process (Healy) and deciding outcome to weaker individuals or monitoring and appealing community groups - Consensus building pro- - Face to face dialogue duces vague agreement - Accessible and shared - Emphasis on consensus Planning as information rather than the context consensus - Information/ resource to - Ignorance of power re- building pro- marginalised prior to the lations; network power cess (Innes) dialogue. to ensure weaker stake- - Skilled facilitation holder’s interest questionable Table 2.1: Evolution of planning theories in relation to community participation

The above theoretical analysis reveals that in communicative planning theory, ’local community’ is considered one of the critical stakeholders. Given that the local communities are heterogeneous with diverse capacities in terms of income, expertise, knowledge and networking, the idea of community participation is different from that of other stakeholder participation. However, in communicative planning practice, the idea of community participation is being used and practised either by using communicative planning theory as a procedural theory or just by exercising some nominal participatory techniques to include communities in the planning practice. There is no speciﬁc discussion on what community is and how the participation of local communities can be explained. It is then crucial to discuss the theoretical underpinnings about community and the key theories of community participation.

2.4 Theories of participation

Theories of participation (herein participation speciﬁcally referring to ’local community participation’) explain how and when different community groups participate in certain processes to achieve outcomes. To understand these theories, concepts of community and participation are

32 central. The understanding of community and participation was discussed in section 2.1. This section deals with the theories of participation.

2.4.1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation

A multitude of conceptualisations of participation exist. Arnstein’s (1969) model, known as the “ladder of citizen participation”, provides a widely popularised and still a very useful way of understanding the broad notion of community participation. It conceptualises the term public participation as encompassing a spectrum of approaches that are differentiated by the level of power given to citizens in determining outcomes. Arnstein (1969) produced a seminal work which critiqued and defined participation in terms of power relationships. She developed a “ladder of participation” in which she defined the different degrees of involvement of participants in relation to the delegation of decision-making power (Arnstein). According to her implied argumentation, community participation in planning occurs only when the community shares the decision making power. Here, the concept of community participation is closely related to the empowerment of community groups. She defined participation as: –a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes to be deliberately included in the future (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216).

While Arnstein herself admits that the ladder is a simpliﬁed model of participation, it precisely captures the crucial point that many people can be easily disempowered in decision-making processes. The ladder is outlined in Table 2.2.

8. Citizen Control Citizens obtain the majority of decision- Degrees of Citizen making seats or full managerial power. Power 7. Delegated Power Some power is delegated to agency decision-makers as well as to citizens. 6. Partnership Citizens are enabled to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. 5. Placation A high level of tokenism. Citizens have Tokenism the right to advise, but no decision making right or power. 4.Consultation Citizens may hear and be heard, but they have no power to ensure that their views will be considered by decision-makers. Opportunities are provided for giving input only.

33 3. Informing Citizens may voice opinions, but have no inﬂuence to ensure follow-through or assurance of changing the decision. Here the opportunity for participation is only limited to one-way information ﬂowing, with no option for giving input, mostly in later stages of participation. Sometimes characterised with one way communication 2. Therapy Non-participation where power holders at- No Participation tempt to educate or “cure” citizens of their ignorance on a particular issue. It is por- trayed as not proving real opportunities but pretending that the community’s involvement plays an important role. In fact, the provided opportunities are not relevant to the core issues. 1. Manipulation Highest level of non-participation, where power holders do not allow people to actively participate and opportunities for participation are very limited. It lacks in providing proper/enough information. Some- times it is characterized by the suppression of key information which distorts the aim of participation.

Table 2.2: Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Source: Arnstein, 1969, p. 217 - modiﬁed)

Arnstein’s ladder of participation precisely offers the important point that empowerment is the key to the participation process but many people can be easily disempowered in this process if there is no genuine opportunity for power-sharing in decision making (Arnstein, 1969). The notion of participation being meaningful by the sharing or shifting of powers has also been supported by other studies (Amy, 1987; Nelson & Wright, 1995). Nelson and Wright (1995) analysed a number of case studies where participation was depicted as a shifting of power. Sometimes it means a shifting of power within communities or within agencies together with a shifting of power from top to bottom. Power is deﬁned here as how people stand in relation to each other in the systems of opportunities to resources, control of elements and process of production (Nelson & Wright, 1995).

Following Arnstein, a number of typologies of participation are offered by other researchers (Choguill, 1996; Pretty, 1995; Selin, 1999; Tosun, 1999). For developing countries, Choguill (1996) formulated an eight-level ladder of participation which includes: empowerment, partnership, conciliation, dissimulation, diplomacy, informing, conspiracy and self management. He argued that the context of participation in developing countries is different from developed 34 countries because getting urban services from the government is associated with that government’s limited resources or unwillingness. This situation leads the community groups to contribute their labour, time and money in getting services. That is why he amended Arnstein’s ladder with the consideration of government or non-government support. Like Arnstein’s ladder, in the top level of Choguill’s ladder is the empowerment level, community groups have the greatest amount of power and control over decision-making. However, there are examples in developing countries where community groups have some control over a project, but the project was only partially successful; whereas completely successful projects are seen to have a combination of collaboration within the community and the backing and resources of governments or NGOs. This type of participation he assigned as “self management” which has been placed at the bottom of the ladder. Choguil’s ladder of participation provides an alternative example of the success of a community participation exercise without communities’ having full control over the project.

Despite the wide use of the participation ladders, they are criticised on the grounds of considering only end products and thus ignoring the process. Painter (1992) criticised Arnstein’s ladder for ignoring informal power and only considering the assessment of the outcome. It is argued that there is the possibility of participants influencing decision making while participating, though the final power rests with the authority holder. He points out that: “Of course if that exercise of influence is effective, then this formal power of the authority holder is an empty shell” (Painter, 1992, p. 23). Pateman (1970, p.71) categorised this type of participation as “partial participation”. Roberts (2004) also criticised Arnstein’s concept of ’participation as redistribution of power’ arguing that the redistribution of power might be intention or an outcome of citizen participation, but it should not be a limiting factor in the definition. However, assessing participation in relation to empowerment or decision making power has been accepted as a fundamental issue.

Zehner and Marshall (2007) ﬁnd the continued dominance of Arnstein’s (1969) model problematic. They argue that subscribing to Arnstein’s (1969) model is too simplistic for current practice. According to Zehner and Marhsall (2007) planning practice has evolved to incorporate a mix of techniques outlined in Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation”. Zehner and Marshall (2007) offer one way of understanding Arnstein’s (1969) model. However, this thesis applies Arnstein’s (1969) model as a conceptual framework for categorising individual 35 techniques as well as the overall approach of a strategy. Hence, like Zehner and Marshall (2007), a strategy can be made up of a mix of techniques from Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation”; however, it is necessary to understand that the inclusion of techniques at the higher end of Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder or citizen participation” within a strategy shifts the strategy itself up the ladder.

2.4.2 IAP2’s Spectrum of Participation

Although Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation” is still prevalent today, the widely accepted and used model is provided by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) “Spectrum of Public Participation”. Many writers argue that this model is also a contemporary adaptation of the Arnstein’s model. Figure 2.1 provides a diagram of Arnstein’s (1969) “ladder of citizen participation” and IAP2 “Spectrum of Public Participation”. The arrow indicates the increasing level of power the public has in each process.

The International Association of Public Participation Australia has designed a participation spectrum to assist with the selection of the level of participation that defines the public’s role in any community engagement program (IAP2, 2007). It is widely used and is quoted in most community engagement manuals. The Spectrum shows differing levels of participation with different goals, time frames, resources and levels of concern in the decision to be made. The arrow indicates the increasing level of power the public has in each process from left to right, as does Arnstein’s ladder of participation. The same as Arnstein’s ladder, community groups share decision making power in the second highest level, in level of “collaborate” and the top level is citizen’s control, which is “empower” (Figure 2.1). According to the spectrum, in collaboration government should partner with community groups in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. The level of “empower” has been referred to as the situation when final decision-making has been placed in the hands of the community groups (IAP2, 2007a, b).

36 Figure 2.1: Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation and IAP2 spectrum of participation (Source: Arnstein, 1969, p. 217; and IAP2, 2007)

2.4.3 The NSW government approach to participation

Many governments and other organisations around the world have adapted Arnstein’s ladder of participation (and IAP2). In NSW and Australia, it has been adapted in the ways shown in Figure 2.3a. Different techniques are being employed to achieve community participation in the planning process (Figure 2.3).

The above theories of participation show two pivotal components for effective community participation: a) decision making power that affects their lives (empowerment),and b)the communication of decisions (accountability). Considering the heterogenous nature of community, one critical point missing in most of these theories is the requisite of representation of a cross-section of the community groups in the participation process (representation). The importance of a representation of cross section of the community groups for an effective participatory outcome has been highlighted in a number of empirical studies. The sections 2.6 deals with empowerment, accountability and representation, the three components of effective community participation and then the evaluative framework of the thesis after reviewing the critical issues of urban planning practice in next section.

37 Figure 2.2: Ideas of participation embedded in the NSW approach

Figure 2.3: Techniques of participation employed in NSW

38 2.5 Participation in planning practice: Empirical issues and insights

Community participation has now been accepted as a critical element of urban planning and also as an exercise of participatory democracy. However, a number of critical points have been enlisted here to provide a broad picture of the critical issues discussed in the literature of communicative urban planning theories and practices. a) Legitimisation The current practice of community participation seems to serve only the purpose of participation as legitimisation. Studies on understanding of the timing and treatment of public input compared to that of development interest reveals that the function of community participation was legitimisation only (McGuirk, 1994). It has been found that as an attempt to influence the policy as part of their participation, community groups write a submission to the department which is usually left aside by the officers and does not get due consideration. Thus the mechanisms through which the system of participation operates not only ensure the legitimacy of the planning system but also serve the interests of capital. It is consistent in another study of community participation in the Irish Planning system where development interests hold a privileged position within the planning system which requires of them minimal formal participation (McGuirk, 2009). The objections, appeals, or oral hearings which are the main source of contact with the communities who are related to specific developments, have no immediate impact upon policy formulation. Notably, this participation process of submission invitation occurs at an advanced stage in the planning process. The findings indicate that the timing of opportunities for participation, the formal nature of these opportunities and the lack of opportunities for informal contact hinder community groups influencing policy outcomes. This type of participation neither empowers community groups nor represents them in the process.

To make their strategy legitimate, the government agencies often present their views or provisions under the mask of rationality so that community groups accept them, and thus the interests of the powerful stakeholders who have capital or political favour are served. Flyvbjerg’s (2002) well-known Aalborg case is an example of this. He explored how power was at play among Council’s committee, the police and the Chamber of Industry and Commerce in an urban reservation project. He argued the Chamber secretly negotiated, using its elite position, and presented the view in the form of rationality. On the other hand, planners also had their rationale for their views but he argued that the group who had more power behind their rationale won. 39 Here rationality is used to make people believe the justification of the decision. Another study examining local planning in Dublin (McGuirk, 2009), supports the findings that the most powerful stakeholders will be able to influence the outcome due to their articulation of the arguments, and their access to informal channels for lobbying. As a consequence, questions are raised about the rationale of community participation in a planning system which supports the interests of those with capital. b) Representation: Miller (1988) identified a set of criteria that most commonly represent participants in the community participation process in Australia. They are: married, middle aged, higher than average income earners; well-educated men active in voluntary organisations, those active in local politics, who own their homes and cars and who have been resident in the area for a long time (1988, p. 133). In addition, Miller believes that groups with a direct economic interest in land use matters tend to over-represent in land use planning decisions (p. 36). Women, young people, pensioners, industrial and service sector employees and immigrants are usually under-represented. This raises the issue of representation and social justice. Lack of education is a factor in the non-participation of relatively powerless groups (Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). The over representation of educated people and under representation of the rest of the community does not indicate that the rest of the community are not interested in participation. It may be due to the process of participation or a design fault in engaging people which may make it difficult for groups, such as migrant groups, to participate (Syme & Nancarrow, 1992).

Involving representative community groups in the planning process, particularly in multi-cultural societies, has been regarded as a challenge from many aspects. But it is recurrently advocated for the quality of the planning outcome and for its sustainability (Cameron, Mulligan & Wheatley, 2004; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996). There are several studies which note one common theme; which is, that the inclusion of young adults or different age groups in any planning or development program not only increases the quality of the outcome but also provides a sense of ownership which helps to reduce vandalism, minimises costs, reduces crime, increases safety and protects the local environment (Asam u, 2004; Manzi & Smith-Bowers, 2005).

So how to bring about the representation of the cross-section of the community into the planning process? Some researchers have advocated a questionnaire survey to be used as a 40 supplementary method of bringing forward a community’s views of the participation process (Golobic & Marusic, 2007; Olsson, 2008; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). Acknowledging the limitations of questionnaire survey such as: not providing a full understanding of the reason for the community’s views, missing some groups of the communities, sometimes limited usefulness of the information or statistical average of the expressed individual’s preference and bringing ambiguous or stereotypic information or superﬁcial preference or values (Golobic & Marusic, 2007; Miller, 1988), these studies indicate that a questionnaire survey, as a part of participation, can provide an important insight into a community’s social structure, attitudes, and value orientations and thus help planners to prepare more user-conscious proposals. Compared to direct involvement it has the advantages of reaching a large spectrum of the population of a large area and giving an opportunity to the participants in the absence of face-to-face power-relations (Olsson, 2008). But it is recommended to remember that the survey technique should be used as a supplementary technique with others.

Conventional techniques, such as a written invitation to join the consultative forum are not enough to include different groups in the planning process. Some studies argue that representative interests should be found, instead of involving all stakeholders (Hodge, 1998). Others suggest ﬁnding key individuals from migrant communities and the need for a culturally appropriate way to enable community groups to participate (Cameron et al., 2004). Hiring multicultural workers to translate materials and to target ethno-cultural groups through direct and personal contact is also recommended, but there has been some concerns expressed in relation to program costs. Steps that have been recommended to ensure the representation of the cross section of the society in participation process are: ensuring personal contact, providing extensive translations, offering workshops offered in languages other than English, providing training for planning staff about multicultural and diversity issues and involving community members in the implementation phase to work as watchdogs or to relay the community’s concerns back to the team (Sandercock, 1997; Ueysugi & Shipley, 2005).

There are a number of experiments in the literature about using the web or internet in community participation (Brabham, 2009; Bugs, Fonts, Huerta & Painho, 2010; Craig, 1998; Howard & Gaborit, 2007; Rinner & Bird, 2009;). These studies suggest that virtual technology can be used to cover the limitations of traditional methods (Howard & Gaborit, 2007). It has the scope to avoid some of the pitfalls of face-to-face participation, such as the difficulties when 41 interacting with various officials at the planning table, as the internet provides the option of anonymity as well as the absence of body language, identity politics and inter-personal power dynamics (Craig, 1998). It can also initiate a crowd-sourcing model by the government to include public opinion (Brabham, 2009), and make available GIS mapping technology (Bugs et al., 2010). However, these web/internet-based technologies are limited to a society’s educated or comparatively younger groups. These techniques do not seem compatible for the inclusion of marginalised people; for instance, economically disadvantaged groups, Aboriginal or less educated people. Different types of civil society organisations are also seen to bring out different groups of communities to take part in urban development issues, such as housing, the public service, infrastructure and thus strengthening the representation in planning decisions (Islam & Mahjabeen, 2003; Alfasi, 2003). The concern is NGOs, community based organisations and voluntary organisations do not represent the public voice. Although they sometimes want to demonstrate that they are negotiating on behalf of the public, their representations have not been made through a democratic process (Alfasi, 2003). In most of the cases, civil society organisations represent what their perception is of the urban issues, not the voice of the communities. c) Transparency: Transparency in the participation process and the outcomes of participation is an important factor (Barnes, Skelcher, Dalziel, Jefferes & Wilson, 2008; Cowell, 2004; Illsley, 2003). An investigation of a community participation process in the Downsview land base in the north of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, reveals that community groups expect the full disclosure of relevant information and they tend to be suspicious when information is withheld. At the same time, communities also expect their opinion to be listened to and taken into account when they are asked for opinions (Illsley, 2003). Cowell (2004) noted that the success of community participation varies according to the culture, using evidence that Norwegians are more prone to participate because of their general culture of transparency. d) Knowledge: Several studies raised limiting factors for community groups understanding of planning issues and emphasised the need of providing them with relevant resource or training. Paul Maginn (2007) questioned the deliberate democratic process where it is expected that all the participants will share equal levels of knowledge and understanding. In analysing the community participation process in urban planning in Western Australia, he argued that it is not possible or even desirable that the ordinary citizens, including Indigenous Australians, non-English-speakers 42 and young people; who took part in the community forum were able to understand the published discussion papers covering the planning issues. He emphasised the empowerment of these community groups by providing resources and enough time to develop sufficient understanding. This is consistent with the findings of Adomokai and Sheate (2004) in their study of Environmental Impact Assessment Projects where they explained the necessity of communities to see and understand what and how they have contributed throughout the participation process and thus increase the involvement of community groups in the projects. To participate meaningfully, communities should be aware of some basic background information. Adomokai and Sheate (2004) identified these in three categories: the general knowledge of the importance of the plan or environment, to understand the major impacts of the development in the plan and its effects and knowledge about legal matters. They argued that community knowledge about these three things does not need to be at the same standard as that of professionals, but when communities have a sound understanding of the principles their chance of meaningful participation will increase.

Community groups are often co-opted in the planning process because they are less articulate, have limited relevant knowledge or expertise, limited resources in term of financial capacity, communication, limited communication, such as fewer opportunities to speak to planning officials and do not caring political favour. Sometimes special interest groups with their charts, maps, empirical evidence and expert advice make it difficult for non-experts in community groups to participate meaningfully (Hibbard & Lurie, 2000). This is supported by the findings of community groups’ unfamiliar and intimidating feelings while participating due to the bureaucratic environment and technical language spoken (Bailey, 2010). Bailey questioned the practicability of the concept that a local community will be empowered when much the stronger, external forces which are creating agendas, time frames, inequalities and disadvantages are not addressed. Although the co-optation of the community might occur in the name of rationality, expertise or scientific knowledge, the purpose it serves is primarily the interest of capital (Brody, 2003; Flyvjberg, 1996; 1998; Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; March, 2010; McGuirk, 2001). e) Planning profession and bureaucracy: Limited time and the attitude of professional planners towards the capacity of community groups are factors which sometimes act as barriers for community groups to participate meaningfully. Most of the time community forums are held only once or twice throughout a planning process. This gives only a minimal opportunity for community groups to engage in meaningful argumentation (Maginn, 2007; Searle, 2006). 43 Sometimes participants’ views are not taken into account because of the planners’ perception of themselves as the representatives of consensual public interest coupled with the fact that the community’s views represent diversified interests and class positions and are often conflicting. This is because of the nature of the planning process where planners decide how much time to allot to the official channels of participation, whether to ignore the opinions presented and how to balance them against other interests (McGuirk, 1994). This makes the participation process rhetorical and as an illusionary. Sometimes the purpose of the process is to enhance social cohesion and local identity rather than the inclusion of local knowledge or information into decision-making (Goodland, Paul & Jacquil, 2005). In environmental management, the importance of early participation has been emphasised to (meaningfully) engage communities (Adomokai & Sheate, 2004). This is consistent with the findings in urban planning practices that the active participation of stakeholders from the beginning of the process increases trust, understanding and support for policies (Duane, 1997; Durum & Brown, 1999; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 1997).

In dealing with the implications of communicative planning theories in practice, planners face a number of issues which indicate the irrelevant and unrealistic nature of the theory (Listerborn, 2007; March, 2010; Olsson, 2008). In another way it can be said that performing the complex tasks to ensure an effective communicative planning practice is impossible for planners in the real world (Flyvbjerg, 1996; 1998; Forester, 1989, 1999a; Hillier, 1998, 2002; McGuirk, 2001). As Listerborn (2008) argued from ﬁndings of her study of a Swedish planning system, despite the assumption in communicative planning theory of citizens being eager to participate and willing to take the initiative, in practices the situation is opposite. By studying the participation of women in a disadvantaged neighbourhood of Sweden, she argued that this type of planning leads to a ’complicated’ and ’morally contestable’ situation, where women’s participation in the planning process is sometimes one type of manipulation, while there is the already-made decisions (p. 65). She indicates ﬁrstly, the complexity of the contradictory relationships between the community groups and the planners, secondly, the contradictory relationships amongst the planners themselves, and thirdly, institutional limits, norms and practices. Given this complexity, while involvement in neighbourhood planning is a realistic ambition, Olsson (2008) questioned the idea of the active and direct involvement of communities in infrastructure planning and planning issues of national interest.

44 Communicative planning theory, in the context of the Australian planning system, is found to be irrelevant (March, 2004). Drawing from the examples of the statutory planning practices of Victoria, March (2004) argued that planners have very little scope to apply the communicative planning idea, as most of the opportunities available for communities to participate are submissions, lodging objections, lobbying councillors, speaking at council meetings, and making formal submissions to panel hearings. As a result, in the absence of the dialogue or interactive communication, everyone uses the existing rules for their own interests without caring about consensus. This is how, in the name of participation, the rules and regulations of planning are being used as every stakeholder’s ’self-interest’ instead of the collective interest. Achieving effective community participation out of reach in this context. f) Power relations: The issue of power relations is one of the most significant issues in community participation in planning practice. The main purpose of communicative planning is to involve all stakeholders, including the poor, minorities and marginalised peoples’ views, into the dialogues and deliberation for policy decisions. Issues of power relations (as explained in Section 2.3.3) and the argument that the powerful stakeholders dominate the weaker stakeholders during the process is more prominent in the context of community participation in planning. The power variation between the already established or validated knowledge and the tacit knowledge in the deliberative planning process, and the failure to combat this power issue in implications of communicative planning theory has been explored by the case of the redrafting of the Development Control Plan (DCPs) in Newscastle, NSW, Australia (McGuirk, 2001). McGuirk argued that this power variation has not been acknowledged in communicative planning theory. Despite the genuine effort of the planning officer’s encouragement and the enhancement of social collaboration and deliberation, the interaction of the participants in the process was continuously shaped by the instrumental rationality and the traditional way of relying on professional or expert knowledge. As a result, the participants were trapped within conventional institutional and political surroundings and rules. Using Flyvbjerg’s power, knowledge and rationality nexus, McGuirk argued that the difference of power between actors whose knowledge/rationality forms are already validated and those actors whose knowledge/rationality forms are not yet proved or established, like local knowledge, could not converge into a common ground and finally the expert knowledge won and thus input from the weaker stakeholders, such as local community groups, was co-opted.

45 This notion of a conflict of power and using scientific/expert knowledge as a manipulative tool to impose a government’s view on the community is consistent with the study of building a motorway tunnel stack in a residential area of Sydney (Lahiri-Dutt, 2004). The study showed the conflict of the two different types of knowledge of the two groups: citizens’ preference and the knowledge of the experts. To reinforce the Government’s position an expert’s opinion was used as a reference to subvert the community’s views as well as to maintain legal compliances. Here the reference of science is used as a mask of power.

In focusing these power relation gaps in communicative planning theory Flyvbjerg (2002; 2004) forwarded the idea of phronetic planning based on the work on power of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Foucault. This type of planning approach does not have any ﬁxed methodology nor does it present an ideal example of such work; it is an analytical tool. It focuses the analysis of planning practice by posing four questions:

1. Where are we going?

2. Who gains and who loses, by which mechanisms of power?

3. Is this development desirable? and

4. What should be done?

According to Flyvbjerg these questions can be answered in different ways, depending on the situation. To overcome the likely domination of articulate groups in the meeting or the domination of expert knowledge over the lay knowledge, as mentioned above, some studies suggest a combination of traditional methods for involving laypersons with the drawing response option. In this process respondents’ written opinions and their cognitive maps are transformed into suitable models. The practice of capturing the existing local knowledge should be interactive and participatory, where solution is sought through consensual communication. The ﬁndings from a land use planning study in Slovenia (Golobic & Marusic, 2007) where several tools, already recognised within spatial and/or participatory planning, such as public surveys and participatory workshops were used, indicate the approach as a promising route towards establishing a common language between experts and the public. But the approach seems not to be viable in resource constrained situations where the application of internet based techniques are not always possible.

46 g) Accountability and inclusion: Failure to include local communities (and their views in the final decisions) in the planning system and in the final outcome is another significant issue for planning practitioners (Chettiparamb, 2007; MacCallum, 2008; McGuirk, 2009). Based on two case study findings from Australia, Diane MacCallum argued that communicative planning initiatives have very little effect on the outcome of strategic planning as the outcomes represent only what is instrumentally logical. In converting the inputs of the collaborative process into a logical outcome, the problem of accurate translation had been identified as the main cause for limited reflection of community’s input in the final outcome. She also identified the generic features of the plan act as a barrier for planners and the stakeholders. In her article she analysed how, in both cases, reaching consensus was difficult because of the “generic rationality” of the plan which does not suit the recommendations received in the forum. It is the structure of the process that had “funnelled” the planners towards a conventional solution (MacCallum, 2008; p. 340). So, in both of the cases, despite the inclusion and nominal empowerment of a range of non-traditional actors, the translation problem ultimately led to an outcome similar to traditional planning processes.

The issue of accountability and the translation problem are also highlighted in McGuirk’s study of the Development Control Plan (DCPs) of Newcastle (McGuirk, 2001). It was revealed by the study that at the beginning, after the workshop, the participants’ dispersed inputs were summarised, from which the technical experts start working. The inputs then filtered into a form which is suitable for spatial planning. McGuirk argued that through this filtration process some local knowledge was abandoned for the sake of greater welfare determined by the experts. The inability of current planning processes to adopt the vibrant and multifarious nature of communicative planning practice enhances the dominance of power in the guise of expert/scientific knowledge (McGuirk, 2001; 2008). As clearly indicated:

The dynamic, multiple, and multifaceted nature of claims asserted in deliberative forums (Howitt, 1994) are not easily housed within the linear, compartmentalised logic which underpins institutionalised planning practice and its predominant discourse of expert knowledge (McGuirk, 2001, p. 210 ).

How inputs of community groups can be channelled into the general and abstract objectives of the discipline of planning have been referred to in the literature as “the planning of planning” (Chettiparamb, 2007). Through the study of the People’s Planning Campaign of Kerala, India Chettiparamb, using the theory of autopoiesis (advanced by Niklas Luhmann in social sciences), 47 had shown how the three dimensions—temporal, factual and social—as well as the logic of sequencing - contribute to the structure of planning process through controlling of speciﬁc selections in spatial planning. The study explained that the analysis of the temporal dimension is connected to the past by describing the problems, to the present by collecting information and to the future by providing suggestions. However, here the autopoietic element is communication which seems similar to communicative planning theory; yet, unlike communicative planning theory this approach is planning-centred not planner-centred. By examining the relevance of the concept for public participation in spatial planning, the theory of autopoiesis highlights speciﬁc aspects of public participation to deal with diversity that draws attention to dimensions of planning which are not currently clearly highlighted within mainstream discourses on planning. However, the theory seems too complex to be widely adopted in practice.

Accountability and inclusion are major issues because when community groups find that the outcomes are not in their interest, they are dissatisfied and often resist implementation processes. Many writers argue that participants justify the effectiveness of participation according to the inclusion of their input (e.g. McGuirk, 2009). Empel (2008) indicated that a community’s satisfaction level of their participation depends on the objectives for which they participated. To make community groups eager to participate, he argued for planners’ careful consideration of the community’s objectives in the agendas (Empel, 2008). Moreover, a community’s views are always heterogeneous. The studies on community-based projects demonstrated that local people have multiple views and they rarely speak in one voice which has a negative impact on their influence of the outcome, as identified by the planners (McGuirk, 2009). However, not only do the community’s fragmented views hinder their influence being reflected in the outcome, but they also worsen the situation of social exclusion which affects the planning outcome (Foley & Martin, 2000). h) Apathy and aid dependency: Community apathy to participation is a common issue in community participation practice (Adomokai & Sheate, 2004; Beyazli & Aydemir, 2011; Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Many community members, especially from the less advantaged groups of society, may have apathy to participate because of their belief that there is no benefit or impact of their participation in the planning process or outcome (Foley & Martin, 2000; Bucheker, Hunziker & Kienast, 2003). Sometimes people are engaged in earning their livelihood or are focused on meeting their basic needs. They are often not keenly interested in, or involve to 48 address, planning or environmental issues. It is therefore recommended that economic and social aspects are important in understanding why people participate in environmental planning practice (Adomokai & Sheate, 2004).

The literature suggests that regular communication with communities to build a sense of local ownership, to increase cooperation and to maintain assets helped them develop a sense of social ownership and resident place attachment (Saegert & Winkel, 1996). Place attachment, place identity, and a sense of community are the factors which can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to protect or improve their community and participate in local planning processes (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). The concept of social capital refers to the extent and effectiveness of formal and informal human networks, as well as the impact of social ties on opportunities (Lin, 2000). Notably place attachment and social capital are enhanced through community participation in local planning. Beyazli and Aydemir (2011) examined the factors associated with urban consciousness and its relationship with a community’s interest in participation. It has been found that the factor of “living in the city” has an important role in determining the community’s attitude about participation, urban behaviours and planning. The study emphasised the inclusion of a community’s input in decision making what during planning processes to increase their probability of future participation. The study found that the more people are conscious about their living environment the more they will tend to be involved in consultative actions at planning departments’ hearings or the planning process.

Community participation in developing countries is sometimes different from the above-mentioned issues. Many developing countries are largely dependent on donor agencies for development. Donor agendas thus influence the larger urban planning agenda and the plans. Most of the cities of these developing countries (for example, in South Asia, South America and Africa) are characterised by economic disadvantage due to colonisation and missing out on initial industrialisation which made countries highly dependent on foreign aid. As a consequence, the planning agendas of the cities of developing countries tend to become donor-driven to a significant extent (Khan & Swapan, 2011; Moser, 1989). Hence external financial or technological assistance led urban development projects which might have exacerbated dependency, and also environmental or social damages to the recipient country. Hamdi and Goethert (1997) argued that foreign aid often imposes some strict conditions, for instance hiring the donor’s expert team or theories and technologies might not always be suitable for the 49 recipient country’s planning system and situation.

Moreover, this dependency often drags people towards money, hinders local innovation or the development of alternative solutions for cost effectiveness or resource mobilisation and utilization. Beside this, donor agencies’ speciﬁc policy to allocate the funds on a national level or their prescription of government reform may not ﬁt with the recipient country’s own national agenda or development priorities (Hamdi & Goethert, 1997).

Donor agency’s requirements for higher standard outputs and maintaining a certain level of progress over time could be very difficult for a poor country with its limited financial ability and insufficient organizational capacity. They sometimes have mandatory special clauses to ensure accountability, transparency and public participation which, most of the time, is not possible for the recipient countries due to specific culture, corruption and political pressure. This situation compels city development authorities to showcase false or ineffective participatory mechanisms as part of the planning practice, as shown in the study by Khan and Swapan (2011) based on the planning practices of South Asian cities. The community participation exercise then is to inform people of decisions which have already been made without their input. This type of community participation sits on the lowest rung of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Khan & Swapan, 2011). It resembles the community participation scenario of developed countries where community participation is performed to maintain the legitimisation of the policy, and therefore becomes tokenistic. The difference is that participation in developing countries is to meet the requirements of donor agencies whereas in developed countries, it is ticking the box to make the plan legal.

The issues of effective community participation in urban planning practice found in the above mentioned literature review is summarised in Table 2.3 with the issues, factors, and suggestions related to community participation in urban planning. It focuses on the research questions of the current thesis.

50 Community participation in Reasons identiﬁed in the liter- Suggestions noted in the liter- Urban planning ature ature Purpose of participation is legit- Privileged position of devel- Providing opportunities at the imisation only opment interest; Opportunities beginning provided in advanced stage,

Not bringing in a cross-section Opportunities not compatible Questionnaire survey to reach of the society. to cater for less-educated, out to a broader community; marginalised people Translation of the materials, Us- ing different techniques Lack of transparency in the pro- Not providing sufficient infor- Providing sufficient/authentic cess mation; Not considering the information Emphasis on plan- community views; Withholding ner’s ethical aspects and the information openness of the process Limited time-frame and attitude Conflicting views of community Conducting community partici- of planners groups pation exercises once or twice in the whole process; Providing more opportunities and starting CP at the beginning of the process. Irrelevance of communicative Conducting community partici- No specific suggestion identified planning theory in practice pation exercise only by submissions or public hearings; No opportunity for dialogue and communication in statutory planning practices; Using the opportunities for stakeholder self- interest instead of betterment of the whole society Civil society organisations par- Community groups not organ- No specific suggestion identified ticipate but do not represent pub- ised; Community groups not ac- lic voice tive Power dominance in the guise of Marginalised position of com- Asking four questions (Phro- rationality, expertise and scien- munities; Community group’s netic planning) (Flyvbjerg, tific knowledge limited access to resources and 2002;2004); Combination understanding about planning is- of traditional methods (e.g., sues; Community group’s lim- survey) and communicative ited capacity to articulate and techniques; carefully facilitated lobby meeting and group process Problems in translating commu- Linear structure of the planning Sequenced structure of plan- nity input in the final outcome system; Conventional rules and ning using temporal, factual systems used for communicative and social dimensions (using method theory of autopoesis) (Chetti- paramb, 2007); Engaging community groups in an interactive and parallel process of information collection, analysis, sorting, choosing or monitoring throughout the planning process Community dissatisfaction Communities’ views not re- Inclusion of community views in about the outcome flected in the outcome the planning agendas along with genuine consideration of the inputs 51 Community apathy to partici- Community members believe Increasing urban consciousness pate that there is no benefit in par- by providing information Inclu- ticipating; Participation does not sion of community’s input into get priority for communities decision making among other activities

Table 2.3: Synthesis of ideas from the literature about planning and participation (Source: Synthesis of literature review)

2.6 Key elements of effective participation: An analytical framework

Three important elements have been identiﬁed as crucial to measure the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning: representation, accountability and empowerment. A growing body of literature on community participation highlights it as the process of sharing decision making power among communities or bringing empowerment to communities (Arnstein, 1969; IAP2, 2007b; Nelson & Wright, 1995). Participation is also seen as a process of bringing a cross section of community groups into the decision making process (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Ribot, 1996) and it can also be a vehicle for ensuring downward accountability to communities (Crook & Manor, 1998; IAP2, 2007a; Mahwood, 1983). These three elements have been used as evaluative constructs in this thesis, the details of which have been included in this section.

The above discussion of issues in community participation clearly indicates that there is a need to analyse the effectiveness of that participation in a different light. But first it is important to distinguish between community participation and stakeholder participation because of the heterogenic and ever changing nature of community and the limited capacity of many weaker socio-economic groups (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Ikeda, 2009). As in other fields of study like natural resource management (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Ribot, 1999) or in health studies (McQueen, 2001), the notion of community is much analysed. But no such attempt has been identified in the discipline of urban planning. In addition, the effectiveness of community participation has not been investigated. Some previous studies assess stakeholder participation according to the ladder of participation, predominantly Arnstein’s model (Choguill, 1996; Hart, 1997; McCoy & Vincent, 2007), sustainability criteria (Lyons, Smut & Stephens, 2001), and community group interests, expectations and representations (Brody, 2003; McComas, 2001; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). Some studies focus on inclusiveness, empowerment, satisfaction

52 level or mutual learning based on communicative planning theory (Cameron & Johnson, 2004; Empel, 2008; McCaullum, 2008). However, there is a very limited understanding that guides us, precisely, on how to engage communities in urban planning process in an effective way. Clearly there is a strong call to investigate the effectiveness of community participation in the urban planning process (Horelli, 2002; March, 2010; McGuirk, 2001; Neuman, 2000). In previous studies some evaluative criteria have been developed but they rarely cover both the normative and practical goals of urban planning and the potential of community participation to meet these goals.

Then, the important question is - how can the effectiveness of community participation be evaluated? From the discussions in this the last several sections it is clear that community groups’ empowerment cannot be achieved without their representation. However, representation and empowerment need downward accountability to be operated in practice. For this thesis it is hypothesised that effective community participation must empower local communities, particularly disadvantaged community groups within the community; and this empowerment must meet at least two basic requirements: a) the representative participation of local communities in the participation process, and b) the accountability of government agencies towards the local community. In this thesis, I evaluate the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning considering both normative and practical aspects of planning. Then the important questions are how can we evaluate effectiveness of community participation and what is the conceptual framework by which this task can be done. The synthesis of the theories of planning and participation, and the empirical studies highlighted three critical component of effective participation: empowerment, representation and accountability. These three components provide a conceptual framework for this study and are discussed below. a. Empowerment The idea of empowerment in the participation process as identified in the ladders/spectrum of participation is explained as community groups a) having control over the decision and the project, b) when community groups share the decision making power and/ or c) when there is shifting of powers to communities (Arnstein, 1969; IAP2b, 2007; Nelson & Wright, 1995). It is defined by Rappaport (1987) as “a mechanism by which people, organizations and communities gain mastery over their affairs” (p. 122). However, using empowerment as a measure to assess participation is difficult in practice. The concept’s multi-dimensional meaning and explanation make it problematic (Bailey, 2010; Savini, 2011). 53 One of the widely used methods of assessing empowerment is through the distinction between participation as a means and participation as an end (Moser, 1989; Nelson & Wright, 1995). As stated by Moser (1989, p.3): Where participation is interpreted as a means it generally become a form of mobilisation to get things done. This equally can be state directed, top down mobilisation (sometimes enforced) to achieve specific objectives, or bottom up voluntary community based mobilisation to obtain a larger immediate share of resources. . . .Where participation is defined as an end the objective is not a fixed quantifiable development goal but a process whose outcome is an increasingly “meaningful” participation in the development process. On the contrary, it is argued that means and ends cannot be separated as the means influence the ends (Empel, 2008; Hung, Shirakaya-Turk & Ingram, 2011; Savini, 2011). Innes and Booher (1999) also suggested that process and outcome should not be separated because if a good outcome is based on a process that is not regarded as fair, open, inclusive and accountable, it will not get support from the community and will not sustain. In addition to this, it seems to mislead researchers to focus excessively on the decisions rather than on process (Savini, 2011).

The characteristics of empowerment can be traced through the objectives of empowerment identiﬁed as:

a providing information to enable people to voice their opinion in policies

b improving the quality of local decision making through incorporation of local knowledge

c engaging users in local services and thus improving the responsiveness

d engaging local people in local democratic process and renewing civil society and e) transferring the direct and indirect powers to residents and recipients (Bailey, 2010)

. These objectives are overlapping and increasingly promoted by the other scholars. However, from the literature it has been summarised that empowerment can be measured as:

a sharing decision making power,

b building capacity,

c building conﬁdence,

d incorporating participant’s inputs in decision making and

e the encouraging a sense of ownership over the project.

These points are elaborated below.

54 The relationship of sharing of decision-making power and empowerment has been elaborated in the section 2.4.1. Capacity building has been conceptualised in disciplines such as development studies as an essential part of empowerment which will enable community groups to respond to the challenges of political and economic situations (Kakumba, 2010). Scholars argue that capacity building as empowerment because it is a process of development of assets and capabilities of individuals and groups to engage, influence, and hold accountable the authorities that affect them (e.g. Bennet, 2002). Some researchers used the concept of empowerment to detonate a citizen’s capacity to pursue their life and livelihood by means of three different types of power: social (opportunities to access to social organisations, financial resources and information), political (opportunities for decision-making) and psychological (an individual sense of potency) (Firedmann, 1992). Capacity building also includes developing confidence in the participant’s own capacities (Wallerstein, 2006). Narayan (2002, p. 14) claimed that empowerment requires a process through which people’s freedom of choice and action is expanded to enable them to have more control over the resources and decisions that affect them. However, developing local skills and knowledge, informing participants and building confidence are the components of empowerment identified here, all of which enhance capacity building.

Some scholars perceive empowering processes as skills development through providing opportunities for people to work with others, learn decision-making skills, and manage resources (Bennet, 2002; Schulz, Israel, Zimmerman & Checkway, 1995; Zimmarman, 2000). Providing or sharing information has been identiﬁed as a vital component in empowerment. As many studies suggest, when citizens and civil society become better informed they organise countervailing powers as new mechanisms to exert inﬂuence (Burg, 2004; Friedmann, 1992). As Forester (2008, p.301) argued: We need to know not only what parties say, but if they learn anything, and if they can act differently to satisfy their and others’ interests as a result...... We need to know not just how understanding and relationships develop, if they do, and not just how arguments are made, if they are substantiated or refuted or considered by anyone at all...

Studies on the participation process in environmental projects often argue that communities sense of ownership acts as an important part of empowerment because it leads towards the willingness of communities to care about the environment and improve their participation in the decision making process (Clarke & Ageyemen, 2011; Evans & Percy, 1999). Choguill (1996) developed a ladder of participation for developing countries where the bottom level of the ladder, 55 he assigned as self management which contrasts with empowerment in regards to getting governmental support even if government is opposed to the position. Drawing on cases from Pakistan, Columbia and Turley, Choguill argued that sometimes when community development projects are conducted with an NGO or with independent ﬁnancial support, people take the initiative, which inﬂuences the process and outcome. Here, communities have ownership over the project and they are self managed, which is somewhat similar to empowerment.

For this thesis, based on above discussion, the criteria to measure local community empowerment are meeting one or more conditions below by which a local community group is:

a sharing decision-making power,

b inﬂuencing the process and the outcome,

c decisions reﬂecting and incorporating the community input

d sharing authentic and sufﬁcient relevant information

e developing participant’s knowledge and skills, and

f encouraging participants’ conﬁdence/satisfaction and sense of ownership over the plan or the project.

The above criteria are not meant to be exhaustive, but only to capture some of the most relevant aspects of empowerment of local community groups in planning practice in the context of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. b. Representation The representation of different groups of communities is another essential requirement for effective participation. Representation is defined in this thesis as people having a significant voice in public policy decisions that affect their future. It is considered a key element of empowerment and that the concepts of representation and empowerment are interrelated (Blair, 2000). The literature suggests that representation is a pre-requisite for empowerment, whereas without empowerment and with only the representation no fruitful change is possible (Blair, 2000; Kakumba, 2010). Discussing democratic local governance and the benefits for community groups, Blair (2000) provided the relationship as shown in Figure 2.4:

56 Figure 2.4: Relationship between representation and empowerment (the indicates ’increase in’) → (Source: Blair, 2000)

For effective participation, in other words, to achieve the objectives of participation, it is vital to ask first: “who is participating?” The representation of targeted population in a community participation process determines the extent to which participation really is effective community participation (Moser, 1989). A participation process without the representation of different groups from a cross-section of the society fails to address the expected democratic and sustainable outcomes identified in several studies (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Mawhood, 1983; Ribot, 1996; 2002). This concurs with the idea suggested in studies that community participation exercises maintain the status quo but the outcomes do not reflect the community’s views and aspirations. This is because of the failure to bring forward the cross section of the community groups in the participatory process (Gray et al., 2001; Lane et al., 2004). The notion of communicative planning theories also strongly emphasises the diverse interests and the provision of opportunity to reflect these interest in decision-making (Brand & Graffikin, 2007; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996).

While the representation of a cross section of the local community in the planning process is strongly supported in the literature, there are opposite views as well. In regards to representing all stakeholders in the planning process, some studies argue that this might increase the likelihood of plan implementation but not necessarily lead towards a better quality outcome. Brody (2003) indicated that in some cases broad stakeholder representation is not necessarily beneﬁcial, and could even be detrimental to plan quality (Brody, 2003). The study recommends selecting key stakeholders to improve the quality of the plan rather than the inclusion of large numbers of stakeholders. This indicates the dilemma planners have when linking the deliberative process with their desired outcome or implementation. Yet, it is generally accepted that representation of diverse communities in the decisions is crucial to achieve fair and sustainable planning outcomes.

Ensuring all stakeholders’ inclusion in the dialogues and bringing forward a cross section of the society is one of the challenging tasks of the planning process. In the case of community

57 participation, community groups are diversiﬁed in nature which might refer to demographic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability but also includes the diversity of knowledge, skills and opinions (Hill & Moore, 2000). One of the major causes of failing to represent a cross section of community groups in the planning process is ignoring the concept of community on a wider scale (Lane et al., 2004). Sometimes NGOs and voluntary associations act on planning issues as if they represent the public’s voice, but they normally are not formed through democratic electoral processes and hence they should not be mistaken for public representatives (Alfasi, 2003). The NGOs and voluntary associations actually represent what they think public interest is, which is not necessarily conﬁrmed by the public.

Lane et al. (2004) suggested a number of options to avoid this problem in community-based environmental planning: a) avoiding romanticising the community to clear the concept of the diversity of actors; using a flexible definition of “community” on the basis of its observable characteristics b) embracing rather than avoiding difference (e.g., difference of gender, class, ethnicity or other sources) c) as well as recognising difference, it is also required to acknowledge the power of the different actors and their potentiality; there should be a facilitation of the expression of views from all interests d) avoiding privileging actors at the local scale and e) conflict and conflict resolution must be a part of community based environmental planning. There should be maintenance of a clear conflict resolution capacity for mediating between diverse and competing actors. That formal institutions, especially in potential conflicting situations, should act as mediators and bring the values and interests of different actors from a wide scale to the front, has been suggested as a better option. However, a number of other strategies have also been suggested for practical use.

Some studies promote methods like questionnaire surveys, preserving quotas or the selection of key stakeholders as strategies to represent the voice of the cross section of the society, especially those who normally tend to be non-participants. Questionnaire surveys have been advocated to allow a percentage of a large population to represent their voice without the chance of intimidation or co-optation as there are no face to face meetings of the participants (Milbrath, 1981; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). Preserving quotas or reserving places for women or minority groups (Blair, 2000) and selecting key stakeholders who will work on behalf of the community (Brody, 2003) are also advocated. However, it remains a challenge for the planning agencies to ensure the representation of all stakeholders. 58 Different techniques have been used to measure the representation of a cross-section of the population or the representation of stakeholders in the participation process. There are two major strategies identiﬁed:

a measuring or comparing the ratio of a particular group against the total population of the area (Latimar, 1979; Wellstead, Stedman & Parkins, 2003); and

b investigating whether the interests of all stakeholders/groups, particularly disadvantaged groups, have been included in the policy or decision (Dovi, 2009; Mansbridge, 1999).

The ﬁrst one, when representation is measured either by measuring the ratio of a particular group of people with the total population of that particular group in a region or city and the second strategy of representation identiﬁed in literature is to evaluate whether interests of all stakeholders have been included. This second strategy is studied by asking two questions (Dovi, 2009):

i Whose interests need to be considered for fair and just decision? and

ii what are the democratic beneﬁts gained by their representation?

When representation is studied by comparing the demographic or socio-economic variables of participants with the total population, “descriptive representation” is measured. Descriptive representation, according to the seminal work of Pitkin (1967) and later elaborated in Wellstead et al., (2003) is “. . . when representatives take on the same image as their constituents. Under this view, any forum should be an exact miniature of its constituents at large” (p. 3). However, this strategy of measuring representation has been used in several studies either by using a frequency distribution of participants and general population which involves surveys and census data about age, gender, and education, or by the differences that may impose any affect (e.g., afﬁliation to any organization or perceptions about a particular issue) (Gundry & Heberlein, 1984; McComas, 2001). Sometimes representation has been measured by the presence of different stakeholders in the forum (categorising the stakeholders then counting them as a percentage of each category of stakeholder present in the participation process divided by the total number of groups recorded) (Brody, 2003).

For this thesis, the representation of cross section of community groups living in different suburbs of Sydney were measured in both ways: 59 a by comparing the demographic and socio-economic variables of participants of community forums and

b by investigating who participated, who did not, whose voice was heard and why.

Investigating whether disadvantaged groups were included in the process and outcome was of particular importance. c. Accountability The third vital component of the participatory process advocated in theories and supported by many empirical studies is accountability. In decentralised natural resource management, for example, many development projects in developed and developing countries fail to be effective participation of local communities due mainly to the absence of accountability. Accountability is of two types: upward accountability and downward accountability. Upward accountability operates through the administrative hierarchy of the authorities and through organizational arrangements established by a central government, whereas the downward accountability relationship is determined conventionally in the way elected leaders periodically give feedback to their electorates (Currry, 2001; Kakumba, 2010). It is advocated that a participatory process which is downwardly accountable to the local people is likely to produce more effective and democratic results (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; IAP2, 2007a; Lane & Mcdonald, 2005). The concept of downward accountability (Kakumba, 2010): “places a liability and an obligation on public functionaries (elected and appointed ofﬁcials) to give a satisfactory explanation to the public (tax payers) of their exercise of power, authority and the resources entrusted to them”(p.181-2). Sometimes it is referred to as the relationship between public authorities and citizens by which authorities can be called to account of their actions (Mulgan, 2000).

In studies of natural resource management, accountability has been identiﬁed as an essential part of decentralisation and community participation. Several study ﬁndings suggest that unless there is an accountability measure with representation and the devolution of power, any attempt at community-based management or conservation would turn into another channel of the centralisation of power (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Lane et al., 2004; Manin, Adam & Susan, 1999). Although accountability is considered mandatory for community-based environmental management, it is often neglected because of the assumption that community or civil societies are the democratic spheres of social practice (Lane et al., 2004). There might be elite domination or 60 an exploitation of power by local elites which requires an accountability measure to enhance democratic practice. Hence unless there is downward accountability where local people are treated as participants to be listened to and worked with, not subject to be empowered (Curry, 2010; Ribot, 1999), accountability is subject to delivering outcomes that compromise the empowerment of local communities. To establish legislation in favour of downward accountability is strongly recommended by the policy makers for democratic and participatory decision-making. But it is argued that without increasing the capacities of local governments/institutions/communities and institutional practices it would be quite unusual for local governments/authorities to respond to the constituents or the policies (Onyach-Olaa, 2003). To ensure accountability several measures have been suggested along with the recommendation of institutional changes to the traditional bureaucratic system.

The accountability relationship trends in practice often favour upward control systems which are opposed to downward systems. This is because citizens have limited means to hold their leaders to account except in the time of elections (Kakumba, 2010; Kiaga-Nsubuga & Olum, 2009). In the context of realising the paramount importance of downward accountability there is a need to identify the suitable means of ensuring downward accountability in environmental governance or planning. In literature there are number of means proposed in various studies; the most commonly cited being election. The non-electoral mechanisms mentioned in the literature are: recall, referenda, legal resource through the courts, third-party monitoring by the media, NGOs or independently elected controllers, auditing and evaluation, political pressure and lobbying; media/NGO provision of information on the roles and obligations of the government; public local government reporting requirements or reviewing, providing sufﬁcient and authentic information education, central oversight of local government, taxation, leader’s integrity with their community, belief system of leaders and their communities, civic dedication, performance awards, widespread participation, social movements and threats of social unrest and resistance (Guyer, 1992; Lane etal, 2004; Moore, 1997; Ribot, 1999). The relationship between different types of political and administrative units both horizontally and vertically levels also help to maintain downward accountability (Blair, 2000; Mamdani, 1996; Oloka-Onyango, 1994). However, it has been emphasised that several methods need to be applied together to ensure downward accountability as no method alone is sufﬁcient.

61 To enhance downward accountability, the first and foremost requirement is free, fair, regularly scheduled elections. This is the most direct mechanism to ensure accountability (Lane & McDonald, 2004). But in between the elections people should be able to indicate their likes, dislikes and their views on specific proposals. There need to be other mechanisms of accountability working simultaneously. Authentic and regular information flow is another component to be ensured here. Regular information flow not only helps to maintain transparency but also empowers community groups to negotiate with government or donor agencies (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). It is the pivotal component of transparency. Comprehensive and easily accessible information ensure openness of the process which requires media accessibility, access to data for community groups (Brommelstroet, 2012). Activities of political parties, an active civil society, the media, public meetings, formal grievance procedures and opinion surveys are a few means which have been tested as successful (to some extent) in ensuring downward accountability, beside elections, in countries, such as the Philippines, Bolivia, India and the Ukrane (Lane & McDonald, 2004). In many cases political parties, especially opposition parties, by providing alternative views and visions act as powerful drivers for ensuring accountability. Civil society can help to achieve accountability by acting as a watchdog or through advocacy for constituents (Islam & Mahjabeen, 2003).

Sometimes public meetings introducing public opinion also help in accountable governance. Grievances against elected ofﬁcials by citizens also act for accountability (e.g. appeals). This is a formal procedure by citizen groups against local governments or planning authorities. Public opinion surveys as instruments for ensuring downward accountability has been proved a successful measure in the Philippines. Notably conducting this type of survey is expensive, especially on a large scale. However, media sponsored public opinion survey might be a better alternative (Lane & McDonald, 2004). Moore (1997) argued for taxation as a means for fostering accountability. He claimed that taxation acts as a shared expectation between state and society. In the case of development projects in developing countries, taxation is the source of power for the State instead of donor agencies (Moore, 1997). In decentralised natural resource management some other additional factors, such as: the embeddedness of the authorities in local communities, the reputation that the local authorities want to maintain, social resistance or the threat of resistance, the reporting requirement about the local government’s meeting or activities, an elected third party controller, information dissemination about responsibilities and authorities

62 from the local government to the local population and education and literacy campaigns have been mentioned (Guyer, 1992; Ribot, 1999; Tendler, 1997; 1998). However, to ensure downward accountability none of these single methods is sufﬁcient. As noted above, it is recommended that more than two methods need to be jointly applied.

In analysing the above points, an important point to be mentioned is that these measures are to ensure downward accountability in local governance or in decentralised natural resource management. But in the process of community participation some of these measures seem not to be suitable, for example, election; but protests by civil society, opinion surveys, legal action for citizen groups or a strong and free media are some of the potential actors in this regard. For this thesis the following inter-linked criteria are used to measure the accountability of the community participation process:

a Access to information and planning rules Here planning rules and regulations should be easily available for communities in comprehensive and legitimate manner. This will ensure transparency and will make community groups aware of the process and activities of the government. It will help to grow democratically active civil society to hold the power holders to be accountable.

b Transparency in decision-making process To ensure transparency of the decision making there should be comprehensive, authentic and legitimate information ﬂow. Presence of democratically active civil society, watchdogs or mass-media are some of the other pre-requisites for this (Mulgan, 2000).

c Public provision of information on performance of government actions this is part of information ﬂow and sharing as mentioned above. This includes provision of information about explanation and justiﬁcation of public authorities’ actions. Besides bare information it also includes continuous open ended dialogue (Harmon, 1995).

d Access to and availability of appeals, grievance against any decision this instruments ensures accountability by constraining power holder authority to comply with public preferences (Day & Kelin, 1987). These can be legislature, courts or statutory authority (Mulgan, 2000).

e Public perception of integrity and free from corruption Public perception about

63 government’s integrity and image is important indicators to assess accountability (Guyer, 1992, Moore, 1997).

Again, the above criteria are not exhaustive – they only capture the most relevant aspects of accountability in the case under investigation in this thesis. Here in community participation the representation of community groups, their empowerment and downward accountability towards them are interrelated. The empowerment of community groups who represent a cross-section of the community yet are not obliged to be downwardly accountable towards the local community cannot bring a democratic outcome. As mentioned: While the transfer of power without accountable representation is a dangerous business, representation without power is empty” (Ribot, 2003, p. 62). In sum, a participatory process which ensures power sharing with community groups, represents a cross section of the society and is accountable towards the participants is likely to result in an effective outcome.

How can the effectiveness of community participation be evaluated: a tabular outline In this thesis the effectiveness of community participation will be evaluated through three criteria of community participation:

1. empowerment,

2. representation, and

3. accountability.

The review of the issues of community participation in urban planning practice in section 2.5 identiﬁed some techniques and strategies to ensure the effectiveness of these criteria. These are summarised in Table 2.4, linking them with the research questions.

64 Elements of effective Measuring effective- Research questions Evaluative questions participation ness of participation Empowerment Opportunities of Does the process Whether and to what participation at the and outcome of par- extent there is: beginning; Engaging ticipation empower community groups local communities, a) sharing of decision in an interactive and particularly poor and making power; parallel process; In- disadvantaged groups? b) influence of com- clusion of community munities in the process input into the decision and outcome; making practice; Main- c)incorporation of taining the quality of community input; interactions to achieve d) participant knowl- trust and consensus; edge and skill develop- Encouraging partic- ment; ipants to gain new e) participant confi- knowledge, informa- dence and satisfaction tion and expertise; f) a sense of ownership Increasing satisfaction over the plan of participants and their ownership over the plan Representation Translation of the ma- Who participated, who a) Whether and to what terials and translators; voiced (who did not extent the demographic Using different tech- participate); and socio-economic niques; Skilled facilita- Why some people variables of the partic- tors; participated and others ipants in community Open process ensuring did not (or could not); forums is represen- equal opportunities for Was there a genuine tative of with people all participants opportunity for the living in the Sydney participation to be region representative of the b) Whether and to what overall population? extent the voices of the Whether and to what disadvantaged groups extent the disad- were included in the vantaged groups of outcome? population genuinely participated? Accountability Providing access to suf- Whether and how does a) access to informa- ficient and authentic in- the input from commu- tion and planning rules; formation; nity groups reflected in b) transparency in To acknowledge and re- the final decision? decision-making pro- spect participants views How it is affected and cesses; why? c) public provision of information on performance of government actions; d) access to and availability of appeals, grievance against any decision and

65 e) public perception of integrity and free from corruption

Table 2.4: Evaluating criteria linking research questions

To evaluate the above criteria of effective community participation a retrospective analysis of the planning process and outcome is essential. The evaluative criteria have been depicted in the above-mentioned table and a diagrammatic presentation of the framework has been displayed in Figure 2.5. In the framework there are three components: empowerment, representation and accountability which will be analysed through participants’ attribute analysis, planning process analysis and outcome analysis.

Participant and their perception analysis: Under this unit, participants’ demographic and socio-economic factors will be analysed in relation to their perceptions of planning process and outcome. For example: age, gender, educational level, income, afﬁliation to any social, political and professional organisation, knowledge and understanding about participation and planning systems, the ability of the participants and their expectations and perceptions about the participation process will be analysed.

Planning process analysis: Here, how the participation exercise was organised, what were the opportunities created for community participation and how it was conducted will be analysed focusing on the opportunity of participation. The term ’opportunity of community participation’ has been used in urban planning literature to denote the channels through which community groups give their input into the planning process, such as: meetings and submissions (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cuthill, 2001; Lane, 2005; McGuirk, 2009). Sometimes it is referred to as ’formal opportunity of community participation’ (McGuirk, 2009) to indicate the ofﬁcial channels of community participation, outlined in policies. Opportunity of participation used in tourism planning has been deﬁned as “. . . the circumstances that allow for and/or facilitate public involvement in the participation process” (Hung et al., 2011, p. 276). However, acknowledging that there might be other opportunities for community groups to be involved in the planning process, this thesis has dealt with the formal opportunities of community participation in planning process as the ’opportunity of community participation’.

66 Figure 2.5: Framework for analysing the effectiveness of community participation

Outcome analysis: The Planning outcome will be analysed focusing on whether the community group’s inputs have been reﬂected in the outcome, whether and to what extent community groups inﬂuenced the outcome.

2.7 Conclusion

This chapter reviews relevant theories and practice of urban planning in relation to community participation. Issues of current planning practice in relation to effective community participation were identiﬁed and discussed. Then analysis of the theories which deal with stakeholder participation in urban planning reveals that the communicative planning theory which is being used as a procedural theory to include local communities in the planning process, is not capable of bringing effective community participation outcomes in urban planning practice.

This is not only due to the community groups being diverse and marginalised, less powerful position among other stakeholders with limited capacity, but also because of the nature of

67 community itself and the nature of the current planning system; the way community participation exercise is organised and conducted. This indicates that to understand the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice it is essential to understand the heterogenic nature of the community, communities’ deep involvement with social relations and context.

It is also important to understand the community’s ability to utilise the opportunities provided in current planning practices along with the unequal power relations, the nature and purpose of participation and institutional context and outcomes. The literature review suggests some evaluative criteria for assessing effectiveness with three basic components of community participation:empowerment, representation and accountability. The next chapter introduces the case “Sydney Metropolitan Strategy” and situates it within urban planning context of Sydney,NSW and Australia.

68 Chapter 3

Contextualising Community Particiption in Sydney’s Planning and Policy

3.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to contextualise the central issue of community participation in the context of urban planning, policy and legislation, with speciﬁc reference to a historical shift of planning policy in Sydney. It is useful to distinguish Sydney’s planning from international, national and State planning practice. As such, a multi-scale policy context is presented here to analyse the question of whether and how these policies intend to, and deliver for, effectiveness community participation in urban planning process, and seek the answer to the question—how is community participation reﬂected in the evolution of planning and policies in Sydney? Here policy analysis is aimed at investigating the constructs of and understanding to, the idea of “representation” of the various community groups, their “empowerment” and downward “accountability”. This analytical approach is widely used for planning policy analysis (as for example, the three Es of policy options) (Berke & Conroy, 2000; Berk, Ericksen, Crawford & Dickson, 2002; Ulltveit-Moe, 2006).

This chapter consists of four sections. Firstly, it starts with the history of community participation in urban planning throughout the world. Secondly, it focuses on community participation in urban planning in Australia. The third section of the chapter provides an overview of the policy shifts in direct and indirect provisions of community participation opportunities in planning practices from 1990 to 2010 in NSW, centring on the “Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005”. The Chapter concludes by identifying the key issues and challenges of current policies in 69 relation to the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practices in Sydney.

3.2 History of community participation in urban planning

The history of community participation in urban planning began in the time of ancient Greek cities (Roberts, 2004). Its presence in middle ages is evidenced with the formation of artisan’s interest groups. In Virginia and New England’s colonial settlements, their own variation of citizen participation was established based on the Magna Carta of 1215, which guaranteed for citizen participation and self-rule for church congregations. New England colonies also held town meetings which was democratic in regards to its form and “neighbourhood oriented” (p. 320). Direct participation of citizens at state and local levels was observed throughout the 19th century and continued up to the third decade of the 20th century when social groups formally participated in government planning processes; for example, voluntary attempts at improving the environment, the “city beautiful” or “slum eradication” movement (Roberts, 2004). By the end of the Second World War, community participation started to receive, at least, paper endorsement in social and economic life. In the US, it was mandated in federal level in the 1954 urban renewal program and the war on poverty in the 1960s.

In environmental planning, community participation was ﬁrst introduced in the “Town and Country Planning” Act in 1968 in the UK, in the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 in the USA, in the Environmental Assessment and Review Process in 1973 in Canada and in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in 1979 in NSW, Australia. Now it is required by Agenda 21 of the United Nations, a comprehensive plan of action, according to which any organisations of the United Nations System, Governments, development agencies, non-governmental organizations and independent sector groups in every area in which human activity impacts upon environment should consult the public before adopting any local or regional plan (United Nations, 2004).

In Agenda 21, the important role of local communities was highlighted in achieving sustainable development by ensuring their participation in decision-making (United Nations, 1993, p. 219). It carries a strong moral obligation to ensure its full implementation, which is to involve communities at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and State governments have legislated, or advised, that local authorities take steps to implement the plan

70 locally as recommended in the Chapter 28: “By 1996 most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on a ‘local Agenda 21’ for the community” (United Nations, 1993, p. 233).

Along with Agenda 21, the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” also was adopted by more than 178 governments at the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992, where Principle 10 clearly emphasises community participation in respect of environmental issues: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate opportunities to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided (UNEP, 1992).

In 1997, the general assembly of the UN held a special session to appraise five years of progress on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). In 2002, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation on World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002), confirmed UN commitment to the “full implementation” of Agenda 21 with other international agreements. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) convention on opportunities for information, public participation in decision-making and opportunities for justice in environmental matters, is known as the Aarhus convention, which was first endorsed in 1998 and later signed by about 40 countries (mainly from Europe and central Asia). The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights regarding the above-mentioned opportunities on matters concerning local, national and trans-boundary environments. It focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities (UNECE, 2010).

However, all these international conventions should have signiﬁcant impact upon every country’s national and local policies to directly or indirectly inﬂuence community participation outcomes. The next section of this chapter describes the Australian context of community participation in urban planning.

3.3 Community participation in Australian urban planning

Australia became a federation in 1901 with six States [of which New South Wales (NSW) is one] and two Territories. There is no over arching federal policy that is directly related to 71 community participation and urban planning in Australia. At the time of federation, as the community participation, planning and environment were not very important issues, the Commonwealth Government was given very few speciﬁc powers on certain issues but community participation and planning were not included in them. Through the 1980s, the Commonwealth’s action on the planning, participation and environment was linked to special powers, under section 51, given by High Court. These are corporation powers, external affair powers, overseas trade and commerce, race relations and taxation powers (Harding, 1998). The Commonwealth also can inﬂuence planning and environmental matters through section 96 of the Constitution, which is concerned with tied grants. The Commonwealth Government can direct the environmental planning programs of the States through these tied grants (Gurran, 2007). As such, land use planning responsibility is primarily a matter dealt with by States and Territories.

The “external affair power” of the constitution of Section 51 allows the Commonwealth Government to inﬂuence the environmental policy of Australia by participating in international treaties, conventions or agreements. Some of the international treaties and agreements which have direct implications on urban environmental planning in Australia are: the World Heritage Convention, the UN Convention on Climate change and Agenda 21. Among these, Agenda 21 largely promoted community participation in planning process, especially at local levels in Australia (Gurran, 2007; Bajracharya & Khan, 2004). The following section analyses NSW State and local level policies in relation to community participation in environmental planning.

3.4 Community participation and urban planning practice in NSW

The main responsibility for the legal framework to govern urban policy and land use planning in Australia is upon States and Territories. Local governments have also been delegated, by the States, a number of duties including some urban planning responsibilities and authorities. But local governments are not created by the Constitution but by the States, under the Local Government Act. Yet, all the States and Territories of Australia now have principal legislation for urban land use planning, which is the “Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979” (EP& A Act 1979) for NSW. It controls the local, state and regional level of land use planning in NSW. Community participation provisions in this Act and in other relevant policies are reviewed in the following sections.

72 3.4.1 NSW planning practice: a historical overview

In NSW, town planning was first introduced through establishment of the ‘Town and Country Planning Advisory Committee’ under the Local Government (Town County and Planning) Amendment Act, 1945 (Toon & Falk, 2003). At first its activities were very limited; restricted to, for example, zoning. Later, pressures from community activists, developer and planning professionals influenced the planning process so that it became more comprehensive, future oriented and goal directed. From this time strong governmental intervention was noticed to ensure collective welfare (Gleeson & Low, 2000). At the same time, the influence of attempts to attract economic investments to facilitate free market economy in planning policies also was observed (Gurran, 2007; Searle, 2004). This was driven by the increasing pressure of globalisation. However, the urban governance of NSW in the 1980s was characterised by three events: the public service reform, connection to economic plan urban planning and Local Government restructuring. The role of public participation was not consistent as it was not on a regular basis or backed by legislation (Gleeson & Low, 2000).

As part of the public service reform, a “Commission of Inquiry” was established in 1977, which was concerned with equal opportunity, worker participation, services for communities, freedom of information and public participation (Gleeson & Low, 2000). In the neo-liberal era of the 1980s, the government was under continuous challenge to control the economic and land markets and private development. Against this backdrop, in 1979, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP& A Act 1979) was adopted and a special appeal court, “The land and environmental court”, was created. The NSW legislative framework, primarily through the EP& A Act, establishes the parameters for land use planning, including the range of matters that can be addressed by statutory land use plans, the processes by which these plans must be made and the matters that must be considered when developments are assessed.

Under the EP&A Act 1979, there are three principal environmental planning instruments (EPIs) which can be adopted and implemented for land use planning in NSW: the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPPs), the Local Environmental Plan (LEPs) and the Development Control Plan (DCPs). EPIs (SEPPs, LEPs and DCPs) can deal with a broad range of issues. The act also allows EPIs to control development, reserve land for public purposes, and provide for the protection of trees, vegetation, native animals and plants (s.26(1)). Other than the

73 environmental planning instruments, there are other sections and directions under the act, such as Section 94 or the 11 Directions which also regulate land use planning.

By establishing the EP& A Act in 1979, there was a new direction in environmental land use planning which emphasised environmental protection, power sharing between the state and local government and public participation (Haigh, 1979). The Act transformed the way in which planning was undertaken by State and Local Governments. It redistributed power between the state and state agencies, between state and local governments and between proponents, the community and individuals. Through the Act, the power of local government was widened and some third party rights were permitted beside community consultation opportunities. It was a progressive legislation when it was adopted, but since then it has been amended many times. It has been argued that these amendments are inconsistent with the EP& A Act’s objectives of promoting shared responsibility for environmental planning between State and Local Governments (Kiely, 2009). Interesting points here to note that these amendments were applied with little change in the structure and intent of community participation. The requirement of community participation is a formality under this Act, and, in most cases, takes the form of a submission invitation or a public hearing. The provisions also do not account for representation, accountability and empowerment. For example, what is meant by community is not deﬁned nor its purpose outlined. Under this Act, referring to what Nelson and Wright (1995) implied, community participation is just an instrument, not a process to empower local communities.

However, there were discontents with the new planning process under the Act because of a lack of transparency (Toon & Falk, 2003). Since the late 1990s, the NSW planning system has undergone a substantial reform called the “Planning reform” and from this time ecological concerns were raised through national and international frameworks. However, one of the main criticisms of the NSW planning system which led to that reform, was its provision of insufﬁcient opportunities for genuine community participation (Gurran, 2007). The reform has been outlined in more detail in the following section.

3.4.2 Planning reforms in NSW since 1990s

As indicated in above discussion, in the late 1970s and 1980s planning systems around the world were under pressure to change by neoliberal reformists. A new ﬂourish of reform was occurring in many planning systems worldwide (Gurran, 2007) driven by the competition for globally 74 mobile capital with an assumption that planning systems must support their cities and regions in competing against other cities and regions with similar property investment markets. As a result, the established planning system often involved reducing, or altogether bypassing, opportunities for local participation in decision-making regarding land use and development (Taylor, 1998). A similar trend is observed in planning reforms of NSW, albeit that a principal objective of the NSW planning reforms was to deliver sustainable development outcomes with public input through participation in the planning process.

The reform agenda focused on strategic planning for growth areas, simplifying and streamlining planning controls, improving development assessment processes and allowing ﬂexibility in the use of developer levies for local facilities and services. However, particular emphasis is put on governance and implementation with the intention to deliver timely and strategic outcomes for NSW across all relevant areas of government responsibility. As part of the reform, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005, called City of the Cities, was adopted by the Department of Planning in 2005 to ensure Sydney’s sustainable growth in next 30 years (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and natural Resources, 2004).

Recently, planning reform has been marked by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008 (NSW), which represents the most signiﬁcant change to the legislative framework for environmental land-use planning in NSW in the past decade. Some of these reforms relevant to this thesis include: a) the standardisation of local plan-making (through the introduction of the Standard Instrument) b) the creation of the capacity to bypass local planning controls for major projects (through Part 3A) and c) changes to local plan-making procedures (the introduction of the Gateway Process) (Smith, 2008). However, it is argued that through the amendments, by reducing or bypassing the role of Local Government in land use planning and development control, a centralisation of power of the State Government is being established (Kiely, 2009; Ghanem, 2008). It is also argued that the amendments are inconsistent with the EP& A Act’s objective of promoting shared responsibility for environmental planning between state and local governments (Kiely, 2009). In regards to community participation, it is revealed that under this recent reform, the opportunities for participation become further uncertain, less transparent, more complex and predominantly dependent on the discretion of the Minister (Lipman & Stokes, 2008) which have been identiﬁed as a return to technocratic approaches to planning (Lipman & Stokes, 2008). The next section details the opportunities of community 75 participation in the current planning instruments of NSW (often called Statutory Planning Instruments), under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.4.3 Statutory planning under EP& A 1979 and community participation

By endorsing the charter of Agenda 21, Australia was obliged to embrace the principle of Local Agenda 21. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 identifies local authorities as the sphere of governance closest to the people and calls upon all local authorities to “consult” with their communities and develop and implement a local plan for sustainability, called “Local Agenda 21” (United Nations, 1993). However, Australia could not meet the charter’s principle by 1996. Later, a number of state level initiatives were adopted to support sustainable development and Local Agenda 21 was prepared by councils throughout Australia (Bajrachrya & Khan, 2004; Gurran, 2007). In NSW it is reflected in various legislative changes, such as its enforcement through the Local Government Act 1993 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which ultimately affect the policies of local councils. Community participation is identified in Section 5, point (c) of the objectives of the Act. This objective is: “to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment” (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, section 5).

Separate requirements for community participation have been speciﬁed for environmental planning instruments. The opportunities for community participation opportunities outlined in the EP& A Act 1979 are depicted in the following sections with examples from current planning instruments, such as the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) and Strategic Planning Policies. a. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) SEPPs are place based or issue based policies prepared by the NSW Department of Planning (Gurran, 2007). A SEPPs might be applied to the entire State and be able to override LEPs (s36 EP& A Act 1979), according to the matter addressed. The process of creating a SEPPs is established as a standard process in Part 3 of the EP& A Act 1979. In that process, community consultation is required after preparing a draft for the Department of Planning for Minister’s consideration and before approval is given. A diagrammatic presentation of the SEPPs adoption process is provided in Figure 2.1. Here, it can be seen that, in the process, community consultation only occurs in the form of submission invitation and only if the Minster decide to exhibit the plan. If the plan is exhibited, submissions 76 are considered and where appropriate, amendments are made. After that, the Governor of NSW approves it and it is gazetted (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Community participation opportunities in LEPs (Source: EP& A Act 1979; Depart- ment of Planning 2009a)

Here opportunity for community participation is uncertain. Because if the Minister does not consider the draft SEPPs requires exhibition and approves it, it goes directly to the Governor and is ﬁnalised without community input. As stated in the act: Before recommending the making of an environmental planning instrument by the Governor, the Minister is to take such steps, if any, as the Minister considers appropriate or necessary: a to publicise an explanation of the intended effect of the proposed instrument, b to seek and consider submissions from the public on the matter (s38 EP& A Act 1979). 77 It does not mention on what basis the requirement of consultation will be decided. This provision does not specify what is meant by the word “public” or what the purpose of this consultation is. The heterogenic concept of community is absent here which means submission is the only opportunity for all sections of the community to give their input. There is also no provision for informing the communities about their inputs.

Beside the above mentioned opportunity a special consultation procedure has also been speciﬁed with other relevant departments but not with local communities proposing a SEPPs and when the plan concerns threatened species (s34A EP& A Act 1979). It is mentioned as: Before an environmental planning instrument is made, the relevant authority must consult with the Director General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water if, in the opinion of the relevant authority, critical habitat or threatened species, population or ecological communities, or their habitats, will or may be adversely affected by the proposed instrument (s34A EP& A Act 1979).

Here, no consultation is required by the act with the local community people in this special situation. In regards to the three components of effective community participation: empowerment, representation and accountability, analysis reveals that the provisions of the SEPPs cannot ensure effective participation. The opportunities for participation speciﬁed in developing a SEPP, are very much top-down, tokenistic and insufﬁcient, as well as uncertain. This is because:

a It entirely depends on the Minister to decide whether community consultation will need to occur (or not occur). If the Minister does not feel the need for such consultation, the plan is without community input. This implies that the decision making process is top-down as any consideration for community participation in the decision making process is largely determined by the Minister.

b The act does not provide speciﬁc guidance on the determinants by which community consultation is required (or not required).

c If the Minister considers that the draft needs community consultation, it is only through exhibition and submission. As such there is no provision for face-to-face meetings which are crucial for receiving direct community input and which create mutual learning, trust and ownership of the plan.

d There are no provisions/steps identiﬁed to ensure a representation of the cross section of the community. 78 e If the exhibition of the proposed plan is considered necessary, there is no further requirement as to how it should be conducted and what is the required time period for exhibition;

f Although it is required by the Act to consider all the submissions and to amend the draft plan if necessary, there is no provision for feedback to communities neither in the form of a written report nor through a meeting. b. Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) are the main planning instrument at the local government level in NSW. They guide planning decisions for Local Government areas. Through zoning and development controls, they allow councils and other relevant authorities to manage the ways in which land is used. These are normally prepared by the Councils and act as an overarching planning strategy for a local region. Local Councils have the authority to include localised planning objectives and provisions specific to their area, as well as to determine zoning, additional land uses, heritage items and development standards, such as height and minimum lot sizes (Department of Planning, 2006). But the Minister of Planning has the ultimate authority to overrule local councils and direct the making of a LEPs on its behalf (s53, EP& A Act 1979) which indicates centralisation of power instead of decentralisation. However, community consultation has been specified to be taken place for the creation of LEPs. As identified in the Act: Before consideration is given to the making of a local environmental plan, the relevant planning authority must consult the community in accordance with the community consultation requirements for the proposed instrument (s57(1) EP& A Act 1979). There is a condition that prior to any community consultation, approval must be obtained from the Minister in the form of a “gateway determination” (s56 EP& A Act 1979). This determination might detail the requirements related to community engagement. In a gateway determination, the specific provisions for community participation are:

After a review of the planning proposal, the Minister is to determine the following: (c) community consultation is required before consideration is given to the making of the proposed instrument ( “the community consultation requirements”), (e) whether a public hearing is to be held into the matter by the Planning Assessment Commission or other speciﬁed person or body (s57(5) and s57(6) EP& A Act 1979).

Holding public hearing depends on “gateway determination” and then it is designed to be held in latter stages of the LEPs making process (see Figure 3.2). The minimum requirements for

79 community consultation are: The draft LEPs should be publicly available during the community engagement period. As speciﬁed in the act: The planning proposal (as revised to comply with the determination under section 56 and in a form approved by the Director-General is to be made publicly available during the period of community consultation (s57(2)EP& A Act 1979). Any person must be given the opportunity to make a written submission. According to the act it is: During the period of community consultation, any person may make a written submission to the relevant planning authority concerning the matter (other than any matter that is mandatory under an applicable standard instrument under section 33A (s57(3)EP& A Act 1979). Opportunity for participation is only limited to submissions here. Besides these provisions, the following must take place if considered necessary: All submissions or a report on submissions should be publicly available if a person making a submission so requests. A report of the public hearing is to be supplied to the relevant planning authority and might be made publicly available by that authority.

The steps involved in LEPs making, identifying the required steps for creating community participation opportunities, are depicted in Figure 3.2. A detailed guideline for conducting community consultation is limited in the Act, whilst a further guideline can be found in a secondary document named “Local Plan Making: A guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans” published by Department of Planning (Department of Planning, 2009). But this document is not referenced in the legislation and as such is not a legal requirement. Despite this, the minimum exhibition period determined for LEPs is provided in this guideline is 14 days for a low impact proposal and the maximum period is 28 days for all other proposals.

After the submission has been received and considered by the planning authority, the LEPs is forwarded to the Department of Planning. The planning authority can modify the LEPs where they believe necessary. If the draft LEPs is amended, the planning authority could be required to consult the community. As per the Act: The relevant planning authority may, at any time, vary its proposals as a consequence of its consideration of any submission or report during community consultation or for any other reason. If it does so, the relevant planning authority is to forward a revised planning proposal to the Minister.

Further community consultation under section 57 is not required unless the Minister so directs in a revised determination under section 56 (s58 EP& A Act 1979). From the above mentioned process of LEPs making, it can be said that it provides more opportunity for community input 80 Figure 3.2: Community participation opportunities in SEPPs(Source: EP& A Act 1979; Depart- ment of Planning 2009)

than the process of making a SEPPs in regards to publishing summary report on submissions or holding public hearing. However, the provisions are nowhere sufﬁcient enough to provide genuine opportunities to ensure the representation or accountability that can enhance empowerment of communities. The opportunities still appear to be tokenistic and very much top-down because:

81 It is not clear what is meant by “community”. It is unclear whether it is referring to suburban residents or the interest/activist groups or anyone outside the planning agency. The absence of this deﬁnition also negatively impacts upon the representation of the cross section of the society in the plan. Under the current policy the “community” is considered as a homogeneous instead of a heterogenic entity. It is not speciﬁed on what basis the requirement of community consultation will be determined by a “gateway determination”. This incurs uncertainty over the opportunity of community participation.

Again, the opportunities for communities to provide input are only through submissions. There is no opportunity for face-to-face meetings or dialogue, which, as noted above, is essential for mutual trust, learning and sense of ownership. A public hearing is required only when the relevant planning authority deems it essential. But is designed to be held in latter stages of the process. A minimum exhibition period is not determined by the Act. The policy is silent about accountability measures as there is no specific direction about sharing information. After receiving the submissions, a report on submissions is publicly available only if it is specified in the submission; if it is not specified then community groups are not informed of their input or about the decision taken. d. Development Control Plans (DCPs) Sometimes LEPs are supported by secondary documents and Development Control Plans (DCPs). Generally these documents provide more prescriptive and further detailed development controls relating to specific development types. DCPs are able to address the same range of issues as environmental planning instruments but they do not constitute a statutory planning instrument. They are generally made by a resolution of Council (Gurran, 2007). DCPs are required to follow a period of exhibition to invite submission for community input, under Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000 (Reg18 (b) Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000). So submission is the only community participation opportunity for DCPs. No other opportunities of participation like face-to-face meeting and negotiation have been specified in the provision. As the regulation notes: Following the preparation of a draft development control plan, the council: (b) must publicly exhibit at the places, on the dates and during the times set out in the notice: (1) a copy of the draft plan, and (2)A draft development control plan must be publicly exhibited for at least 28 days (Reg 18, Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000). In the case of DCPs, the opportunities for community participation are very nominal. It is only through exhibition and submission invitation which are generally only utilised by certain groups 82 of communities. The policy is incompatible with including different segments of communities in the process which is unable to bring empowerment and to ensure downward accountability.

3.5 Strategic planning and policy in Sydney

Other than the above noted planning statutory instruments, there are regional plans in NSW which are guiding rather than statutory documents. These are strategic documents which have shaped Sydney since 1948. They do not have legal backing, hence statutory weight but are considered very important for future directions. These are metropolitan strategies; a recent one of which is this thesis’ case study, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005, titled “City of Cities”. Before going into detail about the case, a short analysis of community participation opportunities in previous metropolitan strategies are presented here.

3.5.1 History of urban planning in Sydney

Since 1948, a number of Metropolitan (or urban) planning strategies have been adopted in Sydney. These are: the “County of Cumberland Planning Scheme” in 1948, the “Sydney Region Outline Plan” in 1968, “Sydney into its Third Century” in 1988, “Cities for the Twenty First Century” in 1994, ’Shaping Our Cities’ in 1998 and “City of Cities” in 2005. The opportunities for community participation in the previous strategies are outlined in Table 3.1. It was found, from the analysis of provisions of community participation, that opportunities for community participation were not signiﬁcantly valued and practised in these previous strategies before 2005.

Metropolitan strategies of Sydney Opportunities for community participation County of Cumberland Planning Scheme No community participation opportunity speciﬁed. Sydney Region Outline Plan Through exhibition for comments. Sydney into its Third Century Nothing mentioned about community participation (Department of Planning, 1988). Cities for the twenty ﬁrst Century Opportunities for community’s input had been provided through workshops, meetings and inviting written submissions (Department of Planning, 1995). Finally adopted after two years of debate in the discussion paper. Consultation was criticised for being predominantly corporate based (Glee- son, 2004). Shaping our Cities Formulated in house without exhibition or dissemination (Gleeson, 2004).

Table 3.1: Opportunities for community participation in Sydney’s previous plans

83 3.5.2 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 and community participation

The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 was initiated by the NSW State Government and released in December 2005. It was formulated as part of the NSW Government’s planning reform. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, one of the objectives of the planning reform was to encourage investments and job opportunities across the State. At the same time, the NSW planning system was under criticism for not providing sufﬁcient community participation opportunities (Gurran, 2007). The Department of Planning was also obliged to maintain community participation requirements, though not through any direct Act, but through Agenda 21 and as the formal requirement of consulting local stakeholders. Against this backdrop, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (SMS 2005) was prepared. Its strategic vision sets out infrastructure investment priorities and attempts to integrate planning policies with infrastructure investment in the Sydney region by improving the information base and responding to community views through participatory processes (Department of Planning, 2005). The strategy covers a geographic area of about 10,000 square kilometres which includes 43 local municipalities (see Figure 3.3). Its goals have been identiﬁed as:

1. Enhancing liveability,

2. Strengthening economic competitiveness,

3. Ensuring fairness,

4. Protecting the environment; and

5. Improving governance (Department of Planning, 2005).

A fundamental element in the making of the SMS and in the planning reform process in NSW is that government planning and decision-making must have effective community participation to achieve sustainable development. A principal strategic objective of the SMS was to bring the State government, the local government, stakeholders and the community together to discuss, review and make decisions to guide the future of Sydney’s economy, environment and communities. Notably, the involvement of communities in the preparation of the SMS was a key element, as claimed in the planning document (Department of Planning, 2005). The then NSW Premier noted in the plan that:

84 Figure 3.3: Geographical area covered by Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (Source: www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au, accessed on 23 November, 2008)

I would like to thank everyone from the community, business and local government have helped formulating this plan and look forward to working with them, and with the broader community of Sydney, to implement this important vision (Department of Planning, 2005, p. 3).

The NSW Department of Planning was given the responsibility to organise consultations with experts, Local Government, stakeholder representatives and communities. These bodies provided inputs to the planning process through submissions and platforms: a Reference Panel, Future Forums, Local Government Forums and Community Forums. Participation opportunities for various stakeholders, including communities, are mentioned in the plan as: Experts have provided advice through the Metropolitan Strategy Reference Panel and on individual housing, employment, environment and transport working groups. Formal consultation has occurred at two Sydney Futures Forums events, a Local Government Forum and presentations to groupings of councils. Numerous meetings with council ofﬁcers and stakeholder representatives have been conducted. Twelve community forums across the Greater Metropolitan Region sought the views and opinions of residents in the second half of 2004. Overall, more than 10,000 people have been consulted during the development of the Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Planning, 2005, p. 16).

85 Here, community forums are the avenues which were created only for communities to provide input. The selection of community members was from a random sampling which indicates that there was chance of missing of the cross-section of the community groups. These are detailed in the document: In late 2004, around 1000 people from across the Sydney and the Central Coast, Lower Hunter and Illawarra regions took part in a series of forums on the Metropolitan Strategy. Participants were chosen on a random basis so the Government could hear from people who might not normally attend a planning forum. They were asked to discuss what they valued most about where they live, to identify things which will make Sydney an even better place to live over the next 25 years and to say what they wanted Sydney or their region to be like in 25 years. (Department of Planning, 2005, p. 16). Speciﬁc details of the opportunities for community participation are described in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Stakeholder consultation process in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (Source: Depart- ment of Planning, 2004, p. 25)

Reference Panel and working groups: Experts were consulted through one expert Reference Panel and four working groups (i.e., employment, transport, environmental and housing working groups).

Future Forums: The Future Forums were attended by 360 senior representatives from state and local government, industry and community groups. Although these forums were open to community groups, the participation was by invitation only. There were two Future Forums. One was held before the discussion paper was released and the other was held after consultations were closed and before ﬁnalisation.

86 Local Government Forum: This forum was attended by Mayors, General Managers, Councillors, Local Government staff members and the Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs) representatives. Two hundred representatives from 51 municipalities were present in the meetings (Department of Planning, 2005).

Community Forum: According to Department of Planning, NSW, 12 Community Forums were held across the greater metropolitan region of Sydney. The participants were chosen at random from Sydney, the Central Coast, and the Lower Hunter and Illawarra regions. Around 1000 community members were reported to have participated (Department of Planning, 2005).

Submission invitation: A discussion paper named “Planning for a Better Future” was released with the input of ﬁrst Future Forum and the Local Government Forum. Submissions were invited on the discussion paper through email, postal mail or fax. For background information, a website designed for this strategy was referred to and a telephone number was given for any queries (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2004, p. 23). Submissions were open for two months, but no report was published on the summary of the submissions. The steps of stakeholder consultation have presented in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Steps of stakeholder participation in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy

For community groups there were two types of opportunities to provide inputs directly: attending and participating the community forums and providing submission. However, it is not mentioned anywhere of the plan or Discussion paper about what the intent of community participation, how the input would be dealt with in regards to ﬁnal outcome. About selection of the community groups the policy is silent in ensuring representatives sample of the community, 87 though it is mentioned that community members were selected by random sampling but how it was done, which data base was used is not clear. It is not clear from the policy what is considered as “community”. Because it provides information about community consultation which is not consistent throughout the document. For example, in page 16 it is mentioned that about 10,000 people were consulted, whereas in the same page in detailing about community forums it is said that 1000 people took part from greater Sydney region in the forums. It is confusing that who are this people, whether they are neighbourhood residents or whether Local or State Government staff members.

3.5.3 Sub-regional Strategies in Sydney

Sub-regional strategies are the next step in translating the objectives for the whole city into strategies for each of the groupings of the LGAs (Local Government Areas) (Department of Planning, 2005). Draft sub-regional strategies were developed by the Department of Planning in consultation with other State agencies, Local Governments and industry. These are: the Sydney City Subregional Strategy (covering the City of Sydney LGA), the East Subregional Strategy (covering Botany Bay, Randwick, Waverley and Woollahra LGAs), the South Subregional Strategy (covering Kogarah, Hurstville, Canterbury, Rockdale, Sutherland and Marrickville LGAs), the Inner West Subregional strategy (covering Ashfield, Burwood, Canada Bay, Leichhardt and Strathfield LGAs), the Inner North Subregional Strategy (covering Lane Cove, North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby, Hunters Hill and Mosman LGAs), the North Subregional Strategy (Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai LGAs), the North East Subregional Strategy (covering Pittwater, Warringah and Manly LGAs), the West Central Subregional Strategy (covering Auburn, Bankstown, Fairfield, Holroyd and Parramatta LGAs), the North West Subregional Strategy (Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Penrith LGAs) and the South West Subregional Strategy (covering Wollondilly, Camden, Campbelltown and Liverpool LGAs) (Department of Planning, 2005). The sub-regional divisions are presented in Figure 3.6.

Draft sub-regional strategies were developed by the Department of Planning in consultation with other State agencies, Local Governments and industry. A series of workshops were held by the Department of Planning with local councils, and with input from local council ofﬁcials. Consultations were also carried out with NSW Government ofﬁcials and private sector representatives. All the draft sub-regional strategies were exhibited for a minimum of 60 days to allow for community feedback (Department of Planning, 2007). However, there were no 88 Figure 3.6: Sub-regional strategic divisions of Sydney (Source: Department of Planning, 2005)

opportunities for direct input from community groups, except through formal submissions. No summary reports were published on the submissions. This is stated in the Minister’s vision section of the draft strategy as: I look forward to receiving the comments from local stakeholders during the exhibition, including local government, representatives from industry, environmental organisations, and community groups (Department of Planning, 2007, p. 3).

Here it is noteworthy that other stakeholders were also invited to give submissions along with community groups and if no submission is received from the community groups but from other stakeholders the strategy will get legitimisation that it has consulted the community.

3.5.4 Review to Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005

The Strategy was scheduled to review yearly and ﬁve yearly. In March 2010, to conduct the scheduled ﬁve-yearly review, Department of Planning released a discussion paper named Sydney Towards 2036. The discussion paper was exhibited for submission along with the related Metropolitan Transport Plan which was released in February 2010 and was in exhibition for submission. Both documents attracted 372 written submissions and attracted 1000 comments

89 from online forum. In the discussion paper there were some formatted questions on which comments had been invited in the form of submission. An independent report was published on the summary of submissions. These were the only two opportunities for community groups to give their input into the review process.

Stakeholders were also consulted on this review process in two meetings. The ﬁrst one, named the “Stakeholder Forum”, was attended by 70 people, and was held before release of the discussion paper. The second one, named “Sydney Leaders’ Forum”, was attended by about 100 people and was held after the discussion paper was released (Department of Planning, 2010). These two meetings were attended by the representatives of Commonwealth, State and Local Governments, non-government groups, planning professionals and the property industry. There is no record of local community groups’ attendance in these meetings.

In December 2010, the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 was released which superseded the Metropolitan Strategy which released in December 2005. According to the Department of Planning, this Metropolitan Plan adopted the strengths and principles of 2005’s Metropolitan Strategy - City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future and combined the Metropolitan Transport Plan 2010: Connecting the City of Cities. It is claimed that the public feedback on the Metropolitan Transport Plan and the first five-yearly review of the Metropolitan Strategy had been incorporated in this single and integrated plan named “Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036” (Department of Planning, 2010). From the analysis of the community participation process in SMS 2005, it is clear that the opportunities for community groups to participate in the planning process are not satisfactory in ensuring effective community participation. Despite policy rhetoric of public involvement, the process largely follows the same path of providing very limited community participation opportunities in NSW environmental planning instruments identified in the EP& A Act 1979. There is little change in practice in any meaningful way. Though there were opportunities for community groups to attend meetings and to provide input in written or oral form, community participation was sought at a latter stage which indicates citizens’ very low chance of influencing the outcome.

In regards to ensuring the participation of different groups in the community, the provision used a universal platform for different groups of community members. Community participation opportunities in sub-regional strategies or in the review process were just limited to a submission 90 invitation and to providing comment online or by telephone. Albeit there was a summary of the community’s input in the policy, it is silent about going back to communities and providing them with feedback about their input and the ﬁnal decision. As a result there is limited evidence of representation, empowerment and accountability. However, it is important to note that there are some opportunities which is clearly better than not having them at all. The opportunities provided in various planning instruments and policies are summarised in Table 3.2.

Planning instruments and policies in NSW Opportunities for community participation State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPPs) Submission invitation; but contingent upon consideration of the Minister Local Environmental Plan (LEPs) Submission invitation and public hearing; holding public hearing depends on consideration of planning assessment commission. Development Control Plan (DCPs) Submission invitation. Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (SMS) Submission invitation, meeting/workshop through community forums. Sub-regional Strategies Submission invitation. SMS Reviews Submission invitation.

Table 3.2: Community participation opportunities in planning instruments and policies

3.6 Issues of community participation

The opportunities for effective community participation in the NSW planning policies are very limited. This is despite the change in policy rhetoric for the need to increase public participation since planning reforms from the 1990s. The analysis of NSW planning policy reveals the following reasons as to why there is little practical change on the ground in terms of achieving the policy intentions of effective community participation. a) Vague policy provisions The policy analysis indicates that policy statements regarding community participation outlined in the legislation and policies are very vague. The policies do not deﬁne what the “community” means. Questions remain unclear as to whether “community” refers to individuals or groups, whether community means the neighbourhood or anyone who has a stake in the development plans. Further, there is no clarity on the purpose of the participation and what outcome they are expecting and how the community input is going to be included. This implies that when the intent and mechanisms of community participation is not clear in the policies, having a well-intentioned policy is unlikely to produce the intended goals.

91 b) The use of universal technique to represent diverse local communities There are no specific guidelines and requirements for involving a range of community groups. The policy and legislation is silent on how to engage various community groups, what to do about diverse opinions, needs and aspirations, and how to keep the community informed in terms of their inputs collected through the consultation process. As such it seems that the policy clearly lacks the means of acknowledging the value of community groups. No clear direction is present to bringing forward a cross section of the society, which is essential for a democratic and sustainable outcome (Ribot, 2002). Current policies use a “one-fits-all” technique to include different community groups in the planning process, which is not suitable for planning for multi-cultural societies. This implies that the use of universal techniques for community participation is likely to exclude a range of communities, jeopardising the value of a representative voice required for inclusive urban governance. c) Lack of specific planning to manage the community participation activities There is no specific guideline about how to organize and manage community participation platforms, such as the financing of the participation activity and the detailing of the time period of participation (such as the exhibition period). As a consequence, planning processes in NSW are deemed to fail in providing a useful platform for a wider community to participate effectively. It is unlikely that these policies can offer genuine opportunities for effective community participation. d) Insufficient opportunities to bring about representative community participation The opportunities for community participation provided by the NSW planning policies are found to be insufficient. The requirements for community participation are far from achieving genuine participatory opportunities outlined in the literature, such as deliberative dialogue, face to face meetings, information sharing and so forth (see Forester, 1989; Friedmann, 1973; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996). The only way communities can provide inputs are through submissions (except Metropolitan Strategy). There is no provision for communities to participate effectively throughout the process, either before submission or in the monitoring or review processes. It is noteworthy to mention that submissions are a passive communicative mechanism and may not be accessible, or convenient, for providing input by many community members. Technical jargon also makes the plans difficult to understand for communities who are unfamiliar with policy documents. Given that submissions provided by community members have to compete for recognition with submissions made by business groups or expert stakeholders who have that 92 technical competence it is likely that the community inputs could be seen as ill informed or badly written.

For disadvantaged groups of communities who are likely to have limited skills and resources, the availability of a submission as the only form of community participation does not offer any real opportunities, as they are less likely to access, use and interpret the information that is available and required to make a meaningful submission. As a result the process and outcome of so-called participatory platforms available for communities is likely to be captured by social elites. Consequently, the opportunities of community participation outlined in the planning policies of NSW seem to be consistent with what Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969) suggests, in terms of the availability of a very little scope for the whole population to effectively influence the plan. The participation remains largely tokenistic. e) Lack of accountability towards local communities The analysis of the planning policies and legislation in NSW has revealed a serious shortfall of accountability, which is one of the important phenomena for effectiveness of community participation (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). Clearly community participation is sought after the preparation of the draft, not from the very beginning. Whether or not there is any meaningful participation of communities is largely unclear as there is no feedback for communities to know if their inputs have made any difference. People remain uninformed as to on which basis the submissions were weighted or what was the outcome. Only a summary of the public hearing or submission is published, and then only if it is asked for in the submission. This can easily make many participants disappointed and possibly jeopardise their interest in future participation. Despite some participatory activities being implemented, the final decision appears to be controlled by the top level decision makers in the Government departments. There is a dangerous situation created by this tokenistic participation as the participatory programs help governments to legitimise the decisions that they have made with little genuine consideration of community input. Plainly, the participatory rhetoric of policies and the ideals expressed in the communicative planning models are yet to be realised in the implementation of NSW planning and policies. f) Community participation not supported by planning instruments This policy analysis indicates that the requirements and values of community participation embedded within the NSW planning policy are not adequately acknowledged and supported by the planning instruments and 93 by legislation. This has led to insufficient access to genuine opportunities for effective community participation. For example, the need for community participation in the planning process is determined by the Minister or planning authorities (for both SEPP and LEP). Under this rule it is likely that plans are also finalized without exhibition, which excludes communities altogether. As a result, while the SMS is highlighted as an important strategy for governments and communities, community participation effectively remains rhetorical. g) Absence of opportunity for empowerment The analysis of the participation opportunities outlined in the policies indicates that communities are unable to share decision-making power with government agencies with the current planning policies. There is no real shift in the power or decision-making style of traditionally powerful decision makers. Power remains at the top as the top-down decision-making process is reinforced in a new participatory environment. Even local governments are unable to influence the policies that they are supposed to implement on the ground. For example, section 53 of Local Environmental Plan shows that the Minister of Planning can overrule local councils (s53 EP& A Act 1979). When there is no opportunity for communities to participate in meetings or dialogues, there is very little chance of mutual learning, understanding and a community’s sense of ownership of the project.

3.7 Conclusion

It is claimed that the idea of community participation has been practised in NSW urban planning systems since 1979. To meet international and national requirements, planning policies and legislation have shifted towards inclusive processes throughout the last decades. An analysis of the urban planning policies and legislation in NSW reveals that the planning policies do highlight some elements of community participation. However, the implementation of policies effectively excludes communities in the decision-making process, as there is a very limited power sharing between communities and governments. The participation is largely unrepresentative of communities. The decision-making is still upwardly accountable.

The opportunities outlined in the policies have produced a very limited scope for community groups to provide meaningful input into the decisions. The planning policies and their implementation have failed to consider the issues of representation, accountability and power sharing of community groups. Under these policies it is likely that urban planning practices will

94 maintain the top-down status quo while community participatory practices legitimise the plans.

The next Chapter details about the method employed in this thesis.

95 Chapter 4

Research Method

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes research design, research approach and the methods employed in data collection and analysis in this research. Assessing the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice is the principal aim of this thesis. In the previous chapter, the literature review reveals that the effectiveness of community participation depends on the participation process which ensures representation for the community groups, is downwardly accountable, and empowers them through its processes and outcomes. To understand the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice, the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) has been used as a case study. The study has been designed to capture essential information about who are the community members, who utilised or did not utilised the opportunities, what were the reasons for their non-participation and how that participation was inﬂuenced by downward accountability and affected the processes and the outcomes in regards to the empowerment of community groups.

A retrospective analysis of community participation in the planning process and the outcome of the strategy were undertaken. State and Local Government staff, various community representatives and individual experts who were involved in planning process were interviewed. Individual community members who attended the community participation forums organised by the planning agency (Department of Planning) were surveyed with questionnaires. These were supplemented by an analysis of relevant documents, policies and legislations. I attended community participation workshops organised by two Local Governments, with predetermined themes, to get an idea of the planning practice and had informal discussions with the participants.

96 This chapter is divided into four main sections. The ﬁrst section gives an account of the research design. The second section provides an introduction of the selected case “Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005”. The community participation process of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy is discussed brieﬂy. The third section is comprised of explanations of the data collection methods, data analysis and research rigour and includes the limitations of the study. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key points.

4.2 Research design

Research design is crucial to provide a robust bridge between research questions and data to be collected to answer these questions. Essentially it is a plan for action. While the components of a research design offered by a researcher vary in number and in contents, research design is seen to be the plan, structure, and strategy of investigation conceived so as to obtain answers to research questions and to control variance (Kerlinger, 1973). A naturalistic inquiry research design has been deﬁned as: “. . . planning for certain broad contingencies without, however, indicating exactly what will be done in relation to each” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 226).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed a list of ten elements essential for a naturalistic research design. These are:1) the focus of the inquiry; 2) the ﬁt of the paradigm to the focus; 3) the ﬁt of the inquiry paradigm to the substantive theory; 4) where and from whom data will be collected;5) the three successive phases of the inquiry: phase 1: orientation and overview phase II: focused exploration, and phase III: procedures of trustworthiness and gaining closure;6) instrumentation;7) data collection and recording; 8) data analysis; 9) the logistical considerations and 10) trustworthiness. Although this list is for naturalistic inquiry, most of the elements are common for other types of studies.

Crotty (1998) suggested four interrelated questions for consideration in designing research. They are:1) what is the organising epistemology (e.g., objectivism, subjectivism and so forth)? 2) What theoretical perspective-philosophical stance lies behind the methodology in the questions (e.g., positivism and post-positivism, interpretivism or critical theory)? 3) What is the methodological strategy or plan of action that links methods to outcomes (e.g., experimental research or survey research)? 4) What are the methods, techniques or procedures used (questionnaires, interview or focus groups)? This model highlights the consistency of logic 97 across the four levels of the research design along with providing options in choosing approaches from research assumptions to data collection tools (Creswell, 2003).

Based on Crotty’s model, Creswell’s (2009) conceptualisation of research design involves three questions. These are: 1) what knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including theoretical perspective)? 2) What strategy of inquiry will inform the procedure, and 3) what method of data collection and analysis will be used? This is a combination of philosophical worldview, strategies of inquiry and speciﬁc methods.

Given the context of the research questions of this thesis and the complexity of the nature of this study, Creswell’s (2009) research design has been adopted. This is because it provides simplicity, ﬂexibility and an ease of outlining the different components of the research. In this design, as has been presented in Figure 4.1, pragmatism has been selected as a knowledge claim, with the mixed method approach chosen as a strategy of inquiry as it involves both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection using a case study. The components of the

Figure 4.1: Research design employed in this study (Source: Creswell, 2009, p.5) research design of this thesis are described in the next sections.

4.2.1 Pragmatism as epistemological basis for research

Having a knowledge claim means that I as a researcher tend to start a project with certain assumptions about how I will learn and what I will learn during their inquiry (see Creswell, 2003). These claims, also termed as a worldview, have been described as “a basic set of beliefs that guide action” (Guba, 1990, p. 17). These beliefs are similar to paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 98 1985), philosophical assumptions, epistemologies and ontologies (Crotty, 1998). There are four different knowledge claims: postpositivism, constructivism, an advocacy or participatory approach, and pragmatism (Creswell, 2003).

Among the four knowledge claims, postpositivism is sometimes called the “scientiﬁc method”, quantitative research or empirical science. The second claim, social constructivism (or post-modernism in research), assumes that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work and develop subjective meanings of their experience. These meanings are varied and multiple which lead the researcher to examine the complexity of the views rather than narrowing their meanings into a few categories and ideas. The third claim, the advocacy/participatory approach, arose when various researchers felt that the post-positivist assumption imposed structural laws and theories that did not always ﬁt with social justice issues (Creswell, 2003; Fay, 1987; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These researchers believe that research should contain an action agenda for reform which may change an individual’s work and life and the researcher’s life.

Creswell’s fourth knowledge claim, pragmatism, is deﬁned as “. . . a worldview aris[ing] out of actions, situations and consequences rather than antecedent conditions...” (Creswell, 2003, p. 10). It contrasts with scientiﬁc realism which is driven by anticipated consequences, the reluctance to tell a true story and adopts the idea that there is an external world independent of our mind (Cherryholmes, 1992). Pragmatic knowledge acknowledges that research always occurs in social, historical, political and other contexts, and that real world practice is oriented through focusing on the research problem and uses all approaches as need basis to understand that problem (Creswell, 2003; Rossman & Wilson, 1985).

This thesis is based on the pragmatism of knowledge claim. The reasons for choosing pragmatism are as follows: 1) this thesis is aimed at studying the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice involving a retrospective analysis of the planning process and outcome of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy which is situated in the historical, social and political context of Sydney. Pragmatism offers ﬂexibility to approach research conceptualisation, data collection and data analysis to make a deep meaning from the study under consideration; 2) Under the pragmatic knowledge claim, I as researcher am able to choose the methods, techniques and procedures that best meet the purpose of this research. This ﬂexible approach allows me the 99 choice of an appropriate strategy of inquiry and a data collection tool to answer my research questions and sometimes to deal with unanticipated issues. This choice is often constrained in other knowledge claims. 3) As pragmatism is not committed to any one system of reality as is the case for positivism or constructivism, it allows mixed method research approach which is very relevant for the nature of this study. In this thesis, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analysed in a complementary way to answer the research questions. They provide the best understanding of a research problem and mixed method approach also serves other important purposes, which are depicted in the next section.

4.2.2 Mixed method as strategy of inquiry

Strategies of inquiry provide a speciﬁc direction for a procedure in a research design (Creswell, 2003). The mixed method approach; an approach of inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative forms (Creswell, 2003, p. 4), which means not only simply collecting and analysing qualitative and quantitative data but also involving, entwining both approaches to strengthen the study (Creswell & Clark, 2007).

In a mixed method approach, there are three categories: sequential mixed methods, concurrent mixed methods and transformative mixed methods (Creswell, 2003). In sequential mixed methods the researcher seeks to elaborate on or expand the ﬁndings of one method with another method. In the concurrent procedure of a mixed method, the researcher converges qualitative with quantitative data in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem. In the transformative procedure, the researcher uses a theoretical lens as an over arching perspective within a design that contains both qualitative and quantitative data. The present study has been designed using a concurrent mixed method approach, which is suitable to answer the research questions, where both qualitative and quantitative data are converged to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem. Here, both forms of data collection are carried out at the same time (Creswell, 2003). This procedure involves the interpretation of the overall result with the integration of the information gathered from both qualitative and quantitative data.

Before going into detail about the research methods and the data collection techniques employed in this thesis, they are presented with their links to the research question in Table 4.1.

100 Questions Variables for mea- Research Methods Data analysis surement Representative partici- Income, education Semi-structured inter- Frequency analysis pation? Who partic- level, age, employ- view (Section 1,2 and of the data obtained ipated, (who did not ment, social affiliation, 3); Questionnaire sur- from questionnaire participate); Why some language capability of vey (Section I, II, III, survey and census; the people participated and the participants and IV and VI), Informa- thematic analysis of the others did not (or could community participation discussion and ob- participation problems, not); Was there a gen- tion opportunities; rea- servation; Policy analy- non-participation and uine opportunity for the sons for participation sis; Analysis of census satisfaction level. participation to be rep- and non-participation. data. resentative of the overall population? Empowerment of com- Benefits of participa- Semi-structured inter- Analysis of themes and munities? Does the tion, participant’s satis- view (Section 5, 6, patterns of the con- process and outcome of faction level, influence 7); Questionnaire sur- structs and underlying participation empower over the outcome, in- vey (V); Information factors. people, particularly tention of future partic- discussion and observa- poor and disadvantaged ipation and ownership tion; groups? of the strategy. Accountability in deci- Outcome and decision Semi-structured inter- Frequency, analysis of sion making? Is input making; flow of infor- view (Section 4, 5); themes and patterns from community par- mation; genuine con- Questionnaire survey and content analysis. ticipation reflected in sideration of commu- (Section V), policy the final decision and nity’s opinion; answer- analysis; Informa- why? ability of the process. tion discussion and observation;

Table 4.1: Linking research questions with methods and analysis

4.2.3 Case study as a methodological strategy

Primary data are the backbone of this research, although secondary data enrich the evidence base and contribute to the rigour of analysis and insights. Case study analysis was selected as a methodological strategy, and as such, some description of the case is provided in Chapter 2. A brief account of community participation opportunities is presented in this chapter for the purpose of the clariﬁcation of the steps of the data collection method involved in the study, such as semi-structured interview, questionnaire survey, observation and document analysis.

A case study is generally deﬁned as an inquiry that explores a contemporary phenomenon within its “real life” context where the relationship between phenomenon and context is often not clear (Yin, 1984). The case study approach involves exploring, in-depth, a program, event, activity or process where a researcher collects detailed information using a number of data collection procedures (Stake, 1995). It is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the

101 dynamics present within single case (Eisenhardt, 1989). Although case studies have been widely used in social science (Feagin, 1991; Stake, 1995; 2005; Yin, 1984; 2003), they are criticised on the issue of their representativeness or the typicality of the case in relation to generalisation of the case. However, to overcome this, the use of relevant theory to link has been suggested to employ in a case study research (Eyles, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1984; 2003).

As previously noted, the planning process and outcome of the SMS was selected to investigate the effectiveness of community participation in Sydney’s urban planning practice. It is a single case and an in-depth single case research design is appropriate in circumstances as outlined by Yin (2003). Yin’s ﬁve rationales are: 1) When the case represents a critical case to test a well formulated theory. 2) When the case represents an extreme case or a unique case. 3) When the case is a representative or typical case. 4) When the case is revelatory case, and 5) when the case is being studied longitudinally; when the same single case is studied at two or more different points of time.

The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 meets three of the above-mentioned criteria. Firstly, planning process and outcome of SMS is a typical and representative case for a multicultural and global city, like Sydney, Australia. Secondly, the study is designed longitudinally to cover the local, sub-regional and regional planning process and outcome of Sydney metropolitan region. Thirdly, the case provides a unique opportunity to examine the theory of communicative planning practice, as the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) claims to have involved multi-stakeholders, including communities in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005, to produce an outcome with input from all. a) Case selection As preparation for fieldwork, I began by searching for a case which would be suitable for answering the questions that I was interested to research. Sydney’s metropolitan strategy came to the forefront of my preliminary search for a possible case because: 1) Sydney is often seen to have a claim for a long history of public participation in its planning process since World War II (Toon & Falk, 2003); 2) the Metropolitan Strategy 2005 is a fresh and active case and was prepared with a close consideration of the public participation in planning as prioritised by national and international policies (Department of Planning, 2005; Searle, 2006); 3) the preparation of the Metropolitan Strategy explicitly highlighted and was justified by its wider public consultation and input; and is seen as a legitimate vehicle for enhancing social equity, 102 economic efficiency and ecological sustainability (Department of Planning, 2005), and 4) Sydney is a typical world city, it is the most diverse city in Australia and is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world. The results found in this study may be applicable to many similar world cities (see Baum, 1997; Lepani et al., 1995).

As a second step, I checked the feasibility of the study in terms of access to data sources and the application of data collection methods. I contacted several State and Local Governmental bodies to ensure data sources, conducted informal interviews with key informants to cross-check the suitability of the case with the research questions and reviewed relevant documents. With some further assessment, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy was seen to be an appropriate and feasible case study, and then it was ﬁnally selected for a fully ﬂetched research case. The following section discusses the stakeholder participation process which will justify the case and reveal the data collection procedure. b) Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) represents one of key strategies intended to guide the future of Australia’s largest city over the next 25 years (2005-2030). It is the sixth metropolitan strategy developed since 1948. The previous metropolitan strategies are “County of Cumberland”, “Sydney region outline plan”, “Sydney into its third century” and “Cities for the 21st century” and “Shaping our cities”. The Metropolitan Strategy was launched by the Department of Planning on 22 April, 2004. The details of community participation process of SMS including area coverage (Figure 3.6) have been included in section 3.6.5 of chapter 3.

As highlighted in Chapter 2, since 2004 NSW has experienced a signiﬁcant degree of planning awareness, issues and hence subsequent reforms. A fundamental element in the making of the SMS and in the planning reform process in NSW is that government planning and decision-making must have effective community participation to enhance sustainable development outcomes. A principal strategic objective of the SMS was to bring the State Government, the Local Government, stakeholders and the community together to discuss, review and make decisions to guide the future of Sydney’s economy, environment and communities. Notably, the involvement of community members in the preparation of the SMS was a key element, as claimed in the planning document and the website of the Department (Department of Planning, 2005). The NSW Department of Planning was given the responsibility to organise 103 consultations with experts, local government, stakeholder representatives and community groups. These bodies provided input to the planning process through a Reference Panel, a Future Forum, Local Government Forums and Community Forums (please see section 3.6.5 and ﬁgure 3.4 in chapter 3 for details). It is claimed that more than 10,000 people were consulted and among these 1000 were individual community members (Department of Planning, 2005).

As the case study approach allows the choice of various data sources and data collection procedures (Yin, 2003), questionnaire survey, and semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary methods of data collection, supplemented by active observation of and engagements with participants in two community consultation workshops. Document analysis was used as a secondary data collection method. Document review includes policy analysis along with the thematic analysis of relevant documents. Following the structure of the consultation process of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005, as described in section 3.6.5, semi-structured interview and a questionnaire survey were designed to collect data from different stakeholders and community members involved in the SMS process.

4.3 Research methods for data collection and analysis

The third major component of a research design is the research methods of data collection and analysis. The techniques and procedures used to gather and analyse data related to research questions or hypothesis are called research methods (Crotty, 1998). In the research design of this thesis, both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were involved. When I as a researcher wish to understand the contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of a process then a qualitative approach is argued to be appropriate (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative studies are especially useful for this research because it involves understanding the specific context of SMS within which Sydney residents act and in identifying the critical process that leads to a specific outcome for Sydney. In addition, qualitative studies rely on the integration of data from numerous pieces of information based on the sources of triangulation. This principle involves the application of an additional method (Maxwell, 1998), thus the quantitative technique of data collection was selected.

As this study also examines a situation which involves clarifying patterns of relationships between two or more variables of SMS, the quantitative approach is also useful (Groat & Wang,

104 2002; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). However, considering the research questions, the knowledge claim and a strategy of inquiry, case study analysis was taken as an appropriate methodological approach, with the methods of data collection to be of several forms; viz. semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey, policy analysis and observation (see Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Data collection and analysis procedure

4.3.1 Primary data collection

Data collection methods of semi-structured interviews, questionnaire survey and observation are described here, noting their advantages and disadvantages. The applicability of these tools in this research is also included. a. Questionnaire survey Survey research is the most common method of obtaining primary data on people’s attitudes, opinions, preferences and behaviour (Alreck & Settle, 1995). A questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews are two data collection methods in this category. A questionnaire survey, by mail, was selected as a technique of primary data collection. A mail-out questionnaire survey is appropriate when researchers are required to cover a large number of respondents over an extensive geographical area. This survey is often ‘self-administered’; respondents ﬁll out the questionnaires by themselves. Consequently, the “cosmetic” aspects of the mailing piece are important because the form and appearance will affect the rate of response and the quality of data (Alreck & Settle, 1995). The questionnaire has

105 both advantages and drawbacks as do other data collection methods. A key example of its advantage is that it allows respondents to be anonymous, which helps respondents to be truthful about controversial or sensitive issues. However, drawbacks include the misinterpretation of questions or distorted information being provided by the respondents. Time problems can also result, as respondents need to have time to complete and return their questionnaire. Another most serious limitation is the low response rate. The response rate is normally 5 to 10 percent, and over 30 percent is rare (Alreck & Settle, 1995; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Given the large respondent population, it was decided that the survey is one of the appropriate methods for this research which offers more advantages than disadvantages.

There were several reasons for selecting a mail-out questionnaire survey to capture the views of community members who were consulted through the community participation forums organised by the Department of Planning. Firstly, a mail-out questionnaire survey allows the canvassing of a large section of population if both budget and time are limited. To survey 700 community members residing in different suburbs of Sydney, it was a suitable tool to be employed. Secondly, the contact details of those community members who were consulted or who attended the community participation forums were restricted under the Privacy Act and were kept secret within the NSW Department of Planning. It was impossible for me to approach them directly. Thirdly, there were possibilities that the communities would not be comfortable expressing their opinions if I could identify them personally.

The views of community members who provided direct input to the SMS process were of paramount importance for this study, as it is engaged in critically investigating the effectiveness of community participation through the participation opportunities in the SMS. According to Department of Planning, approximately 700 community members, from different suburbs of the greater Sydney region, were consulted through 12 ‘community forums’ of the SMS planning process (Department of Planning, 2005). To get access to that database the ‘Freedom of Information (FOI)’ section of the NSW Department of Planning was approached by the researcher. But as mentioned before, the contacts of the participants of community forums were held by the NSW Department of Planning and were protected under the ‘Privacy Act’, hence were not disclosed to the researcher. However, the NSW Department of Planning took the initiative of sending the questionnaire, on behalf of the researcher, to encourage independent research related to the department’s function. I provided the questionnaires to the Freedom of 106 Information (FOI) section of the DoP and the DoP sent those to the respondents with a separate cover letter (See Appendix I).

DoP had 630 names in their list of participants under ‘community’ category (See Appendix II). Finally, 630 questionnaires were sent. The Department sent the questionnaires, with the participant information statement provided by the researcher and a separate cover letter from the DoP, without disclosing the addresses to the researcher. The respondents were free to decide whether or not they wished to take part in the questionnaire survey (the questionnaire and participant information statement were previously approved by the Ethics committee of the researcher’s afﬁliated university). Among these 630 respondents 163 respondents ﬁlled out the questionnaire. The questionnaire survey is summarised in Table 4.2.

Questionnaire survey operation Number of Question- naires Questionnaire mailed 630 Completed questionnaire return 163 Returned to sender with For addressee not found 18 blank questionnaire For incomplete address 13 Returned to researcher with apology for respondent’s death or illness 5 Total response rate 26.98 %

Table 4.2: Description of the mail-out questionnaire survey

To increase the response rate, the following steps were taken (Alreck & Settle,1995; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005):

Questionnaires were sent in the month of February, avoiding vacations and busy time; •

Questionnaires were made attractive and courteous and had a non-commercial appearance; •

A separate cover letter that encouraged participation was added to each questionnaire (See • Appendix I), and

The cover letter addressed every respondent personally by name. • b. Semi-structured interview (SSI) A semi-structured interview involves the standard set questions with one or more individually tailored question(s) designed for clariﬁcation or to probe a person’s reasoning(Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The semi-structured interview is more a conversation than a question and answer session. It is especially useful in cases where the

107 participants are not comfortable with direct questions, or where the researcher cannot be sure that the questions are understood as intended (Huntington, 2000; Minichiello, 1995). It has a distinct advantage of getting highest response rate when it is done face-to-face but it also involves substantial time and expense as the interviewees might reside in different sites (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).

The Semi-Structured Interview (SSI) technique has been used in this research together with a self-administered questionnaire survey for a number of reasons. First, to answer the research questions collecting a large amount of information from a small group of respondents of State and Local Government staff members, community representative and experts, was required. Second, to catch the views of such a group of busy bureaucrats, council staff and well-known professional experts through a telephonic or self-administered questionnaire survey had the risk of a very low response rate. Third, at some points, interactions between the researcher and respondents were essential, which was not possible in a self-administered questionnaire (Alreck & Settle, 1995). In SSI, there is an opportunity for clarifying ambiguous answers or seeking follow-up information (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). I conducted the face-to-face interviews in the work place of the respondents or in coffee shops. The location was negotiated with the respondents prior to the interviews. c. Selection of respondents through purposive sampling In this study, a purposeful sampling with a snowballing technique was used to select respondents for SSI. In this type of sampling the researcher selects cases or respondents that/who are the most relevant and information-rich (Patton, 1990). I obtained a list contact addresses of potential interviewees who were involved in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005. These names were obtained from newspapers and relevant governmental and non-government documents. These addresses were used as ﬁrst contacts. Throughout the process, these potential interviewees were approached personally by email or phone where the study purpose was explained and participation requested. Upon their consent, they were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule (See Appendix). Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour. During the interview the interviewees were asked if they knew anyone who could be a potential interviewee for the research project. If an interviewee indicated that he/she knew someone, the researcher then requested the interviewee to approach the potential interviewee and to pass on the researcher’s contact details (hence, snowballing). The potential interviewee was then free to decide whether to respond to researcher’s request. Most of 108 the respondents were interviewed by direct approach with full compliance of the human ethics approval conditions of the University. Respondents from local governments were accessed through the passive approach described above.

From 41 local government bodies (LGAs - the local councils) of Sydney, four local councils were selected for staff interviews. These were: Hornsby Shire Council, Fairfield City Council, Randwick City Council and Campbelltown City Council. These four local councils are strategically important for this research because they represent diversity within Sydney in terms of geographical location, social groups, economic situations and environmental factors. Hornsby is in the inland area of North Sydney. It is economically prosperous with a large area of bushland. Hornsby is white dominated with 19.47 percent of Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) residents and 0.30 percent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Randwick is in the eastern, coastal region of Sydney, inhabited mostly by wealthy people and students. Randwick has a mixed population having 25.85 percent of Non English Speaking Background (NESB) people and 1.14 percent of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Fairfield, in the western suburbs of Sydney, is considered as one of the poorest suburbs in Sydney basin and is inhabited by a large number of migrants from Asian countries. Fairfield has 48.91 percent of NESB people and 0.61 percent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples (Department of Local Government, 2007). Campbelltown also has mixed groups of communities, with 15.37 percent NESB, and 2.47 percent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These Local Government areas are under four Sub Regional Strategies. These are: North Sub Regional Strategy (Hornsby), West Central Sub Regional Strategy (Fairfield), East Sub Regional Strategy (Randwick), and South West Sub Regional Strategy (Campbelltown).

A total of 35 respondents were interviewed from three categories of stakeholders in the planning process of the SMS. These are: a) state governmental staff, b) local governmental staff and c) community representative groups, which include experts, environmental activist groups, social service providers, business groups and community based groups. The respondents who were involved in any of the participatory forums/platforms were selected under the above-mentioned categories. These are summarised in Table 4.3.

109 Category Number of Respondents State Government Reference panel members 3 staff Department of Planning staff mem- 7 bers Hornsby Shire Council 1 Local Government Fairﬁeld City Council 5 staff Campbelltown City Council 2 Randwick City Council 2 Representatives from local communities (environmental groups/community forums/non-governmental social service 15 provider organizations/experts) Total 35

Table 4.3: Composition of interviewees in SSI d. Design of the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview schedule The questionnaire and semi-structured interview schedules were designed to collect data about the respondent’s views of the stakeholder participation process of the SMS and its outcome. Questions were speciﬁcally targeted to gather information about community participation opportunities, the respondents’ socio-economic and demographic backgrounds, their opportunities in relation to the representation of a cross-section of the community groups (who participated or did not participate, who voiced or did not voice their opinions and why), their empowerment (in terms of their satisfaction in the participation process, their sense of ownership and inﬂuence over the outcome) and the downward accountability towards community groups (in terms of responsibility, transparency and providing information). Respondents’ perceptions about the current planning practice and policies and their recommended solutions were also asked. Both open ended and closed questions were used in the designing of the questionnaire and semi-structured interview schedules (Minichiello, 1995) (See Appendices II and III).

Informal discussion was another technique used in this research to collect qualitative data about community participation opportunities and their effectiveness. I attended two community participation meetings, with pre-determined themes, organized by two local councils as part of the data collection process. I observed and took notes on how the local communities reacted to these meetings. I concentrated on the attitude of the participants, how they were invited to speak or how they are approached to have their say by the planning staff and how they reacted to these opportunities (Figure 4.3).

110 Figure 4.3: Photo of a community consultation event organised by Local Governments

4.3.2 Secondary data collection

Documents and archival records were critically reviewed to identify community participation issues and opportunities in urban planning practice. How the idea of community participation has been understood and addressed in current urban planning policies, including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, sub-regional strategies and the relevant papers of the NSW Department of Planning were reviewed.

Submissions and research articles also provided relevant data. A database, Factiva.com , was used to collect 117 relevant newspaper articles dated between 2000-2010 using key words, ‘Sydney Metropolitan Strategy’. The list of the key documents and archival records reviewed are summarised in Table 4.4.

SN Documents Date Obtained from Document type 1 Environmental Accessed on http: // www. Legal Planning and 3/12/2010 austlii. edu. Assessment Act au/au/ legis/nsw/ 1979 consol act/ epaaa1979389/ 2. Sydney December 2005 Department of Planning policy Metropolitan Planning Strategy 2005

111 3 Environmental Accessed on http:// Legal Planning Assess- 23/12/2010 www.austlii ment Regulation .edu.au/ au/legis/ 2000 nsw/consol reg/ epaar2000480/ 4 Wes-central sub- December 2007 Department of Planning policy regional strategy Planning 5 North sub- November 2007 Department of Planning policy regional strategy Planning 6 South-west subre- November 2007 Department of Planning policy gional strategy Planning 7 East sub-regional July 2007 Department of Planning policy strategy Planning 8 Discussion paper September, 2004 Department of Planning 9 Ministerial direc- May 2004 Department of tion paper Planning 10 Submission Sep-Nov 2004 Different au- papers thorities e.g. UGIA/PIA 11 News paper arti- 2000-2010 Factiva.com cles 12 Census data Accessed on Australian Bureau 3/06/2011 of Statistics Cen- sus

Table 4.4: List of documents and archival records

4.4 Data analysis and interpretation

As previously noted, data obtained from the ﬁeldwork of this research were analysed in two ways: by quantitative data analysis and qualitative data analysis, but the analysis was conducted in such a way that they complemented to each other. The techniques used, the software involved and the step-by-step procedures of the analysis are discussed below.

4.4.1 Quantitative data analysis using SPSS

Data obtained from questionnaire survey and from census database have been analysed statistically. Quantitative data analysis software SPSS was used for this which is widely used and accepted for quantitative data analysis (Kulas, 2009; Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). It involved five stages. Firstly, data coding, variable naming and classification were performed. In the second stage, program writing for SPSS such as data listing, variable labelling and value levels were defined. Likewise, data entries, error checking was rigorously used before performing data analysis as a final step. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, mean, percentage among the 112 variables were used to find out the underlying factors and patterns. The themes and variables included participants demographic and socio-economic characteristics, their attitude towards participation opportunities, perception about planning authority and system, and their understanding about communicative planning and how all these affect the participation process and outcome.

4.4.2 Qualitative data analysis using Nvivo

Qualitative data obtained from semi-structured interviews, informal discussions and document analysis were analysed by three methods: a) policy analysis, b) content analysis, using relevant thematic codes, and c) the use of NVivo to analyse interview transcript.

Policy analysis was done by focusing on the policy shifts with a multi-scale approach in relation to the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice at the federal, state and local levels. The analysis aimed to investigate the themes of representative participation of the various community groups, their empowerment and downward accountability through identifying, analysing and interpreting the opportunities for participation both explicit and implicit in the policies.

Content analysis is an analysis method that uses “. . . a set of procedures to make valid interference from text” (Weber, 1990). In this thesis the focus of the content analysis is on the latent content, which deals with what the text states and examines the relationship aspect. It also involves an interpretation of the underlying meaning of the text (Downe-Wambolft, 1992). Data was analysed by “coding”; by creating categories as threads throughout the codes and creating themes. This is a way to link the underlying meanings together in categories (Graneheim & Ludman, 2004).

Data analysis software, NVivo, was used. In the first step of the analysis, the semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into Microsoft Word files. Then transcripts of the interviews were imported into the NVivo project. Categories were created based on the research questions and the themes of SSIs. Under the categories, “free nodes” and “tree nodes” were created where the same kind of information was grouped together to be used in answering the research questions and displaying of the result (Patricia, 2007). A coding system was also applied using NVivo software (See Appendix IV). A Matrix was used to help in understanding why 113 specific points emerged as they do and how the people involved in the case explain why things happen as they do. It also traces the consequential processes and outcomes, giving a preliminary explanation (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

4.5 Research rigour

Research rigour is the standard of the quality of research. It is measured by the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of the research, as identified by Lincoln and Guba for naturalistic inquiries (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These four categories of research rigour are defined below with their application in this research.

4.5.1 Credibility

The idea behind credibility is to establish truth value, by taking into account the natural complexities inherent in the situation or circumstance being studied (Groat & Wang, 2002). In other words it is the degree to which a description of human experience is such that those having the experience would recognise it immediately and those outside the experience can understand it (Denzin, 1989).

Credibility can be conﬁrmed in two important ways: triangulation and member checks. Triangulation refers to the use of a variety of data sources, multiple investigators, and/or a combination of data collection techniques in order to cross check and interpret. Triangulation is accomplished by using different data sources and different data collection methods. In this research triangulation was maintained by using multiple data collection techniques and multiple data sources. Both primary and secondary sources of data collection were used with the multiple techniques of semi-structured interviews, a questionnaire survey and document analysis.

4.5.2 Transferability

Transferability is similar to the generalisibility used by positivist studies. It is the extent to which the conclusion of one study can be applied to other settings or circumstances (Groat & Wang, 2002). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985) it is the “degree to which findings fit within context outside the study”. To achieve transferability, according to Guba, provision of a sufficiently “thick” description is essential so that the relative similarity of two contexts can be applied to one setting or circumstances (Lincon & Guba, 1985). This PhD study provides a

114 detailed description of the case, including the political, social and economic context of Sydney, historical shifts in planning policies and details of the recent changes in planning practice (e.g., the planning reform). The policy and legislative contexts have also been considered.

4.5.3 Dependability

The notion of dependability suggests that there is a fundamental consistency within the data (Groat & Wang, 2002). It is the consistency with which the same constructs may be matched with the same phenomenon over space and time (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To ensure dependability, the device advised by Guba is an “audit trail”. An audit trail documents all the process by which data were collected, analysed and interpreted. This might include interview and observation notes or investigator’s daily journal notes. I track recorded the ﬁeld work and the entire data collection procedure included in this thesis, and used it in my data analysis.

4.5.4 Conﬁrmability

Guba argues that the investigator’s data and interpretation should be confirmable. According to him, this can be achieved through a combination of triangulation and reflexivity on the researcher’s part. Reflexivity requires the investigator to reveal his or her epistemological assumptions, the influence of the framing of research questions and any change in perspective that might emerge during the course of the study. However, one definition by Punch (1998) will further explain the meaning as “..the degree to which findings are determined by the respondents and conditions of the inquiry and not by the biases, motivations, interests or perspectives of the inquirer” (P. 290). To maintain confirmability, besides maintaining triangulation as noted above, I was always reflexive in my position and discussed and sought feedback from my peers. A number of conference papers and journal articles have been produced from this research from the beginning of my candidature to provide me with feedback and to maintain the confirmability of the thesis.

4.6 Limitations

My socio-cultural background might be identiﬁed as a limitation of the study. As a recent migrant, I was not familiar with the local English accent or, to some extent, the planning policy. Throughout the study I tried to overcome these problems. However, this also allowed me to be objective about the context and hence enabled the production of an unbiased outcome.

115 Importantly, I want to acknowledge that I share the same experiences of the planning process being a member of a disadvantaged group of communities living in one of the suburbs of Sydney.

4.7 Conclusion

This chapter described the research approach, strategy and methods employed in this study. Starting with research design, it described the knowledge claim of the study, the strategy of inquiry and the methodological approach. The chapter clariﬁed the case with a detailed description of the data collection. This study is designed using a pragmatic knowledge claim and the mixed method strategy of inquiry. Data collection methods are a combination of a mail-out questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews, informal discussions and document analysis, using Sydney Metropolitan Strategy as a study case.

In this chapter, the various steps taken to acquire stakeholder participation in the planning process of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy were described to clarify the data collection methods. The data collection methods were included with the procedure and rationale for choosing the speciﬁc techniques. All steps, including the case selection, sampling and questionnaire designing were summarised. Data analysis techniques describe the procedure of sorting, coding and making sense of both the qualitative and quantitative data. Finally this chapter sheds light on the research rigour maintained in the study and researcher’s personal context which might have impacted on the study in both positive and negative ways.

116 Chapter 5

Representative Participation Evidence From Sydney’s Urban Planning

5.1 Introduction

The intent and structure of community participation outlined in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and in urban planning policies of NSW have been analysed in relation to effective community participation in Chapter 3. This chapter presents the results of the 35 semi-structured interviews, questionnaire survey (with 163 valid responses), informal discussion and observation to answer the question of representative participation in the planning process of SMS.

In answering the question, the ﬁrst issue to be investigated was: the measure of community representation in the community forums of SMS. From reviewing different measures of representation in the literature (Brody, 2003; Gundry & Heberlein, 1984; McComas, 2001; Moser, 1989; Wellstead et al., 2003; cf. the details of which have been included in Chapter 2) two strategies are employed in this study, viz.: a) comparing the demographic and socio-economic variables of community members who attended the community forums of the SMS with the cross section of community groups living different suburbs of Sydney region, and b) investigating who participated (who did not participate) and whose voice was heard and why; with a focus on the representation of the disadvantaged groups in the process and outcome of the forums.

Community groups’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics were explored through questionnaire survey. To compare these attributes, the same variables were also synthesised from census data. The reasons for participation (and non-participation) and whether community groups expressed their opinions and what were the reasons for and factors including that expression were also investigated through a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. 117 The chapter is structured as follows: ﬁrst section presents comparative results of the demographic and socio-economic variables of community groups who attended the community forums against the overall Sydney population. It then presents the results in relation to the intent and structure of the participation process to bring community groups into the forum and their level of participation. This will reveal the reasons behind community groups’ representation scenario in SMS. The second section discusses the results in relation to the inclusion of disadvantaged groups of communities in the process of participation. The third section presents the results identifying the drivers that affect the participatory process. In addition, the question of how a cross-section of the community groups can be included in the planning process has been presented from the view of the participants as well as policy makers.

5.2 Attendance of community groups in the forums

Community forums were held in different suburbs of Sydney (see Figure 2.5 for the “consultation process”). Community groups, who participated in the forums, were surveyed with mail-out questionnaires. In regards to their demographic and socio-economic variables, they were asked about their gender, age, education, employment, income, ancestry, living period in Australia and their connection with social organisations. To measure their representation with the overall population of Sydney, the same variables were synthesised from census data 2001 from Australian Bureau of Statistics. 12 community forums were conducted across the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region in 2004 (Department of Planning, 2005). As the community forums were held in 2004, the 2001 census data of the greater Sydney region was used to synchronise the population composition. Using SPSS and frequency distributions of the variables, the two data sets were analysed and then compared.

It was claimed, by Department of Planning, that representatives of community members were widely consulted through the forums (Department of Planning, 2005). When the representation of the cross-section of the community groups was examined, it is revealed that attendants of the community forums did not represent a cross section of the Sydney population. Out of the 163 respondents who returned the mail-out questionnaire, they were either found to be mainly from the groups of educated, high-income earners, well-settled and aged population of Sydney, or these respondents opined that the advantaged groups were active in the forums. The comparison clearly contrasts with the average composition of the Sydney population in regards to education, 118 income distribution, and ancestry, and also differs in regards to age, gender and employment status. The following ﬁgures indicate the failure of the forums to bring out a fair representation of a cross section of Sydney’s population. a) Females were under represented in community forums The composition of attendance of the male-female population in the community forums and Sydney’s population reveals that female community members were under represented in the community forums. Thirty eight percent of females participated in the forums compared to 51 percent female population living in the Sydney region (Figure 5.1 a).

Figure 5.1: a Respondents’ gender distribution in the community forum (top) and Sydney population (bottom) (Source: Questionnaire Survey, 2010 and ABS, 2006)

119 b) Community forums were over represented by people aged over 55 years Community forums were dominated by the over 55 age group. Among the respondents 72 percent are aged over 55 years whereas, among the Sydney population, this age group comprises only 22 percent. In people between the ages of 45 to 54 years old comprised 17 percent of the Community Forum against 14 percent in Sydney region and among the age group of 35 to 44 years, totalled 8 percent for community forum attendants, which is 15 percent for Sydney population. Community members from the age group below 34 years were absent from the respondents. Acknowledging the fact that this distribution of community forum attendants is based on the responses of the questionnaire survey only, and does not represent all the attendants of community forums, it signiﬁes that in community forums community members aged over 55 years were over represented and community members from age groups of below 35 years were under represented (Figure 5.1 b).

Figure 5.1: b Respondents’ age group distribution in the community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom)

120 c) Highly educated members were over represented in the community forums The investigation of community member’s educational qualiﬁcations and the comparison with the Sydney population reveals that community forums were over represented by community members who had post-graduate degrees (37 percent), graduate degrees (21 percent) or Diplomas (19 percent). Only 14 percent completed the HSC. This differs from the Sydney population which only comprises 7 percent of people with a post-graduate degree and 33 percent with educational qualiﬁcation up to HSC level. This implies that the forums were over represented by highly educated community members and under-represented by less educated members of the community (Figure 5.1c).

Figure 5.1: c Education of attendants of community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom) (Source: Questionnaire Survey, 2010 and ABS, 2006)

121 d) Community forums were over represented by retired and unemployed people The employment situation comparison between respondents and the Sydney population shows that community forums were attended by community members who are in professional jobs (46 percent), engaged in trade (10 percent) and students (5 percent) which is almost the same as the Sydney population, comprising 58 percent employed. Among the community forum attendants, 33 percent were retired, whereas 31 percent of Sydney population has been identiﬁed in the group of ‘not in the labour force’. But in regards to the unemployed population, community forums were over represented (6 percent) compared to 3 percent of Sydney’s population (Figure 5.1d).

Figure 5.1: d Respondents’ employment in the community forums (top) and Sydney population (bottom) (Source: Questionnaire Survey, 2010 and ABS, 2006)

e) High income earners are over represented in the community forums Community forums were predominantly attended by high-income earners. The income distributions indicate that 48

122 percent of the attendants had a yearly income of more than $ 60,000 whereas in Sydney’s population, only 18 percent have been identiﬁed with a yearly over $ 67,600 income. On the other hand, less than 20,000 dollars per year income earners comprise 13 percent among community forum attendants, but comprise 38 percent of the total Sydney population. This indicates that the forums participants were mainly from the high-income earner section of the community of Sydney’s population. The income distribution of the other groups do not differ much; such as, 13 percent of 40,000 to 60,000 among community forums compared to 16 percent of 41,000 to 67,548 dollars of Sydney population; or 26 percent of yearly 20,000 dollars income earners compared to 22 percent of 20,000 to 41, 548 dollars income earner group of Sydney population (Figure 5.1e).

Figure 5.1: e Income of community forum attendants (top) and Sydney population (bottom) (Source: Questionnaire Survey, 2010 and ABS, 2006) (n=145)

f) Community forums were over represented by Australia born members The ancestry of community forum attendants was predominantly Australian, meaning that the majority of them 123 were born in Australia with English as their ﬁrst language. They were over represented (total 76 percent with only 7 percent of Australia born people with migrant backgrounds) which is 60 percent for total population of Sydney. It is under represented for overseas born people (24 percent) compared to 40 percent of the Sydney population (Figure 5.1f).

Figure 5.1: f Ancestry of the participants (top) and Sydney population (bottom) (Source: Ques- tionnaire Survey, 2010 and ABS, 2006) (n=158)

When community groups were asked how many years they had been living in Australia, it was found that most of the attendants had lived in Australia since birth (76 percent) or for more than 25 years (18 percent). Only 3 percent of the attendants’ living periods in Australia were 15 to 24 years and 3 percent attendants had lived in Australia for 5 to 14 years (Figure 5.2).

124 Figure 5.2: Community forum attendants’ living period in Australia (n=159) (Source: Question- naire Survey, 2010)

Community forum attendants were from the groups who were well settled and socially connected. Most of the attendants (about 70 percent) were members of social or professional, political organisations while some of them identiﬁed that they were members of more than one organisation and 32 percent mentioned that they were not members of any professional organizations (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3: Respondents’ membership of social and other organisations (n=157)

5.3 Voice effects: whose voices counted?

Of those who attended the community forums, most of them mentioned that they had expressed views in the forum (89 percent). This is a significant finding. Several of those who did not express their opinion identified the reason for this as not getting or knowing an opportunity (6 percent). Others identified the reasons to be not being very much interested, not understanding 125 the technical language of the facilitators of the meeting or the use of the technical process (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4: Expression of views by respondents in the community meeting (n=146) (Source: Questionnaire survey, 2010)

The finding above implies that a cross-section of the community groups of Sydney’s population was not represented in the community forums. Community forums were over represented by high educated, high-income earners, the aged and service holders or retired groups of the Sydney population. Most of them were Australia born or had been living in Australia since birth or for more than 25 years. The forums were under represented by young groups of people (less than 25 years old), people who were less educated, low-income earners and recent migrants. Most community groups who attended the forum expressed opinions in the meeting, but it was not clear whether these opinions actually influence the final decisions. This implies that, from point of view of the representation of community groups, effective participation was limited. The community forums largely failed to bring forward the views and interests from a cross section of the Sydney population. The next section identifies the reasons behind this.

126 5.4 Why unrepresentative participation?

The reasons for the failure of bringing forward voices from the cross-section of the community groups were identiﬁed from SSIs, informal discussion, observation and document analysis. There are several reasons which can be categorised into two themes: i) reasons in relation to the participatory selection process of the community groups, and ii) reasons related to the opportunities created for participation.

5.4.1 Problems in ‘random’ selection of participants

It has been noted in the SMS that community members were selected “randomly” for the participation. However the details of, and evidence for, ‘random selection’ are sketchy. Rather results show that three different approaches were used for selection of the community members. The ﬁrst was advertising in local newspapers. Advertisements were placed in local newspapers asking people to register by calling a phone number if they wanted to attend the community forum. This is self-nomination or a pre registration process to attend the forum (Semi-Structured Interviews: SG/ex2, SG/dop1 and Save Our Suburb, 2004). The second approach was a systematic process of sending letters to local activist groups inviting them to attend (SG/ex2, SG/dop6). The third was randomly inviting people to attend the forum from the list obtained from a direct mail company (Sg/dop2, SG/dop3, SG/dop5).

It is interesting to highlight that findings of this study clearly indicate that the selection of participants was not really “random”. Some respondents mentioned that the list was the Australian electoral list (SG/dop7 and informal discussions while preparing for fieldwork). It was confirmed by several sources that it was from a private company who run life-style surveys, a different purpose survey list utilised for a completely different purpose (SG/dop3, SG/dop2). The direct-mail company ‘randomly’ selected 10,000 people based on the post-codes provided by the Department of Planning (DoP). However, most respondents who responded confirmed the third approach as choosing participants, but it might be the case that inviting by mail was the main approach, it was supplemented by the other two. One respondent said:

. . . we wanted to invite people at random so that we, you know, got a really good spread of names. Well, we attempted to do it from the electoral commission, but they wouldn’t allow us accessing their data. So we then went to a private company, a direct mail company - the type of company that do sort of major lifestyle surveys

127 and that kind of thing. It’s the company that does the major lifestyle survey for Australia Post. So we basically sent out 10,000 invitations and we got a response of about 700 to 1,000. (SG/dop3)

It was claimed that community members were selected to participate in community forums, again, by random sampling, but the very nature of ‘random sampling’ has considerable problems. Random sampling clearly fails to represent the heterogeneous society which means that it is likely to miss some critical segments of the society. A DoP staff member acknowledges this :

“. . . obviously when you go through a random selection exercise that can be very difﬁcult because ... the process meant that we could not guarantee this to be representative (SG/dop2). However, it has some positive sides like making sure of neutrality, and not showing any favour especially to avoid dominant voice of local activists (SG/ex1, SG/ex2, SG/dop6).

Using a private data-base instead of the electoral list is also a problem. The list of the community groups from which 10,000 members were randomly selected to attend 12 community forums was a list from a private mail-house company (please note that the name was not possible to be revealed due to privacy issues) that conducts different types of life style surveys—the purpose of which is much narrower than it would be for urban planning. Choosing members from this type of list would include those people who subscribed to participate in different surveys. This means that they are more prone to participate in targeted issues than the general populace. It is also possible that the names selected from this type of list would bring the people who are out of the labour force, and who have enough spare time. It was stated by a DoP staff member that:

The only thing I would like to have done differently was to choose the electoral role for random sampling. I think that by using a private database we only really went to people that actively participated in some other kind of survey so it wasn’t genuinely random. (SG/dop3)

The sample size for the respondent pool was very small in the context of urban planning in Sydney city. Choosing only 1,000 community members is very small sample size to represent the people of the greater Sydney region. One expert expressed concerns:

It was 1000, it should have been 500 thousand people at random across a series of suburbs, because 1,000 is only, I think we worked out, was .025 % of the population or something. So it was a very very small part of the population. So, to my mind it wasn’t enough consultation but on the plus side at least there was some. . . . . (SG/ex1) 128 5.4.2 Insufﬁcient opportunities for participation

The opportunities created for community groups to participate were not conducive to allow different community groups to properly utilise the forum. Three issues were identiﬁed, viz.,: a) the use of one, universal technique to include community members from all groups of society, b) the limited ﬂexibility in regards to meeting times, and c) the limited resources hinder the process.

Not using different techniques to include different groups of people has been identified as a major issue to represent the communities identified by the research findings. As the participation process was only for “one evening” and used presentations and workshop type techniques with some effort from facilitators, it failed to capture people from non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal or peoples from low income earner groups. Rather, the process was designed in such a way that only mainstream Australians would be able to utilise the opportunity. One respondent said:

The system has provisions for opportunities, but there’re probably advantages for people in the community who know how to use that provision in the system. Who can engage with it, who are articulate or who can write letters, who can use the website, who speak English well, who are not poor ... probably advantages to those people in the community. People who are less well off at using these techniques to get around these people into a broader community. The planning system is not good at doing that. (SG/ex2) Most of the community forums were primarily held during the day, so people who were likely to be at work, were unable to attend. This implies that the timing was problematic, targeting people who were unemployed, retirees, or people who were ordinarily available during the day. Even if we assume that there were some people who took time off to attend, clearly the meetings could not capture a representative sample of the community. Having limited resources is another signiﬁcant cause which has inhibited the process reaching out to the community. This was recognised by an expert:

. . . The timeline was very very tight and the resources were quite limited. So in terms of the process, there probably wasn’t a very strong focus on the proper process. . . . whoever came to the forum was seen as a generally representative cross sample of that local community. (SG/ex2) Another respondent conﬁrmed this:

129 . . . they have to put money into the resource to kind of trying and reaching out to them, so I think it’s just a question of if you can do it in a short period of time, if you’ve got enough resources. So it comes down to resources all the time. And planning to my mind hasn’t got a high enough status in the government spending hierarchy to kind of be able to get the resources for things like roads, crime and justice and even transport. (SG/ex1) In addition, some of the respondents identiﬁed the government’s attitude that community forums can be platforms of political showdown and hence there is less emphasis on their including different community groups. One respondent noted:

. . . but they’re really more about gauging the mood and getting a sense of what the issues are, and of course, building legitimacy for the project, because the website they can then say “we spoke to 700 people or 12 forums or 1,000 people or whatever . . . . (SG/dop6)

5.5 No representation of disadvantaged community groups

It is clear from the above section that disadvantaged groups from local communities were not sufﬁciently represented in the community forums. Then the next question is to whether local community groups, particularly disadvantaged groups’ interests have been reﬂected in the process and outcomes of participation.

I acknowledge that disadvantaged groups can be defined differently in different contexts. Here, I use the term specifically to refer to those individuals and groups of people that are socio-economically, culturally and linguistically in the minority in Australian society, such as Indigenous Australians, unemployed individuals (and thus receiving government support) and groups from non-English speaking background. It has been mentioned earlier that community consultation was conducted through different forums and by inviting submissions. Submissions were invited through email, postal mail or fax. But submissions are not the most convenient way to collect input from most disadvantaged groups of the local communities. Below I present findings in three domains: 1) whether the interests of disadvantaged groups were represented in the future forum, 2) whether their interests were represented in the local government forum, and 3) whether their interests were included in the final decisions (or programs) of the SMS.

5.5.1 No representation of disadvantaged groups in future forums

There were two Future Forums organised. The ﬁrst Forum was organised on 18 -19th May 2004. It was claimed that the Forum meeting was attended by some 360 representatives from State and 130 Local Governments, industry and community groups. The second Future Forum was held on 13th December, 2004. The Local Government and Community Forums were held to bring forward a range of issues for discussion. It is not stated anywhere in the plan how many stakeholders groups were at the meeting and how opportunities for attendance were created by the NSW Department of Planning. However this information was analysed from semi-structured interviews with government staff members at the state and local level, community representatives, informal discussions and document reviewing.

Although the forums were open to community groups, the participation was by invitation only. The question of how participants were selected was described by a respondent as:

My recollection is that when it was reported in the press, some more active community members did speak, they wanted to participate and we let them. But we didn’t invite. But, we spoke to major corporations, to BHT, Macquarie Bank and we got contact details through the Minister and through other government departments. We got as many names and contacts, and then we just basically, we got on the phone and we rang them and said look, we want to run this and we would like representation from you. You know, who should we send the invitation to (?). And then we invited them. We sent letters directly. . .

. . . the Minister signed all the letters of invitation. So we did the research to try and work out whom to send and then did a personal letter signed by the Minister to invite them. So we got very, very senior business and industry representatives along. You know, like captains of industry and I think that that was very inﬂuential. (SG/dop5) There was very limited opportunity for community groups, particularly the representatives of the disadvantaged groups to participate. This was highlighted by a respondent as:

There are people who can’t write letters or don’t like to write letters, or don’t use the web. So, I think probably there wasn’t enough different kinds of techniques to engage these people, particularly people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Instead, they settled for surrogates for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those people would speak on behalf of other people from more disadvantaged backgrounds. So, I think that the government did not beneﬁt from input from those sorts of people to the strategy. And that would concern me from a professional point of view in terms of how inclusive the engagement process was. (SG/ex2) There were some peak representative bodies of the disadvantaged communities, such as, aged communities or indigenous communities. Yet, in regards to representation from a broad section

131 there was very few (SG/ex2 and SG/dop5). One respondent said:

Our advice to the department was to try and get a broad cross-section of representative interests, which would include people with disabilities, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and the like. Whether that actually happened, I can’t recall. (SG/ex2)

5.5.2 No representation of disadvantaged groups in local government forums

The Local Government Forum was for local council staff members only. Two hundred representatives were claimed to have attended it from 51 municipalities in Sydney (Department of Planning, 2005). Each council internally selected attendants. There were no community representatives other than the Local Government staff members who were supposed to represent the local communities of their Local Government area. Opportunities of expressing views by the community representatives in the Future Forum or Local Government Forum was hence very limited. A Local government staff member who raised the issues about his local council expressed the following concern: I probably would have said something about, you know, that we have a huge reliance on public transport and our community is very dependent on that. Something needs to be done in terms of resourcing better public transport

. . . so that was probably the main issue that I would have spoken about. But there was really very little chance. There were so many people that it was very hard to talk about these issues. (LG/ff1)

5.5.3 Exclusion of community interests in the ﬁnal decision

According to the “City of Cities” plan, four main themes were raised by participants (Department of Planning, 2005). They were:

a protecting, preserving and having access to the natural environment. This includes the conservation of biodiversity, bushland, waterways and parks. It was one of the strongest concerns shared by the participating community groups;

b urban consolidation and control of high rise and high density development were also key concerns;

c public transport, which includes the improvement of public transport service quality, good networks to both the CBD and the suburbs and a combination of different transport modes, and 132 d a sense of community, which includes quality of access to shops, restaurants and involvement in community or social activities.

The SMS attempted to address the above community concerns through the seven specific sub-strategies mentioned in Chapter 2. It is interesting to note, however, that the above issues and the objectives proposed in the strategy appear to be consistent with some of the ideals of sustainable development. A number of initiatives were proposed for disadvantaged groups. For example, the employment and economy section sub-strategies were developed to improve opportunities and access to jobs and in the housing section, specific provisions were made to improve housing affordability. However there was no specific community participation platform created to facilitate the views of disadvantaged groups. An analysis of the reflections of the community input in the final decisions has been included in Chapter 6. This clearly indicates that there is very limited reflection of the community’s interest in the final outcome. However, the analysis does reveal that the SMS created some opportunities for a broad range of stakeholder inputs into the decision making process through the expert Reference Panel, working groups Local Government level forums and public submissions. Noteworthy to mention here is that these stakeholders are largely made up of elite representatives of government, and professional and business groups. Local community interests, however, were not directly represented and only found a voice, if any, through the elites on the above panel and local level forums.

5.6 Why do people participate?

Despite a range of issues mentioned above, many local community members attended meetings, were interested to hear about the SMS and the like. The question then is why do many people are interested in the participation. The investigation into why community groups participated in community forums and the reasons council staff members attended the Future Forums or Local Government Forums reveals a number of interesting ﬁndings. It is also interesting to link as to why the SMS created some opportunities for the participation of community groups and local government staff. Interviews and discussion with DoP staff and others who were involved in the strategy making process indicate that the Government created opportunities to conﬁrm and clarify ideas, and to receive feedback about their intentions as well as to implement an exercise of awareness raising whereas community groups wanted to be informed and to offer their input. Reasons for these two groups’ participation are discussed 133 Figure 5.5: Respondents’ view for the reasons of participation in community forums (n=138)

below.

5.6.1 Why do community groups participate?

Community groups who attended the community forums were asked what motivated their attendance. It was found that protecting the environment was the most common reason by 57 percent. Another signiﬁcant reason was to have input into decision-making process (Figure 5.5). There were participants in the forums who were there without any speciﬁc reason (6 percent) while 4 percent went there only for socialisation.

Community groups were asked about their views on why themselves, and other people, participate. As there was an option to choose more than one answer, the responses came with mixed attributes. Thirty percent of respondents identified personal need or economic benefit with environmental concerns whereas about 18 percent identified personal needs or economic benefit as the main reason for participation (Figure 5.6). This highlights the necessity of including community needs and interests in the planning agenda to make communities interested in participating. Although most of the respondents said that they participated in the SMS to protect the environment or to give input to the decision making process, in response to the question why people participate, they identified personal and economic reasons. But personal or economic reasons are identified as a reason to participate in the SMS by only 7 percent of the community forum attendants. The reason of environmental concerns was consistent in both data sets. This indicates the possibility that most of the community forum attendants were economically solvent; from groups who are better off in society.

134 Figure 5.6: Respondent’s views as to why do people participate (n=165)

Respondents were also asked for the reasons if and why they decided not to participate in any of the planning processes. It was been identiﬁed that not knowing about the event (55 percent) was the most cited reason. Personal limitation was another major reason (27 percent), while 9 percent of respondents said that they were not interested in participating (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7: Respondent’s view for reason for no effective participation (n=162)

For community representatives who attended the Local Government forum and the Future Forums, main reason cited for their participation was to be informed about the government plan for their neighbourhood As one community representative said: We wanted to be informed about

135 the proposals and what detailed planning could take place could be found out via these three councils (CP/lad).

Similarly, Local Government staff members who attended Local Government Forums stated that they wanted to be informed and to take their community needs and aspirations on board (LG/ff1). On the other hand, some senior council staff members noted that seeking local council endorsement was the main reason the State Government to run the forums. Overall, there was a consensus that the consultation process failed to provide strong credibility to the community and local council participants. One representative explains this:

. . . it’s just to make sure that there was nothing going to be imposed by the State Government on us that we didn’t want. I mean, we found out now we’re going to develop some 27,000 new residences by 2025 or 2030. Which I don’t think is probably a big ask. But that was the main concern I suppose. You go into these, I suppose into these workshops, you know these strategies with the feeling of - hang on, hang on, you’re going to be told what to do. To some extent you are, by the State Government, by the Planning Department. But you hope that out of that they are genuinely talking to the community. And I think over the years they have softened their stance of dictating and they do have private consultations. So I really didn’t have a great deal of concerns, just wanted to be there to see what it was about, ﬁrst-hand. (LG/ff4)

5.6.2 Why to create opportunities for participation?

The reasons for creating opportunities for community participation have been identiﬁed to have clustered around four main themes:

1. conﬁrming the ideas and assumption of the DoP about the needs of communities,

2. informing communities,

3. creating awareness, and d) receiving community feedback. a) To conﬁrm the ideas and assumption of bureaucrats about what is needed Results indicate that Government bureaucrats wanted to conﬁrm their ideas and assumptions about community needs and what the reaction was to the initiatives they were going to implement through the SMS. One representative quote of a respondent explains this as:

. . . firstly, it’s a 25-year plan. So the government had a view of what it thought the community wanted over the next 25 years, and the question was: have we got that right or wrong. At the same time the government staff knew that there had to be a certain number of jobs and houses to cope with that growth. So managing and 136 guiding that growth, at the same time as matching peoples’ expectations as to how they thought the city might grow over 25 years was important, and as I said, Government had a view of what the community might want, or what they thought the community might want for that area, and it was basically a process of going out and confirming whether that view was correct or not (SG/dop1). b) To inform people There was a consensus from respondents that to inform people about the Government’s main intention was one of the major reasons as to why opportunities for community participation were created. This was mentioned by all Government staff members as one respondent said: Well, it was important to me to let people be heard legitimately and allow them to understand that we took their views seriously, and the process was a genuine attempt to be realistic and honest and establish an equation of trust in the fact that we were making a genuine attempt to properly structure a plan for Sydney’s future growth (SG/dop4). c) To get feedback from the communities Results indicate that the Government staff members wanted to receive at least some feedback from the communities prior to the fully fletched implementation of the plan. To know what the community’s aspirations about the future and what issues would need to be prioritised were two of the key reasons the DoP conducted Community Forums (SG/dop 5, SG/dop3). d) To increase awareness Results indicate that increasing the community’s awareness is another reason for the government to create opportunities for participation. This is maintained, despite the fact that the planning authorities did not consider much community’s knowledge information and feedback from the forums. This view was expressed by the majority of respondent, as one respondent puts this in the following way:

. . . even if the project itself doesn’t get a lot of content from these events, they are very useful mechanisms to build awareness and to build understanding amongst the community about what the Government’s doing and you know, for all of the 70 people who came to that event, it didn’t take long for them to tell a few friends and what I was doing, they wanted to see, you know. So and all of a sudden there’s a little bit of word mail out there about the event, so the proﬁle for it is raised. So, I think it’s always beneﬁcial for people to communicate and talk about issues in their community even if nothing is immediately done about those issues (SG/dop6).

5.7 Problems of participation

Results indicate that there are two critical problems of participation as practised. On one hand, the problem is with the people who have conducted the ‘consultation process’ including the State 137 Government and Local Government ofﬁcials. On the other hand, the problem is also with the community groups who are consulted. For the DoP staff members who organised the participation process, the problem is for them are communities being not really interested or even distrustful about the process, community apathy, time and resource limitations and the community’s limited understanding of the implications of planning (SG/dop6, SG/dop1, SG/dop2, SG/dop3, SG/dop4, LG/ff1 and LG/rw1). One of the respondents described community apathy about the participation process in planning process as seriously problematic:

The issue is for us to get our community more interested in you know . . . to be more aware of the planning system in local planning issues and its very hard, but just over the years it’s very hard to get community engagement in it. I think the community is very cynical about some of the processes (LG/ff1).

Another respondent also highlighted the same issue: It is only when you are objecting to something that you get involved and therefore you don’t get a good understanding of really what the community really thinks, because you are only getting those objections, so there is that silent group who may support it but don’t really care, so yeah they don’t come, so that’s really the problem with community participation, so all you get is the people who are very unhappy and are opposing something, so it’s hard to sort of get the broad picture

. . . (LG/rw1) On the other hand, Local Government staff members who represent their local community in the participatory forums identiﬁed the problems of elite domination, faulty techniques, limited opportunity to express views, unsuitable time, and not receiving feedback from State Government staff members (LG/ff1, LG/rw1, SG/dop1). Limited opportunities for expressing their views were mentioned by a respondent:

. . . the major issue is that when you have very large forums like that and you present a lot of information to a big group of people then you have a huge question and answer session; usually only half a dozen people get to ask a question (LG/cmb2). Elite domination that inhibits the meaningful use of the opportunity to express voice was also described as

“. . . it concerned the Mayors, like some are really outspoken and they’ve used the forum and how they do a performance and that kind of thing” (LG/ff1).

138 5.8 Factors affecting motivation for participation

Research indicates that the motivating factors for communities to participate were an incentive structure for participation. This was found to have positive impacts on participation, although there is some difference among the types of incentives provided. For instance, the provision of assistance in transportation to the forums or understanding technical terms are more important than ﬁnancial or other types of incentives (Figure 5.8). However, most of the respondents mentioned that they did not expect any incentive.

Figure 5.8: Respondent’s expectation for incentives

In answering the question of whether community groups would participate if there were no incentives, most of the repondents (68 percent) answered that it would make no difference (Figure 5.9).

Although incentive is not an important factor for the respondents to participate, this issue was recommended in the SSIs for inclusion in the policies for best practice. Incentives, like assistance in travelling, refreshments, childcare or entertainment have been recommended in the case of the participation of lower socio-economic communities. As one expert said:

I would suggest that either on-site or off-site you provide some assistance in childcare to enable, to facilitate who could be part of that process. So I think that was probably a shortcoming of the process. But my general view is that if you’re asking people to come on an unpaid basis to contribute, you should provide adequate refreshments and food, particularly in the evening when they coming straight from work before they go home. They should at least get water (SG/ex1). 139 Figure 5.9: Respondent’s view on whether participation if no incentives

Some interviewees noted that a genuine consideration of the community group’s opinion would be more effective than just a consideration of incentives, as one respondent said:

I don’t think it’s essential in one way. I think it’s more important that you actually use the information that people give to you, but it’s nice to provide some incentives, but yeah, I think you feed people certainly in a low socio-economic community (LG/ff2).

Community members were also asked about the probable cause of their deliberate decision not to participate. Results indicate that a number of factors are at play; such as, travelling a long distance (27 percent), family commitments (21 percent), financial limitations (16 percent), a waste of time (8 percent), not knowing (8 percent), others (8 percent) and only financial limitations (4 percent) were the factors identified as hindering participation for community groups (Figure 5.10) (Notably more than one answer was acceptable).

This implies assistance in regards to travelling a long distance to participate or choosing a venue closer to the community group’s locality, arranging child caring facilities and even monetary assistance are important for the inclusion of community groups in participatory forums.

140 Figure 5.10: Respondent’s view on probable causes of non-participation (n=155)

5.9 Increasing representative participation

Results indicate that there was no policy intention for representative participation, neither was representative participation realised in practice. Even when representative participation was the intention and was realised, there was a real problem of not effectively capturing the input of the participants. Nevertheless, a legitimate question here to ask as to how representative participation can be improved, and only then the second order question of ‘input capture’ can be explored and addressed.

A range of initiatives were highlighted by research respondents as critical to increase the representation of community groups in the participatory forums: Providing a variety of participation opportunities, not just public meetings. Small workshops, websites, surveys and focus groups are important to involve those people who might not normally participate in planning decision-making. Some respondents also recommended community reference groups.

Making the participation a continuous process and providing information on an ongoing basis can enhance the representation of diverse groups in society. Providing a range of options for people to have clear and succinct information so that they are not intimidated and understand the value of consultation.

141 Allocating more time and resources is critical for encouraging people to gradually become part of the participation process.

Encouraging a greater openness from bureaucracy to embrace different ways of working. Designing a process which is suitable, speciﬁcally for engaging Aboriginal People, people who may not have the physical ability or resources to attend, those who need transportation and those who may need money to attend. Producing a range of meeting times and dates including weekends and evenings as well as during the day.

5.10 Conclusion

It was found that a representation of a cross-section of the community groups in SMS was seriously limited. Community groups who attended Community Forums and community representatives (from community and local governments) who attended Future Forums and Local Government Forums were not representative of a cross section of Sydney population. Particularly, representation of disadvantaged groups in the forums was very minimal. Community groups who attended the Community Forums were predominantly from the elite of society who are highly educated, high-income earners, middle-aged groups of people who are in the professional jobs, or including retirees who lived in Sydney for more than 25 years. The young, low-income earners, less educated, indigenous or recent migrants are under-represented in the forums. Disadvantaged groups of people completely missed out on the process of both Future Forums and Local Government Forums. Representative participation was neither a policy intention, nor the outcome of the participatory practice.

The reasons for the failure to represent a cross section of the Sydney population are embedded in the problematic ‘random selection’ of the participants and insufﬁcient opportunities for the local communities to attend. Using random sampling, using mailing lists of a private mail-house company and using a universal technique to include the cross-section of population were identiﬁed as contributing to unrepresentative participation. Random selection, or random sampling, in particular was problematic as the process of selection of participants was not really random. Even when the process was perfectly done and was fully random, it would have been still counter productive to social justice outcome, as it is likely that many disadvantaged groups would have every change of being missed out.

142 The reasons for the participation of community groups and the reasons why the government created some opportunities for participation was investigated to get an in-depth insight into the aspects of representation in participatory forums. It was found that environmental concerns and personal and economic needs and beneﬁts were the leading reasons why community groups participate. On the other hand, the Government created opportunities to inform community groups, to conﬁrm their assumptions about community aspirations and also to get some feedback on their proposals. Effectively participation was, at best, instrumental and largely tokenistic. It was way short of its promise to empower local communities.

The motivating and hindering factors, along with the problems the community groups and planning authorities face in relation to representation of the community groups were also discussed in this Chapter. Genuine consideration for local community group’s input was identified as the most important factor for motivating community groups to participate. Incentives like money and food were found not to be significant, but assistance in travelling long distances and child caring facilities are motivating factors. Using different types of techniques, flexible times and dates for meetings, a clear, succinct and continuous information flow, ensuring the openness of the process and making the participation a continuous process, not just a one off are the initiatives recommended to enhance a representation of the cross-section of community groups in the community participation process of the urban planning practice. The next Chapter provides results relating to the second component of effective participation - ‘empowerment’ of community groups through participation opportunities.

143 Chapter 6

Community Empowerment Through Participation: Rhetoric or Reality?

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents results in relation to the second component of effective community participation the empowerment. The chapter seeks to answer the question of whether and to what extent the process and outcome of participation actually empower local community groups, particularly the poor and disadvantaged. In answering this question, the following criteria are used to measure the possibility and extent of empowerment in the local community (Arnstein, 1969; Bailey, 2010; Clarke & Ageyemen, 2011; Evans & Percy, 1999; Friedmann, 1992; IAP2, 2007; Kakumba, 2010; Narayan, 2002; Wallerstein, 2006):

a to what extent is there “shared decision-making power” between the government agencies and local community groups;

b whose “inﬂuence is greater” in the participatory process and the outcome;

c to what extent is there “an incorporation of community input” into the decisions;

d whether and to what extent is there “an increase in participant knowledge and skill”;

e is there “an increase in participant conﬁdence and satisfaction” over the process of participation, and

f is there a degree of “a sense of ownership” over the plan or the project among the local community groups.

144 The chapter is structured as follows. The ﬁrst section discusses the issues pertaining to community groups’ empowerment in relation to the empowerment measures listed above. The next section deals with why there was a failure to enhance empowerment through the participation process. The third section outlines some of the key recommendations as provided by research respondents, to achieve the goal of empowerment by analysing the results of different motivating and hindering factors. Finally, the conclusion summarises the key ﬁndings of this chapter.

6.2 Empowering the local community through participation?

6.2.1 Sharing decision making power

To investigate whether and to what extent local community groups share decision-making power with government agencies who have previously monopolised the decisions, the community participation process was investigated through the assessment of practice employed by the planning officials and the views expressed by research respondents. The following stages were identified and analysed below to find out whether and to what extent the government allows or shares decision-making power with local community groups. a) Before the release of the discussion paper The SMS was announced on May, 2004. Community Forums were only conducted at the later stages of the process. Local community groups were not consulted before the agenda was all set. There was no disclosure of information in the media or any information outlet about the planning process and options for the local community to be aware of and to understand the purpose of the strategy.

As part of document analysis from the database, factiva.com the phrase “Sydney Metropolitan Strategy” (between 01 January 2002 and 01 January 2005) located 37 newspaper articles. To know what type of information was released in newspapers, a thematic analysis was carried out. The thematic analysis of these 37 newspaper articles covered the following themes (the numbers in bracket indicate the number of newspapers which covered the issue): the potential effects of planning proposals outlined in the strategy (24), ﬁnancial issues in relation to the strategy (4), the key strategies (1), planning experts who are involved or in charge (4), news detailing Future Forums (3) and residents’ protest against a proposed planning step (1).

145 In some of the local newspapers, “Future Forums” were called “public meetings” which was itself questionable in terms of their intent because the future forums were not designed for local communities which highlights the issues of newspaper reporting. These meetings were to be attended by invitation only. Surprisingly, there was no news about Community Forums, except in one instance where it was reported that 12 Community Forums would be held with 700 community members. But there was no notice given to local communities, even in local newspapers, about the Community Forums. There was no information in the newspapers about how community consultation was going to occur, what the meeting agenda would be and what was expected from community groups. A series of news paper articles were published in a state wide published daily news paper named “Campaign for Sydney” concerning Sydney’s water, air, transport and urban development with the aim of complementing the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy before its release. There was a call for readers to send their ideas about improving Sydney through telephone or email (Whitehead, 2005). However, this type of review of urban issues in public media and public view analysis needs to be conducted before the release of the discussion paper and before all the forums were held, not before the ﬁnal release of the plan.

The above mentioned findings imply that firstly, community groups were not provided with essential information about the participatory forums, why and how the forums will be conducted and how community groups were expected to participate. Secondly, they were not provided with authentic information and thirdly, community groups were not provided with sufficient information to make them familiar with planning alternatives and the potential implications of the proposed strategy. Consequently, community groups did not have information about the plan and planning, effectively losing any potential to influence over the agenda or goals of the strategy. b) The forums Among the forums, Community Forums were the only forums where local community groups would be consulted. Although, in Local Government Forums, the local council staff represented their local communities, they also have minimal influence over the decision-making as analysis presented in latter sections of this chapter will confirm. In Community Forums, as the format of the forum outlined from SSIs and informal discussion indicate, community groups had a very limited chance to share the decision making power. c) Finalisation After the forums, the Strategy was finalised, but no feedback was given to local communities who participated about the consideration of their input or how their input was 146 analysed. Analysing the steps of the strategy will make this clearer in the following table (Table 6.1).

Sydney Metropolitan Strategy platform Participation of local community groups Setting of agendas No participation Future Forum I No participation Discussion paper Submissions invited Local government Forum No community participation, but local • council staff members were consulted. The process was as follows: A general background presentation by De- • partment of Planning staff following the Minister’s speech. Participants were broken into several • groups (of around 20 people) based on particular issues. A workshop with brain storming. • In groups, participants could outline issues • relevant to their council. There was a facilitator in each group. • Community Forums DoP claimed to have included 1000 com- • munity members in 12 community forums. The format is described below (indicating • that the participation activity was superﬁ- cial and unable to support people genuinely participate): Only one evening of presentation and work- • shop, At the beginning there were background • presentations followed by the Minister’s speech. The Minister was present in every meeting except one (SG/dop6, SG/dop4). Communities were asked to answer three • structured questions on the table: what people value about their local region,

Table 6.1: Participation of local communities in the making of SMS

147 6.2.2 Government strengthening control over participation

It was found from the questionnaire survey, SSIs, informal discussion and observation that local community groups have minimal or no influence on the so-called participatory process and outcome. When community groups were asked about their opinion of influencing the final outcome, the majority (62 percent) of them either did not know or felt it was very poor (19 percent) and poor (11 percent); 32 percent of respondents mentioned that they were unsure (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Respondents’ view on the effect of community participation on outcomes (n=138)

This figure indicates that most of the respondents either were not aware of their influence or they had pessimistic views about their influence on the outcome. However, 28 percent and eight percent of community members mentioned that their influence in the outcome was satisfactory and good. But community groups’ influence on the process and outcome was identified as minimal by the respondents when they were asked to nominate the least influential stakeholder.

Community groups were asked about their views in regards to influential stakeholders, such as which stakeholder had most influence on the process and outcome and which stakeholder had the least influence. In answering about the least influential stakeholder, a significant number of respondents mentioned that they were not sure who was the least influential stakeholder, but most of the respondents stated that community groups were the least influential stakeholder, followed by community groups who have political favour, environmental groups and then Local

148 Government (there were options to choose from community groups and community groups with political favour, money and so forth) (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2: Respondents’ view of the least inﬂuential communtiy groups (n=266)

In answering the question of identifying the most inﬂuential stakeholders, respondents identiﬁed the State government the most, then community groups who have political favour and money, and then local government. Some of the respondents mentioned that they were not sure (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3: Responents’ view of the most inﬂuential stakeholders (n=228)

The analysis of SSIs results also confirms that community groups had nominal influence over the process and outcome. Even some Expert Reference Panel members or Local Government 149 staff members who could act as representatives or watchdogs of a community’s interest, had minimal influence on the process and outcome. The Reference Panel was a panel with eight members who worked as advisory board in the SMS. Sometimes they attended community or Local Government Forums. Their opportunities to influence decisions were described as:

We were in the very typical advisory committee that met fairly regularly and received reports and papers to comment. I think it suffered from all the faults from those sorts of structures... then you meet every few weeks regarding an agenda or a set of papers, you don’t really advance to anything very much, but certain recommendations, they may or may not have some effect (SG/rp1).

One of the reference panel members also complained about the inability to inﬂuence the outcome and pointed to the problems of the planning system:

I think we were seen as endorsing what was going to happen anyway and of course, what was going to happen was . . . “what always happens in these sorts of exercises, given the nature of planning organisations and the stake” (SG/rp1).

Local Government staff members similarly spoke of the limited opportunities to inﬂuence the outcome and indicated the bureaucratic nature of the planning system. One senior Local Government staff member spoke about the attitude of the State government in the forums:

There were some questions, but I thought it was really a more confronting type of process. . . we asked some questions. The staff asked questions. Yes, they did. But, I didn’t think it was to the level that they had to take it down. There was courtesy shown that way. But, I don’t know that they’re gonna take too much . . . We did have a feeling that they weren’t gonna take too much notice of what we had to say (LG/ff1).

Overall, it was clear from the results that the way ofﬁcials of the planning agency was operating was very narrow and instrumental, through their own traditional bureaucratic lens, trying to reinforce their positions of bureaucracy dominance in decision-making, albeit in a different manner within a shield of pseudo-participatory process.

6.2.3 Marginalisation of community input

The inclusion of community’s input in the ﬁnal decisions has been presented here in three ways. Firstly, by presenting a comparison between the planning outcome and community inputs with

150 the help of relevant documents review; secondly, by presenting the results of the questionnaire survey concerned with the community’s views about the incorporation of their input and thirdly, by presenting the results of SSIs and informal discussion relevant to the inclusion of community groups’ input in the ﬁnal decision outcome. According to the reporting by the ofﬁcials working for SMS, three main themes were raised by participants (Department of Planning, 2005). These are discussed below, as were outlined in the SMS, and are followed by the implications found from the analysis.

a Protecting, preserving and having access to natural environment This includes the conservation of bio-diversity, bushland, waterways and parks. It was one of the strongest concerns shared by the participating community groups. Urban consolidation, control of high-rise and high-density development were some of the key concerns.

b Public Transport This includes the improvement of public transport service quality, good networks to both the CBD and the suburbs and a combination of different transport modes.

c A sense of community This includes quality of access to shops, restaurants and involvement in community or social activities

These points were outlined in the SMS but they are problematic for the empowerment of community groups for the following reasons. Firstly, document analysis reveals that the SMS was subjected to severe criticism, particularly for its emphasis on economic growth at the expense of the environment. For instance, a Gosford council representative for the Future Forum reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that

“A lot of talks were focusing on economic growth. . . but not approaching it from the most important factor, and that’s the environment” (Tillet, 2004). Similarly, another issue was raised by 90 councillors and senior staff members from 40 local councils about how to manage the environment and simultaneously support a competitive economy (Grennan, 2006). These criticisms are indicative of a strong perception in the community that the SMS is biased towards economic growth and does not give adequate weight to protecting environmental resources. It also fails to promote a sustainable urban structure and

151 form, which was community’s major concern in the forums. The Davis (2005), for example, reported that:

If there was a question for sustainable urban structure for the lower Hunter region, there must be something about protecting the essential natural structure. But Sydney Metropolitan Strategy had failed to outline that.

The SMS also contains initiatives on housing affordability. However, this initiative was criticised for failing to provide affordable housing for people on low and moderate incomes. The proposals for affordable housing were seen as disappointing and the plan was believed to be mainly driven to enhance Sydney’s role as a global city (Bunker & Holloway, 2006). Also, areas of socio-economic stagnation and deprivation were considered to be inadequately addressed in the Strategy (Searle, 2006).

There is strongly held view that the Strategy was heavily influenced by ’the will of developers’ and their associations, such as the Property Council of Australia and Landcom (Searle, 2006). Another criticism is that the Warren Centre; an independent, not-for-profit organisation located at the University of Sydney, and which has extensive industry links, put forward a proposal for a fast-train link between Parramatta and Central Sydney which was ignored by politicians and bureaucrats (The Warren Centre, 2004). The surge in public interest for cycling and walking in Sydney were also ignored because of the Strategy’s almost single focus on road and rail construction, which partly reflects the power of government infrastructure agencies, such as the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA).

Community anger with the SMS process was reported by Vallejo (2008) stating that residents of Sydney’s North and South West were going to launch a class action against the State Government over the unfair acquisition of their land, below market value, to build railway lines and infrastructure under the policies set out in the SMS. Later, further accusations were made that the same land acquisitions were likely to be dropped as part of Government’s cost cutting exercise:

A retired man, 52 years, a tomato grower, was offered $ 400,000 by a developer but now he can’t sell his remaining land . . . the Government is only offering 90,000 an acre ( Vallejo, 2008).

152 From the above, it can be argued that input from community groups had limited direct influence on the final decisions in relation to the SMS. The SMS does, however, address some conflicts between urban expansion and biodiversity conservation through several initiatives, such as supporting councils to achieve biodiversity certification and completing biodiversity mapping on a regional basis (Department of Planning, 2005, p. 212). However, it should be noted that biodiversity certification is an extremely controversial issue, particularly with respect to compensatory habitats (Gibbons & Lindenmayer, 2007). The Strategy also includes the need for public transport, such as the Northwest-CBD-Southwest rail Link and new strategic bus routes to connect major commercial centres (Department of Planning, 2005, p.165-66). Curiously, there is no provision for light rail services, even though this issue emerged strongly in the Community Forums. In response to the question of whether community group’s input was genuinely considered, 58 percent reacted positively (7 percent very good, 21 percent good and 30 percent satisfactory) while 23 percent reacted negatively (10 percent poor, 13 percent very poor). A significant number of respondents said they were not sure (19 percent). This raises questions about the transparency of the process (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4: Respondents’ view about the consideration of community in the decisions (n=138)

Overall the analysis of results show that there was systematic exclusion of the community’s input into the ﬁnal outcome. However there were some views of the respondents who were optimistic about the community input into the plan. As one respondent noted:

153 I’m not sure that the forums actually did change the plan. I think there was some, there was certainly some—I don’t know how much the strategy actually changed but there was a little bit of response to the Community Forums where they said they didn’t want a consolidation in every suburb. They like Sydney’s green kind of environment. And so the Strategy did certainly target consolidation to the good transport areas and to centers, and ran away from suburbs, so around about that time the consolidation policy did sort of move away from general strategy approach across all suburbs to a more targeted kind of response and I think the Community Forum probably felt that process. You know, whether it was the main thing or not, I don’t know. But it certainly helped that process. There was some value, I think, in the community saying what it wanted to say. I don’t think the experts and the local government really changed things much because of the State Government (SG/ex1).

Urban planning experts who were part of the participation process seemed to be much cynical about the consideration of the community inputs. Although some of the State Government ofﬁcials claimed to have a proper inclusion of community input, most of the interviewees expressed that there was very little consideration of community input. As one of the senior State governmental staff members said:

It was the Government’s view that the city couldn’t sprawl and expand and when we tested that idea with the community there was agreement. Everyone [of the community] wanted to contain the footprint of the city and they didn’t want sprawl all the way from here to the Blue Mountains. They didn’t want to get on the Western Highway and drive to the Blue Mountains and have suburb to suburb to suburb. And the other interesting thing was that they recognised that you had to, not only for environmental and vegetation reasons, conserve pockets of vegetation, but also you needed to preserve areas for agriculture, for growing of food. So the message we got from that behind the community was pretty much conﬁrming what we knew; . . . So there were many other messages that came through, but that’s just two areas where consultation helped to either conﬁrm or clarify the Government’s view, and they were then translated into action within the blueprint itself (SG/dop1).

Another respondent who was responsible for conducting the community participation process raised one critical issue about the government’s intention to use the forum according to their preference. She mentioned:

. . . the cost of community involvement, I think that the government now does pay a little bit of lip-service and they do consultation as a process instead of just really wanting to understand what the community says. So they target their information so that they can get the responses that they desire (SG/dop3).

The above-mentioned statements indicate that there is marginalisation of community input into the final decision outcome. Clearly, the opportunities to influence the final outcome were

154 insufﬁcient. No wonder the majority of community groups have a negative view about the impact of their input on the ﬁnal decisions.

6.2.4 Increasing participant knowledge and skill

To investigate whether and to what extent the community participation process had increased community groups’ knowledge and skills in relation to community participation and environmental planning, respondents were asked about their understanding of participation, planning legislation and policies. The ﬁndings indicate that community groups place a high importance on their participation for sustainable urban development, but they have limited understanding about the nature and impact of community participation in planning legislation and policies.

In the questionnaire survey, respondents were asked what participation meant to them. Fifty-ﬁve percent of the participants said that it is about attending meetings and providing input into decision-making, reading brochures and making submissions, voting in local, state and federal elections and helping to implement government decisions. Twenty-ﬁve percent of respondents believe that participation is attending meetings, making submissions and voting, but they do not think it is involved with implementation. Some respondents (11 percent) view participation to be only attending meetings (Figure 6.5). However, around 60 percent of the community groups think the concept of participation includes helping in the implementation of the decisions.

The views from the community representatives are similar, as most of them consider ’to be informed’ is sufﬁcient. Some of them are not even aware what is required for an effective participation. One respondent said:

I would say probably it exceeded my expectations because I didn’t really know what to expect, because I don’t have a lot of experience in being involved at that level. But at the end of the day I felt very pleased to have been a participant (CP/nps1). In the questionnaire survey, respondents, drawing from the community, were asked whether community groups were aware of the current planning policies and legislations of Sydney. The result indicates that 48 percent of the respondents were not aware, whereas 27 percent indicate that they are aware and 25 percent of them were unsure of the answer. This indicates that 73 155 Figure 6.5: Respondents’ view on the community understanding of participation (n=162)

percent of the community members who attended the SMS were not aware of the urban planning policies and legislation (Figure 6.6).

Figure 6.6: Respondents’ awareness about planning policies and legislation (n=162)

Community groups place the high importance of community participation, as is seen in their views. Among the respondents, the majority of them disagree (37 percent) or strongly disagree (40 percent) with the statement of “There are elected representatives already in the councils who represent my concerns. My participation is therefore not required” (Figure 6.7). 156 Figure 6.7: Respondents’ preference on the statement “There are elected representatives, and my participation is not required”(n=160)

Community groups were asked whether there should be more input from communities into the planning policies of Sydney. Most respondents (91 percent) stated that they did not know about the policies and only 5 percent answered positively (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8: Respondents views on whether there should be more input from local communities

From the above discussion it is clear that the participation process in the SMS only minimally contributed in increasing community knowledge, skill and understanding about the planning process and practice of participation.

157 6.2.5 Participants’ conﬁdence, satisfaction and ownership

To investigate whether and to what extent the community participation process in the SMS has increased community groups’ satisfaction and built their confidence about planning agencies and systems, they were asked about their level of satisfaction about the participation process, the final decision and the decision making system of Sydney’s planning policies. They were also asked about their views on the value of their participation and their intention about future participation in planning processes. In the questionnaire survey, respondents were asked whether the Sydney planning process was inclusive. The majority of the respondents (64 percent) said it was inclusive, but rest of the respondents said it was not. They identified a number of causes, some of which were: limited opportunity for communities to influence the outcome (5 percent), not understanding technical terms (3 percent), not being inspired enough (3 percent), because the decision was made before participation (3 percent), limited opportunity to get information to discuss beforehand (8 percent), input is not genuinely considered and the issue of representation (6 percent) and other causes (8 percent) (Figure 6.9). This implies that about 35 percent of community groups have negative views or experiences about the inclusiveness of Sydney’s planning process.

Figure 6.9: Respondents’ views about the inclusiveness of Sydney’s planning process (n=164)

When asked about the decision-making system of Sydney’s planning, the community groups were found to be primarily pessimistic. Fifty nine percent of them said it was very poor (30 percent) or poor (29 percent) and 41 percent said it was good (10 percent) or average (30 percent) 158 (Figure 6.10). This also indicates the community groups’ lack of conﬁdence in the planning decision making system.

Figure 6.10: Respondents’ views about Sydney’s planning system (n=150)

From the questionnaire survey it was also found that community groups considered the participation process in the SMS to be satisfactory (28 percent), good (41 percent) and very good (19 percent) whereas 6 percent found it poor, 1 percent very poor and 5 percent unsure (Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.11: Respondents’ views about participation process of SMS (n=140)

159 When asked about the final decision reached by the planning process, 39 percent of them said that they are unsure, 12 percent said it was very poor, 13 percent poor, 27 percent satisfactory, 12 percent good and 2 percent as very good (Figure 6.12). This indicates that many community groups were largely unaware about the final outcome of the planning process in which they participated. However, as most of them were positive about the participation process, the findings are not consistent with their perception of the final outcome.

Figure 6.12: Respondents’ views about the ﬁnal decision (n=137)

Community representatives expressed their dissatisfaction with the process, as one respondent said:

. . . so how satisfied? Oh well I mean I wouldn’t have said that we ... I wouldn’t have said that we had very much influence on it, so probably not really very satisfied (CP/nps3).

Community groups’ conﬁdence in the planning decision making system was also investigated by asking their opinion about the statement “There will be no change of the decision with my participation”. It was found that 22 percent of the respondents were strongly agreed, 33 percent agreed, 19 percent disagreed, 5 percent strongly disagreed and 18 percent were neutral. This indicates that most of the respondents were not conﬁdent about the decision-making system and the impact of their participation in the planning process (Figure 6.13).

160 Figure 6.13: Respondents’ views on the statement “There will be no change of the decision with my participation”

Community groups were also asked their opinion of the statement “The decision is made before my participation”. It was found that 25 percent of the respondents said that they strongly agreed, 20 percent said that they agreed, 27 percent were neutral, 20 percent disagreed, 4 percent strongly disagreed and 4 percent said that they did not know (Figure 6.14). This indicates that community groups did not have much faith and conﬁdence in the planning authority and the decision-making system.

Figure 6.14: Respondents’ views on the statement “Decision is made before my participation”

161 On the question of whether community groups understand the signiﬁcance of their involvement in the planning process, respondents were asked to express their opinion on the statement “I do not think these policies or plans really affect me”. It was found that 52 percent of the respondents stated that they strongly disagreed, 36 percent disagreed, 4 percent strongly agreed and 2 percent agreed, whereas 2 percent said that they did not know and 4 percent maintained a neutral position. This indicates that community groups understand the signiﬁcance of the plan and its impact on their life (Figure 6.15).

Figure 6.15: Respondents’ views on the statement “I do not think these policies or plans really affect me”

Then community groups were asked for their opinion on the statement “I do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation for my participation”. The results show that 48 percent of the respondents said that they strongly disagreed, 31 percent disagreed, 5 percent agreed, 6 percent strongly agreed and 10 percent were neutral (Figure 6.16).

This indicates that community groups were aware of the importance of their participation. When they were asked about their intention of future participation, it was found that 22 percent of them did not want to participate in the future, 8 percent were not sure whether they would participate and 70 percent of them wanted to participate. This means 30 percent of the respondents who willingly participated in SMS process are likely to avoid the process in the future (Figure 6.17).

162 Figure 6.16: Respondents’ views on the statement “I could not justify my participation”

Figure 6.17: Respondents’ intention of future participation (n=150)

The results above indicate that community groups were not very satisﬁed with their participation in, or on the outcomes of the planning process. Respondents do not have much conﬁdence in the decision-making system of the Sydney planning process and the impact of their participation. This suggests that they do not have a strong sense of ownership over the project. Clearly the process and outcome of participation has compromised the promise of community empowerment.

163 6.3 Why was community empowerment compromised?

Thematic analysis of the research results reveals several interesting factors as to why there is considerable compromise in the potential of community empowerment through the planning process and outcome. These reasons can be categorised as:

1. Insufﬁcient opportunities for genuine participation for communities,

2. Limitations of ﬁnancial resources and time with government agencies (SG/ex2, SG/dop1, SG/dop2, SG/dop3, SG/dop5, SG/dop6),

3. A top-down bureaucratic culture (SG/ex2, SG/ex1),

4. Community forums as political showdown (SG/dop6, SG/dop3, SG/rp2, LG/ff1, LG/cmb1),

5. Competition between the community knowledge and scientiﬁc knowledge (SG/dop3, LG/ff1, LG/ff5, LG/rw2, LG/hob), and

6. limitations in the planning system (SG/rp1, SG/ex2).

6.3.1 Insufﬁcient opportunities for effective community participation

Insufﬁcient opportunities for community participation is one of the main reasons for community groups’ restricted inﬂuence on the planning decisions, hence compromised empowerment outcomes. Respondents from different community groups mentioned that there are serious limitations on the nature and extent of the consultation process. As one interviewee said:

. . . this was a PR type exercise which is very different than a real community consultation. I mean there didn’t seem to be a lot of ongoing things in it. . . So if you ask what was the limitation, “I didn’t sort of think there was any longevity to it. It was just like one off, get a few issues up” (CP/ero).

Expert respondents highlighted the top-down nature of the planning practice as responsible for limited opportunity, leading to the decisions that resulted to low empowerment of the community groups. As respondent said:

164 I thought it was a good process, but because of the nature of the top-down work of planning agencies, it had little inﬂuence from the community. So it was an exercise gone through with good intention, I think. But inevitably, because of the limited and bureaucratic nature of the planning exercise, was there little empowerment of communities on the result (SG/rp1).

6.3.2 Limited ﬁnancial resources and time

Limited time and ﬁnancial resources were identiﬁed by the respondents as key reasons for community groups’ low empowerment outcome. This also led to the limited opportunity offered for communities to participate in and be empowered through the planning process. One respondent stated:

I think the difﬁculties were because of the time table and the pressure to get through the consultation quickly with the resources available, . . . the way it was done and the techniques that we used, and in consultation we talk about breadth and depth of consultation, that probably the breadth and depths of compromise because of the time table and the resources and the decision making process (SG/rp2).

6.3.3 Top-down bureaucracy

The top-down bureaucratic culture of government agencies was also identiﬁed as one of the barriers in achieving effective community participation that can potentially empower local communities. Several interviewees mentioned that government agencies’ bureaucratic hierarchy and command and control attitude sustains the centralisation of power and this leads to a limited opportunity for communities to genuinely participate in the process of planning. In fact, community empowerment is seen to be contradictory and often threatening to the traditional power and authority of the bureaucracy in controlling planning affairs. One respondent said:

Some bureaucrats took it [participation activities] very seriously and wanted it to happen, others, I think, just wanted to tick the boxes. They say that we have done so and so to make sure that people are seen to be engaged, rather than deeply understanding what the community aspirations were for engagement and empowerment.

He added the reason for this to be:

. . . Fear. Fear that if people argue for empowerment then bureaucrats will have to lose some power. So, I think, if they handed over some control in that process, that expectations would be created that they could not 165 fulﬁl. So, there is a fear of creating expectations that could not be met to be more inclusive. As a result there were participatory initiatives organised towards the end of spectrum of participation (SG/ex2).

6.3.4 Instrumental use of forums as political showdown

Some respondents stated that community consultation forums were used for political reasons rather than as genuine channels to incorporate local views from the communities with a view to actually empower them. As one respondent highlighted:

Well it’s quite remarkable in a way; because I’m pretty sure the Minister came to every event. I’m pretty sure the Minister was there, at least a part of the event was open and to hear the views. So, it’s good politics, from his point of view, surely not the community empowerment politics, but the politics of empowerment for his party (SG/dop7).

Some respondents mentioned that they were unwilling to attend this type of forum because they were often seen to be just a public relations exercise and political window dressing:

I’m happy to be involved on a regular basis, you know, depending on other commitments, but you know I wouldn’t want to be going to these large, you know ... multi-regional workshops where you’ve got, you know, 200 people or 150 people. It’s too big and I think it’s more of a public relations exercise than a genuine involvement in terms of the development of the plan (CP/lad).

6.3.5 Competition between community and scientiﬁc knowledge

Competition between community knowledge and scientific knowledge and finally winning of the scientific knowledge to be adopted in final outcome is a reason for community groups’ failure to be empowered through participation, as identified in SSIs. Community groups’ input is rich with local knowledge and experience but is limited in terms of spatial sense or long time prediction. However, while finally adopting the plan community knowledge was abandoned due to its position compared to expertise knowledge. For example, one community member, when asked who had the least influence stated:

I’d have to say the community because, but not because they were valued less, but because their input was at a less academic scientiﬁc level, if you know what I mean (SG/dop3).

166 6.3.6 Limitations inherent in the planning system

Planning system itself is not compatible to receive and adopt community groups’ input in the ﬁnal outcome or to allow community groups to inﬂuence the process. As one of the reference panel member mentioned:

Well I think we, the process did run very good community participation. The meetings where people were chosen at random to come to a meeting and I think some very good workshops run with community members about their local area and what they like about it and what were the issues that were concerning them and so on. Because of the nature of the task, the way in which metro strategy was being run and the nature if its output, the results of those workshops had marginal results. He added:

That’s a lineal process. Its not a process that can really, at its called, attach count to what people might think about the problems they face.(SG/rp1)

6.4 Towards community empowerment through participation

6.4.1 Understanding concepts of community, participation and planning

Understanding the concept of community and participation within the context of the contemporary planning system is important for effective participation that can empower communities. It is also crucial to understand that empowering communities can potentially mean disempowering the traditionally powerful bureaucrats. And this is found to be one of the greatest challenges in Sydney’s planning practice.

Research ﬁndings clearly suggest that neither the communities not the planning agencies were clear about who communities were, and what the purpose of participation in the planning process was. It was found that in order to make the process understandable to communities, the communities need to be aware of the process and the mechanisms of planning so that community groups can effectively utilise the available opportunities.

Informing communities about the options in the planning process and make them understandable is one of the major factors identiﬁed by the State government staff and experts. One state government staff member said:

167 It’s a very hard thing to do. Not everyone who was engaged at that level has a great spatial sense and, particularly in quite large regions, they might be able to know their street and know where the park is, and know who is living next to them, but thinking of the others, these things in a spatial sense, was difﬁcult (SG/dop6). Another respondent said:

So my point is that community consultation hasn’t gone far enough in getting people involved and what it really means to them (SG/rp2). There were several views on how the planning system works and how to respond to a certain submission invitations, as these activities can impact upon how community groups properly utilise opportunities. As one state government staff member said:

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about, you know, when people can have a say, how they can have a say within that sort of legislative type framework. I think people sometimes think that they can have a conversation or a back and forwards thing, but the whole consultation process is about making a submission and they’ve got a six-week time frame to do it in. But most people don’t have a clue about that, so when we go through the consultation process, they feel like they haven’t been consulted. So I think communication is very important from that point of view. I think quite often communication is the biggest thing... communicating with these people, breaking it down into easily understood literature and possibly meetings and things like that so that people do understand. Community participation is often the key to that (SG/dop7). In the questionnaire survey, the issue of not understanding technical terms was identified as one of the main causes of non-participation (Figure. 6.9). On the other hand, State government and local government officials, while they are responsible for conducting participation exercises, find serious difficulties due to the lack of understanding of the concept. One local government staff member mentioned:

Fairﬁeld has a comprehensive proactive approach, but there is always an issue with people’s understanding and also some degree of apathy in trying to get attention and interest in our planning issues . . . but there is an issue we should consider, that the community has lack of understanding in planning process, I think those things are very complicated so we have to keep trying ... So there’s this challenge for language issues (LG/ff1).

6.4.2 Facilitation

Facilitation is an important factor for proper utilisation of the opportunities of community participation. Facilitation can help make the technical terms more understandable to communities. For instance, for community groups who are facing language difﬁculties, the 168 facilitation of participation can make a considerable difference. This can also help in neutralising co-optation (Table 6.2). In order to understand the critical factors to bring more people to the planning process, respondents were asked what would make them participate more effectively. It was found that 42 percent said small round table meetings, 19 percent said either having translating, facilitating or child caring facilities, 8 percent wanted a clear agenda, background information, feedback and openness of the process whereas 7 percent wanted help in understanding technical terms and 6 percent wanted a guarantee that their opinion would be genuinely considered (Figure 6.18). It seems that facilitation in language, technical terms and assistance in travelling and childcare are the important factors for community groups to utilise participation opportunities.

Figure 6.18: Respondents’ views on the factors facilitating effective participation

Interview results highlighted the importance of facilitation. One community representative stated:

Because I do believe that there are people who may not necessarily have the same degree of knowledge as other people do in a group, and they will hold back; they may want to ask a question but feel that it may be a silly question, and therefore they don’t ask it (CP/cmx1)

Community understanding of the planning system and perception of the planning authority have a major inﬂuence on effective participation. Incentives to inspire community groups to utilize the opportunities are also important, especially for community groups with lower socio-economic conditions (Section 5.7). The factors identiﬁed in SSIs and questionnaire surveys are discussed below. 169 6.4.3 Small roundtable workshops with provisions for translators

Community groups will provide their input in a meaningful way if small round-table meetings, with support, are organised (See Figure 6.18). This is also conﬁrmed in the interviews. As one of the local government staff members mentioned:

But if you have a smaller forum, then you do have more opportunity to provide input and getting feedback . . . yeah, more opportunities for smaller workshops, that’s the thing (LG/rw1).

Providing different types of techniques for participation can enhance the inclusion of different groups in the process. For example, using focus group discussions, web based participation and surveys were recommended by respondents from State and local government ofﬁcials, experts and community representatives. As one local government staff member said:

I suggest that some of the things that can be good are providing a range of public participation opportunities, not just a public meeting or, you know, break that down into small workshops, or have website opportunities to, you know, put a survey on or put comments on. Increasingly some councils and across all sorts of ﬁelds they’re using some of these social websites, facebook and twitter and all those sorts of things to have discussions, you know, so people can comment on those sorts of things . . . And that may not be so intimidating for people to do. That can sometimes be more accessible to people to do than going out to public meetings. And so try and have a range of things, I suppose, to cover a range of areas. And having focus groups where you might get people who might not necessarily normally participate in planning issues, um, you know, be surveyed for three or four separate issues over the year. So then you get more a broad range of community understanding, not just those ones who will always respond and participate (LG/rw2).

6.4.4 Capacity building through education and training

Building and strengthening local community capacity through relevant education and training for community groups can be one mechanism to enhance community participation that brings about empowerment. Clearly it is essential to make community groups to explore and understand the planning system, policy and legislation and how to participate in planning process. As one expert said:

I think the more we can educate and support people to engage effectively, over time we’ll have more sophisticated discussions and greater deliberation . . . .if people understand the nature of the process, what we’re involved in, what they are being asked to do. So I think the government has a responsibility to support, educate and train people to participate (SG/rp1).

170 Another respondent emphasised the issue of inclusion of communicative planning practice in the school programs:

So, some better education of people, or, like, having it in school programs so people understand what the planning environment is all about so that you learn to participate in it and how to be involved. Yeah, so it is just a part of life, it is not some strange thing that is over on the side that only people that have had some experience, sort of, get involved in (LG/rw1).

There was a common view that government agencies and community groups alike should realise and understand the value and signiﬁcance of community participation.

6.4.5 Open access to information about planning process

Providing sufficient and authentic information in an easily understandable way is recommended in SSIs and informal discussions to help community groups to participate effectively. A continuous information flow will help community groups be interested in, and capable of, participating. The continuous information flow will ensure participation, as one respondent noted:

In many ways, if something is going to be done for a particular area then grass-roots should start participating with the local residents, the local communities, and keep them informed the whole way through. I think people should be kept informed, then they have an opportunity to make a contribution; it’s not necessarily that they have to be a part of a group (CP/cm2).

Ensuring accountability and openness of the process was identiﬁed as an important factor to ensure empowerment for the communities. Another respondent said: I think you just make it open, accountable. You publish your results, you document it all, you make sure it’s not done and then forgotten. Here’s what we heard, here’s what we believe as a result, here’s what we did as a consequence (SG/dop4). The inclusion of communities at the earlier stages of the process was also emphasised. One respondent said:

I think it just takes strong leadership from the top and to do real consultations and to involve the community early in the decision-making processes (SG/ dop3).

171 6.4.6 Creating on-going participatory opportunities

Community participation opportunities should not be created when needed. They should be regular and should be an ongoing process instead of one off arrangements, instrumentally organised as in the current planning practice. Otherwise, by its nature and intent, the purpose of participation is instrumental, not empowering, as one community representative said:

Whatever is chosen I think it needs to be iterative. I think it needs to be offered and then offered again and then offered as a workshop situation and explored in various forms, because people develop views um ... hear further information, as information is offered over a period of time (CP/lad). The same sentiments are echoed by an expert:

I think we need to think much more about how we more regularly involve the community, not just involve them at one or two big, one off events (SG/rp2). The underlying factors which make community groups effectively participate have been analysed by mapping the motivational factors related to participation (Richie & Spencer, 1994). Some of the attributes are from Chapter 5. The key factors which can motivate community groups to participate effectively are reviewed here in tabular form and then summarised in the ﬁnal column (see Table 6.2). This provides an outline of the factors related to effective community participation as identiﬁed in this study.

Why not attending the meet- Why attending the meetings/ When expressing views in the ings/ forums etc? forums etc? meetings/ forums etc? - Not knowing - Family commit- - Personally approached - Di- - Small roundtable discussions ments - Not interested - Travel- rect effects - Environmental con- - Understanding language and ling a long distance - Financial sciousness - Interested in in- technical terms - Understand- and other limitations formed - Assistance in travelling ing planning system, policy or childcare and legislation - Understanding what participation is and how to participate - Good facilitation - Clear agenda and background information - Feedback and openness of the process - Promise for genuine consideration of the input - Positive perception about the authority

172 Factors behind respondents’ motivation to participate Approaching personally Direct effects from the issues at hand Assistance in child caring and in transportation Financial compensation Environmental consciousness Small roundtable meetings and discussions Understanding technical meanings of participation and the process Awareness of the planning system, policy and legislation Good facilitation and facilitators Genuine consideration of the input and openness of the process creating positive perception about the system Providing feedback and explanations of the decision taken in outcome

Table 6.2: Motivational map for community participation

6.5 Conclusion

This chapter presented the results in relation to the empowerment of local community groups through participation. The results indicate that empowerment, one of the vital components of effective participation, was not achieved through community participation in the SMS’s planning process as practised. Empowerment was measured through the sharing of decision making power, the influence on the outcome and process, the incorporation of community group’s input, the increase of knowledge and skill for community groups, community groups’ confidence over the planning authority and system and their ownership over the project. It has been revealed that the community participation process of the SMS did not allow community groups to share decision-making power and therefore, community groups have nominal influence over the planning outcome and process.

Comparison of final decision outcomes with community input from the document analysis indicates that there is very limited reflection of community views in the outcome; this is also confirmed by SSIs and questionnaire survey. In regards to the increase of community groups’ skill and knowledge, the findings indicate that a significant portion of community groups have a limited idea about participation and the majority of them lack awareness about planning concepts, legislation and policies. The community groups are sometimes cynical about planning agencies and their decision-making system and they do not feel ownership over the strategy because they are unsure about the final outcome and the state of their input as these were never communicated to them. Thus, they have no influence on the process and outcome. As a result,

173 their interest in future participation is jeopardised.

Limited opportunities for participation, limited time, resources, the government’s bureaucratic attitude and using community forums as political window dressing are the reasons identified in the questionnaire survey, SSIs and informal discussions for the failure to enhance community empowerment through participation. Understanding community participation and planning systems and facilitation were identified as important factors for community groups to provide their input meaningfully. The findings indicate that using small roundtable groups, facilitators and translators, and educating community groups and the bureaucrats about effective community participation would help achieve empowerment. Also, an accountable, transparent community participation process which ensures continuous flow of clear and authentic information and which provides opportunity of participation as a regular basis can further enhance the community participation process.

It seems from the ﬁndings that participation as practised has compromised community empowerment outcomes. Rather it has created a dangerous situation where some already powerful individuals and groups, both within bureaucracy and community, are over-empowered, while the less powerful individuals are further marginalised. As such, it has widened the gap between the powerful and the powerless – a very unsatisfactory outcome of a participatory planning practice, which is producing outcomes that are socially unjust and morally indefensible.

174 Chapter 7

Accountability of Community Participation Process

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents results of the investigation of the third research question of this thesis—accountability of the participation process in the making of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The chapter aims to answer the question of whether and how the process of community participation and the decisions thence made was accountable to the local community groups. There are two critical aspects here to address in this chapter: ’accountable to what’ and ’accountable to whom’.

From the literature, accountability is conceptualised as a process or an activity to enable an individual, group or other entity to make demands on an agent (e.g. a government agency) to report on its activities and has the ability to impose costs on the agent, and the agent would have to report to people whose actions they affected, and be subject to sanctions from them (see Moore, 1997; O’Donnel et al., 1998; Productivity Commission, 2011). Accountability has been identiﬁed in the literature as one of the vital components of effective community participation, the details of which was discussed in Chapter 2. In this chapter the following criteria have been used to measure the accountability of community participation process in terms of whether and to what extent there is:

a access to information about planning rules and legislation (Guyer, 1992; Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Ribot, 1999);

b transparency in decision-making processes (Brommelstroet,¨ 2012; Lane et al., 2004);

175 c public provision of information on performance of government actions (Harmon, 1995; Moore, 1997; O’Donnel et al., 1998);

d access to and availability of appeals (Lane et al., 2004; Mulgan, 2000; Productivity Commission, 2011), and

e public perception of integrity and a lack of corruption (Guyer, 1992; Moore, 1997; O’Donnel et al., 1998).

In addressing the above points, this chapter presents results from document analysis, SSIs, questionnaire survey and informal discussions. The ﬁrst section presents the results in relation to enhancing a downward accountability of the process, which is further divided into several sub-sections covering a range of accountability measures mentioned above. The next section discusses, concurrently, reasons and implications as to why there is limited accountability to the local communities and then it goes on to discuss as to how downward accountability can be enhanced in the planning practice. The ﬁndings are summarised in the concluding section.

7.2 Accountability of community participation process

7.2.1 Access to information about planning rules and legislation

To investigate the question of whether and to what extent the community had access to sufﬁcient, authentic and comprehensible information, the following aspects were investigated:

1. what were the planning information and their sources, and

2. what were the different manners of participation process by which such information was shared.

Research ﬁndings indicate that information about the SMS and its participation process were provided in the forms of ministerial direction papers, discussion papers, and advertisements in local newspapers and through a website solely devoted to the SMS. Community access to the content and sources of information are explained below: a) Ministerial direction papers Ministerial direction papers outline challenges, directions and priorities. They deal with information about what the Metropolitan Strategy is, how it would be developed, how it would work, what its contents would be, the area coverage and the strategies of 176 implementation. It also provides a snapshot of Sydney’s growth, economy, environment and planning issues along with a list of challenges and future directions. There was a section outlining the SMS making process which mentioned upcoming consultation events in the form of Future and Community Forums (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2004b). It was meant to assist Forum participants to gain basic idea about different sectors of planning on the current situation, challenges, directions, immediate priorities and actions, and areas of discussions. As noted in one of the papers: The Papers sets out Sydney’s key strengths along with key challenges that the city faces at the beginning of the 21st Century. These will be inputs to a Sydney Futures Forum to be held in May where ideas, key directions and priorities will be discussed to form the basis for community discussion on a new Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2004b, p. 2).

However, the information provided by these Papers was neither comprehensible nor easily accessible for local communities. The information was not comprehensible because of the overuse of jargon and was not sufficient in explanations, even for a person with expert knowledge. And the ministerial direction paper was only made available for the Future Forum participants and was sent by post (SG/dop1, SG/dop2, SG/ex2). Otherwise it was made available through the website of the department, which was possibly known only to a handful of active individuals, not the whole community. b) Discussion Paper The discussion paper of the SMS was published on September, 2004, allegedly with input from the first stakeholder consultation forum (Future Forum 1) and Local Government Forum, which was held before the community consultation forums. This paper provided similar information as the ministerial direction paper, but with specific planning directions. The discussion paper also elaborated stakeholder consultation procedures and on the reference panel. Notice of invitation for submissions was also included (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2004a). However, despite the attempts to detail some planning aspects, the information was not easily accessible, was full of jargons for local community groups to understand and the language was complicated. Once again, without additional information, the discussion paper was made accessible through the Departmental website with an assumption that the community would be able to access and use it. This assumption is, according to many respondents, was problematic because many local community members, particularly the disadvantaged, do not have regular access to internet, or their capacity 177 to use internet is limited. c) Sydney Metropolitan Strategy website A website was established with information about the strategy, which included why the strategy was being adopted, its area coverage, and how it fits with the growth vision of Sydney. It also contained important documents relevant to the SMS, speeches delivered by the Minister and reference panel members, and a link to the metropolitan strategy and sub-regional strategies. The website further offered frequently asked questions (FAQ), history of Sydney, the anticipated outcomes and its key challenges (Department of Planning, 2005). It was accessible to the local community subject to their connection to the internet and individual ability to use it. However, there were issues related to the community’s ignorance and ability to use the website. It is noteworthy to mention that the language used on website was very complicated and contents of the website were embedded in such a way that without good skills, it was almost impossible to obtain critically important information. Once again, the assumption that website would serve the entire Sydney population is over-estimating the capacity and skill of its residents, in the context of many residents being migrants with limited English and computer ability. d) Media Newspapers were found to be the main sources of information about the SMS for many local community members. There was some news on consultation events, but ironically, many respondents found them only after the events held. Local newspapers also published articles on the impacts of the strategy on particular areas. However, in regards to building awareness and interest about the Strategy, even the most expansive media outlets played a limited role given the number of articles and the timing of publications; details of this were included in Chapter 6 and this will also be discussed in section 7.2.2 of this Chapter.

When, and at what stages of the planning process, information was released and shared with local communities is also important in understanding the sufﬁciency and accessibility of the information. Table 7.1 outlines different stages of the planning and consultation process in regards to access to information.

The above discussion reveals that the information shared with local communities was neither easily accessible, nor comprehensive. This is also conﬁrmed from the results of SSIs, questionnaire survey and informal discussions. In regard to the accessibility of information, the 178 Different stages of SMS Access to information Synthesis Agenda setting The agenda of the SMS and No information was shared pub- other relevant issues were in- licly. cluded only in the Ministerial direction paper. Future Forum 1 Ministerial direction papers No information was shared with were sent to the participants by communities except through the post The website Speeches of website and limited publications Minister, Senior Department in media. of Planning staff and reference panel members Local Government Forum The discussion paper and Minis- No information was shared with terial direction paper. Speeches communities except limited cov- and presentations in the forum. erage by the news papers. Community Forums Speeches of the Minister and Discussion paper was only avail- DoP staff and their presentation able on the website Very limited on the spot of the meeting Web- information sharing for commu- site nities. Because No information was provided beforehand to assist discussion in the meeting except through the website. Information is shared through speeches and presentations on the spot. The website is not accessible for all groups of communities. No summary of the discussion paper was published in the media. Future Forum 2 To compile all the inputs of the No information is available or consultation forums shared with communities about how it was compiled and on what basis. Finalisation No information was shared ex- Communities remained in dark cept the release of the ﬁnal plan. about the impacts of their input. Review process Information was shared through No community consultation was media and websites. conducted except selected stakeholder consultations.

Table 7.1: Different steps of the planning and consultation process and access to information (Source: Document analysis, SSIs and informal discussions)

findings clearly indicate that local community groups had very limited access to essential information. While the Ministerial direction paper, discussion papers and other information was published on the website, not all community groups had internet access or the expertise to gather and analyse essential information. Further, newspapers had a limited coverage. Hence, it is reasonable to claim that the community participation process suffered from the issue of access to information, leading to the creation of a mal-informed community. Sometimes, as the findings indicate, community groups were found to be misinformed. 179 The analysis of community accessibility to information about planning rules and regulations (e.g. SEPPs, LEPs, DCPs) indicates that local communities had very limited access to information on rules and regulations (discussed in Chapter 3). Although there were notifications about planning rule changes or planning updates in the council websites, these websites vary in ease to browse, its quality and quantity. It is challenging to locate information about local planning schemes (Productivity Commission, 2011). The limited information hindered the effectiveness of community participation as one expert said:

You need to understand things that are around them in their community. A metro strategy is quite an abstract notion. It’s a multi-geared head turner. So there are limitations of information. People will not respond; can’t respond unless they have quality information and understanding . . . website cannot serve the whole community and therefore it should not be seen as the only information source for the community (CM/ex3).

There were complaints about the quality of information too. As one respondent mentioned: “It lacked context. The information ﬂow, it also lacked a context” (SG/rp2). In the questionnaire survey it was found that community groups would have participated more effectively if they had been provided with sufﬁcient and timely information (Fig. 6.18).

In relation to the authenticity of information, results indicate that the information shared with local communities (or released in the media) was not always correct. For example, the DoP released the information to the media noting that local community members were selected for participation by random sampling from electoral lists. But later it was revealed that electoral lists would not be available due to the Privacy Act and consequently, the DoP used a list provided by a private mail-house company. However, the public were left uninformed about this situation. As one of the DoP staff members stated:

The media reported that initially we were going to use the electoral role right? And the media reported that we used the electoral role, but we did not and the government did not correct them. When we found out that we couldn’t use the electoral role and we had to use some other form, the government didn’t take the step to correct that that error. Which I thought was wrong (SG/dop3).

Clearly, the information sharing in the planning process of the SMS was not sufﬁcient, comprehensible or accessible for local communities. This indicates that community groups are kept in dark about planning issues and ongoing activities which made them almost unable to hold planning authorities about their exercise of power. 180 7.2.2 Transparency in decision-making processes

Transparency is measured in regards to openness for the community groups to be able to access information about the process of participation, the attitude of the Planning Authority concerning the accessibility of information for community groups and the media, and their willingness to accept input from communities. The limited information ﬂow and about the authenticity and accessibility of information was discussed in section 7.2.1.

The accessibility of the media was investigated through document analysis and SSIs. The results indicate that neither the planning nor participation process was duly open to the media to enhance awareness rising through information sharing, news coverage or advocacy. A database—Factiva.com—was used to collect newspaper articles on the SMS, using the key words “Sydney Metropolitan Strategy”. The findings of the thematic analysis were discussed in 6.2.1, which indicated that the media released information about key strategic directions, financial issues in relation to strategy, and the expertise of personnel involved in the strategy, but it was only to a very limited extent. There were very few articles about the Future Forum (only three in number) and no article on Community Forums. Surprisingly, no news was found on Community Forums, even in local newspapers or in the database. The SSIs indicate that there was some media access to the meetings but perhaps officials of the planning agency were unaware of the importance of Community Consultation Forums and the need to provide information to community groups. One of the senior staff of the DoP said:

Yeah, we did some media. I think the Minister’s ofﬁce managed and we didn’t allow the media. I don’t they were allowed to televise it, but they were allowed to take some photos from the back of the room and that sort of thing. They were allowed to sit in . . . that’s right, suburban newspapers, the national news papers. Look we would, they would have been notiﬁed, but it is something that I think they were unlikely to cover (SG/DoP 3). The restricted access to the media indicates the tendency of maintaining secrecy was also noted by the interviewees. One of the respondents stated:

Oh, they were just very nervous about negative press, basically. And so you know, it was, They (the senior staff of the DoP) wanted to be very involved in every step of the way. So anything we wanted to do was quite a challenge. We worked very closely with the Minister’s advisor at the time. But he was in there every other day, reading everything we produced and you know all that . . . (SG/dop5).

181 As discussed in Chapter 6, document analysis found that a State Daily published a series of articles on Sydney’s urban planning and environmental issues, named “Campaign for Sydney”, with a call for readers to send their ideas about improving Sydney through telephone or email (Whitehead, 2005). This review was to complement the SMS, which was due for launch in a few months after that publication. This was a very good initiative for building the public’s awareness and voice. Yet it would have been more effective if this kind of review had been conducted before the release of the discussion paper and before all the Forums were held; not just before the ﬁnal release of the plan.

The participation process of the SMS was not a two-way, communicative process. It failed to offer proper information and clarify about agendas and implications to the local communities. While community groups input was recorded, there was a serious concern about the government’s willingness to genuinely consider community views. After the ﬁnalisation of the plan there was no feedback provided to the community. It seems therefore that the process of communication was only one-way, which failed to promote downward accountability of decisions to the local communities. Hence participants faced difﬁculties in getting answer of their queries in the forums. As one participant noted:

The regional planning staff can’t really answer some of our questions, because the decisions are being made above them politically, about funding priorities and infrastructure, that kind of thing, but we just don’t get any real satisfactory explanation from the department (LG/ff2).

There was no system or culture to provide explanations of planning authority’s exercise of power or resource utilisation. This was despite the fact that there were some formal channels for that purpose. Clearly the process failed to ensure transparency of the planning decision making.

7.2.3 Public provision of information on performance of government actions

Results from policy analysis, SSIs and questionnaire survey indicate that there was very limited opportunity for the community groups to know whether and how the Government would act in relation to the community participation process and the input being provided to them by the communities. There was literally no way for the community groups to know the fate and implications of their input which they provided in the Forums and through submissions. Community groups were unable to know if their opinions were adopted, abandoned, or even 182 considered. They had their say, but they were never contacted again. Nor were they provided with any information about their input, except in the form of the ﬁnal strategy publicly announced. Respondents expressed therefore heavy disappointment in that the participation process of the SMS was just a formality. Feedback to local communities after the ﬁnalisation of the plan is immensely important for accountability, but it was never coming. One Local Government staff member expressed this discontent:

Some regional strategies are more critical for us and at the moment there’s a bit of push and pull. We didn’t know, we’ve made a big compressing submission and we asked them what’s happening. We don’t get any feedback or it’s really hard to know what’s going on. This is a simple feedback in terms of where they’re at. We don’t know, they don’t come back and talk to you about the issues and concerns. The thing is, they’ve got their political masters to tell them what to do, it tells much about their culture . . . (LG/ff1).

However, when, in the questionnaire survey, local community groups were asked whether their views were genuinely considered, a signiﬁcant number of respondents said that they did not know (one ﬁfth of the participants) but more than half of them answered positively while one fourth answered negatively (See Fig. 6.4). This is inconsistent with the fact that they were uninformed about the planning outcome. It seems that the lack of transparency of the process contributed to them having a false impression of their positive participation.

It is clear that there is a culture of upward accountability instead of downward accountability and for which planning authorities do not feel obligation to report back to the community about their exercise of power and resources, but they maintain the status quo by satisfying the requirements of upward hierarchies which make the whole system a pseudo-democratic. Even the system do not allow community groups to demand that from the authorities.

7.2.4 Access to, and availability of, appeals

The opportunity of appeal is an important element to the promotion of accountability in planning practice. There are third party appeal options in limited circumstances, which are related to Development Control Plans (DCPs) and the Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) (Department of Planning & Infrastructure, 2011). However, there are several planning decisions which cannot be appealed. Indeed, the extent of the right of appeal has been a controversial issue ever since its introduction in the Environmental Planning Assessment Act, 1979. When investigating the opportunity of appeal or presenting a formal grievance, it was found that there

183 was no option outlined in the SMS or for lodging a formal grievance against any decision by the community groups. This clearly leaves the process wide open for abuse from powerful actors. Although SMS was designed to be implemented through sub-regional strategies and LEPs, there should be options for formal grievance or objections to enhance downward accountability.

7.2.5 Public perception of the integrity of the process

The integrity of the Planning Authorities in relation to the community participation process was investigated as to whether and to what extent the process considered the responsibility it had towards community groups, and whether community input was genuinely considered or reflected in the final outcome. The investigations disclose the fact that community groups were not properly or sufficiently informed. In fact, they were sometimes misinformed and their opinions were not properly valued. And, sometimes, the process was exploitative for political window dressing.

The process lacked guidelines and directions of community roles and responsibilities in relation to participation and the potential implications of community input. This absence jeopardised the community ability to participate meaningfully. One expert stated:

It was mainly information giving with some ability to contribute ideas and thoughts, but it certainly was not participatory or decision-making. One of the most important things about engagement is being clear and clean with people about what they can and cannot inﬂuence. You need to set parameters of the engagement upfront... so that people know they are not writing the Metropolitan Strategy, but are providing their thoughts, their values, their ideas to the process; and someone else will take that information and use it in the process. And from that respect, it worked. People might able to do that ... (but in this process) people didn’t, no (SG/ex2).

Even reference panel members who were involved in the SMS planning process as experts suffered from both limited direction and the provision of sufﬁcient and timely information. As one reference panel member noted:

I think that ultimately how our input was interpreted and made use of wasn’t very clear. Whether our input was just having a bit of a general chat eating the muffins and drinking the coffee and having a bit of a generalised talk, I don’t know (SG/rp2). Finally, to what extent community group’s input was reflected in the outcome was discussed in section 6.2.3., where it was revealed that there was very limited reflection. In regards to genuine

184 consideration of community input it was found that the inputs were not properly valued. Holding Community Forums at the latter stages of the Strategy when the key decisions were almost ﬁnalised, is one example of this. As one community representative said about his experience of attending a forum:

I haven’t really seen any of the material or the outcomes of it. So to me, it was, sort of, very much a, sort of, one off. That’s a comment very much on the process. There might have been a paper on it, but there wasn’t really any sort of follow up on it. (CP/ero)

Some respondents commented that the participation process was nothing more than a public relation exercise, or a window-dressing, only with the intention to achieve the legitimacy of planning. One participant opined that achieving legitimacy was the only intention:

For something as comprehensive, as signiﬁcant, as a Metropolitan Strategy, such events occasionally throw up useful content, but they’re really more about gauging the mood and getting a sense of what the issues are and, of course, building legitimacy for the project, because the website can then say “we spoke to 700 people or 12 forums or 1 000 people, or whatever”. So its about getting tick (SG/dop5). Some commented on the exploitation of the forums for political purposes:

“So from a cynical point of view, partly it’s window dressing, partly to try and convince the people that the Government has got the solution even though it doesn’t follow policies” (SG/ex1).

However, results from SSIs revealed that there was minimal reﬂection of community views in the outcome, and thus their needs and aspirations were not genuinely considered. Some interviewees were cynical that keeping records of the community input was solely out of courtesy. There was serious concern about the integrity of the planning authority in relation to the community participation process.

From the above it is clear that the planning practice and process are designed in such a way to maintain the upwardly accountability to the higher level of decision makers, rather than downwardly accountable to the local communities who participated and offered voluntarily input. It is evident from the limited information sharing in terms of accessibility, authenticity and comprehensibility, lack of proper guidance on how to conduct the participation exercise both for

185 community groups and planning officials, very limited reflections of communities’ input in the outcome- all these contributed to community groups’ cynicism about planning system’s integrity of the whole process. At the same time community groups are sometimes placated by big forums, Minister and other important planning officials’ presence in the meeting. As a consequence of this, the system maintains the status quo: the top-down decision making, and ignorance of community. This system contradicts the principles of democracy where peoples are the ultimate decision makers and contradicts accountability where people will be able to hold their decision makers to explain about their decisions. Implications of this is that the decisions effectively lack legitimacy as it exacerbates social injustice and reinforces hegemonic decision making

7.3 Limited downward accountability: Reasons and implications

The ﬁndings indicate that there is a lack of (or limited) downward accountability in what government agencies do in relation to community participation process in planning practice. This contradicts with the philosophy of democratic governance in which Australian government is supposedly driven, and the idea of communicative planning. The question then is why these issues of accountability are persistent in planning of Sydney. Key reasons are:

1. Maintaining status quo, reinforcing bureaucratic system of upward accountability,

2. Limited resources and time, and

3. Lack of, or unwilling to, understand and recognise the value of accountability in planning and governance;

4. Lack of avenues for public demand of accountability,

5. No effective legislative requirement and political commitment

6. Social, political and economic system based on individualistic mindset

These are discussed below with their implications:. a) Reinforcing bureaucratic system of upward accountability: The tendency of the planning bureaucracy to adhere to the top-down system, culture and ideology is the one of the reasons for the maintenance of status quo, leading to strengthening of upward accountability (and avoiding downward accountability to the local communities). The bureaucratic system of 186 centralised power, restricted information ﬂow and sharing, and a linear process of planning make the participation process upwardly rather than downwardly accountable. As mentioned by a respondent: “Fear, fear that if people argue with more power that then others will lose power” (SG/ex2). The result of this tendency to concentrate power at the centre is seen in restricted and incomprehensible information sharing, limited opportunities to allow input from community groups and, ﬁnally, ignorance of community input. This practice has undermined the underlying goal of community participation in planning to enhance sustainability or social justice. Unless there is a meaningful devolution of power, the so-called ’participatory’ planning process is unlikely to be downwardly accountable.

So what can be done to change this status quo? Information sharing and transparency of the process have been suggested by experts and local community groups. However, not only sufﬁcient information sharing is critical, but also the information needs to be given in an understandable and a continuous manner. This has a potential to assist local community groups to participate more effectively. As mentioned by one expert:

All I’m saying is that there is an independent group whose purpose is not to offer a solution, but to give people information. So if we were to say we will build a new tram route, an independent group might be able to say that these are the people who are going to use it. If you use it, they are going to have to change from a bus to a train to a tram or whatever. You are going to use this and this and this ... That might help it or hinder the thing working. It gives some indication about operational procedures, not just about the supply side (SG/rp2). To enhance accountability, the planning process needs to be open and transparent. As one participant said:

“A bit more openness and accountability with the Department of Planning and probably speaking to community groups with more opportunity (to allow participation). . . ” (LG/ff1).

Community groups require clarity of information about the purpose of participation, what is expected from their participation and on the way their input is going to be entertained, and whether or how much of will be utilised. One participant stated:

I’d say . . . differently in the start, you know make sure that these processes are set up and those lines of communication are established really early in the process. And then you’ll know, clearly, what it is that those people want in terms of information sharing and the use of community input (LG/ff2). 187 Providing feedback to local community groups is found to be absolutely essential. Results indicate that feedback helps increase trust of community groups in the system, increases capacity to meaningfully participate in the future and enhances the transparency and responsiveness of the process and actors. In the words of one Local Government staff member:

At the moment, as I said, the Government seems to be more focused on listening to what the development sector says. So it needs more balance so that the community can see that their issues are being addressed. They just need more from Local to State Governments and the Department of Planning; more feedback, and they need to give us the reasons why they make their decisions. We don’t get that (LG/hob). This is similar to what a DoP staff member said:

I think most people now want to have some say in how we plan our cities. So, yes, I think that’s really important, but the only thing I would say on that is that I don’t know whether they (community groups) know what they’ve actually done, you know, they don’t know how much of that has actually been implemented. . . there is no feedback (towards them) (SG/dop7). b) Limited resources and time: Limited resources and time was found to be one of the critical issues compelling the Planning authorities only to offer limited opportunities to participate. Implications of this mean that a limited number of meetings and workshops are organized. The number of planning officials are also limited, along with their limited capacity to share information in multiple and comprehensive ways. Time limitations often pressurise authorities to skip the planning process and complete it within a short timeframe. Cutting the corners was one of the frequently mentioned expressions of respondents. This clearly has compromised the possibility and promise of downward accountability. c) Lack of, or unwilling to, understand and recognise the value of accountability in democratic planning and governance: Issue of ’understanding the value of community and participation’ in Planning decision-making was identified by respondents as a key reason for limited accountability. As one of the interviewees said: “Understanding, I think. There is a limited understanding of the value of a more deliberative process in decision-making” (SG/rp1). The question of why this is, the findings indicate that planning system and officials, despite the rhetoric of communicative action and democratic governance, still work on the basis of individualism or scientific professionalism. Many respondents mentioned that most bureaucrats still see the community as a source of problem. Participation is usually intended to receive, at 188 best, the support of the decisions made by the ’expert planners’. Implication of this is that even for the most progressive bureaucrats, they are unable and unwilling to value the community and participation.

There is an underlying issue. Understanding the significance of democratic decision making in the planning system is essential not only for the planners but also for political leaders and policy makers. As the community participation process is a resource and time demanding, its importance needs to be realised by all associated actors to ensure the strategic allocation of required resources and time (in terms of both economic and human resources). The culture of upwardly accountable bureaucratic system has not changed with the introduction of democratic ideals of communicative planning practice. Clearly communicative planning ideas are a misfit to the current planning system. d) Lack of avenues for public demand of accountability: There are no formal channels in current planning practice that requires the activities or decisions made by the planning authorities to be answerable to the local communities. Community groups have no procedural opportunity to be aware of the operations and outcome of their participation or to be able to appeal against any decision. Of course there is an option for the court appeal which is expensive and time consuming. Clearly the current planning system is inadequate to clarify community issues of access to comprehensive information about the planning options or to know about the final outcome.

The only option to write a letter or to talk to the planning officials informally is often seen to be either ineffective or waste of time. Planning officials are very tight lipped and time poor. Writing a letter to the department in a manner that necessitates a reply is extremely unlikely task even for the seasoned professionals. This is almost useless for local communities for someone with limited capacity and social or political connections. Only after the finalisation of decisions, a summary report is published and is shared with the ’external world’ including local communities. This is almost a dead end. e) No legislative requirement and political commitment: There is neither an explicit legislative requirement nor a strong political commitment to require that the planning decisions must be downwardly accountable. As indicated above, current planning system is still under the 189 helm of traditional bureaucratic culture characterised by sustaining upward accountable system. As a result, the current practice suffers. Then the question is as to why this is to be the case? One reason is that there is a misplaced optimism with the broader penetration of democratic political system to bring downward accountability in an automatic manner. Another reason could be because of the complex nature of work, and the demand of additional time and resources which the planning authority is deprived of. The third reason may well be that the planning authority (or for that matter the politicians) does not want this to happen. Bureaucracy is always resistant to even a smaller change. And this is a massive shift of operations and values required of the old-age bureaucracy. It can potentially challenge many of the belief and expectations of bureaucrats. When something challenges the deep seated belief system, it’s going to be extremely difficult to be legislated. Clearly, there should be explicit policies backed by legislation to enhance downward accountability of the planning process. This must however be addressed in a holistic manner, by understanding and addressing the deeper causes, not just treating the symptoms. f) Social, political and economic system based on individualistic capitalist mindset: The current planning system is situated within the capitalist political economy. Much has been trusted to the market, profit and competition (against cooperation) in which rational individuals can maximise gains and minimise loses. Collective interests such as planning decision-making is often seen through the same lens of maximising profits and minimising loses for some individuals in the community and also the planning authority. Time, resource and targets of planning officials are set up in such a way that they function ’efficiently’, meaning that they decide ’rationally’ and with little hassle and complexity – even when they need to cut sharp corners. Money and profit drive much of the decisions. This means anything that is complex, resource intensive and potentially counter productive to efficiency criteria are likely to be skipped or marginalised. Moreover, planning practice for a city like Sydney is not isolated in the globalised world. With the rise of Americanised and much problem-prone political economy and the subsequent impacts to urban planning in the USA and outside, it is now hard to imagine that planning bureaucrats and politicians focus on getting the downward accountability right or prioritised. Focus anything but getting the economy into a positive trajectory is seen to be the pressing need, politically and economically. This context has led to a compromised accountability outcome to people, failing miserably to promote the fundamental goals of participatory planning to enhance social justice and sustainability.

190 7.4 Conclusion

This chapter presents results of an investigation into the accountability of community participation process employed in the making of SMS. Accountability was studied from the perspectives of sharing of information, accessibility and comprehensibility of information, transparency of decision making process, sharing of information about the Planning Authority’s exercise of power and actions, the accessibility and availability of appeals for the community groups and the integrity of the process. The results indicate that the participation practice and process failed to maintain accountability where community groups had very limited measures to hold planning authorities to account for their actions. It is evident from the several indicators which have been studied. There was limited flow of information to community groups. The information shared with community groups was not sufficient, accessible or comprehensible for widely diverse groups of communities. Community groups were also misinformed. It was also found that community groups were provided with information about proposed planning implications only in the meeting, whereas the provision of information beforehand would have assisted the community groups to participate more effectively. Furthermore, after the Consultation Forum was held, community groups were not provided with any information about the status of their input, except in the final strategy.

In regards to the transparency there were limited measures in the process to ensure transparency. The purpose and intention of participation was not clear to local community groups. It was unclear to local government staff members and reference panel members. This jeopardised a potential for a meaningful participation. The role of the media to create awareness, advocacy or working as watchdog was also found to be limited. There was nominal input from community groups in the ﬁnal decision outcome. This indicates the failure of the Planning Authority to ensure the integrity of the process.

Instead of the planning and participation process ensuring downward accountability, it was upwardly accountable. Community groups had a misapprehension about their positive experience where the status quo was maintained by arranging participatory forums and meetings attended by high level ofﬁcials of the planning department. The bureaucratic culture of the planning system, the limited resources and time, and the limited understanding about the signiﬁcance of community participation in the planning process, are found to be responsible to this situation. An 191 openness of the process and communicating information with community groups in a continuous and easily understandable ways are recommended to counter the issue of downward accountability. The next Chapter analyses the results of this thesis discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 to discuss the implications of this study.

192 Chapter 8

Towards Effective Community Participation: Analysis of Urban Planning Practice

8.1 Introduction

The previous Chapters presented results from policy analysis, document analysis and case study analysis through semi-structured interview, questionnaire survey, informal discussions and observation. This Chapter analyses the results according to research questions and objectives outlined in Chapter 1. Before providing details about the Chapter structure, it is useful to recall research hypothesis, questions and objectives. It is hypothesised that effective community participation must ’empower local communities’, particularly disadvantaged community groups within the community; and this empowerment must meet at least two basic requirements: a) representative participation of local communities in the participation process, and b) accountability of government agencies decisions to the local community.

To test these hypotheses, several objectives were identiﬁed. To test these hypotheses, research questions and objectives were identiﬁed as: a) what are the opportunities for representative and accountable community participation in urban planning practice? and b) how do these opportunities affect the effectiveness of community participation in terms of empowering local communities?

The Chapter is structured in ﬁve sections. Firstly, it analyses the policy intentions to, and provisions for, community participation in the Australian urban planning practice, at Federal, State and Local levels. The analysis then focuses on the historical shift of planning policies and 193 seeks answers to the questions of whether, how and to what extent the existing policies provide a space for effective community participation to occur. Secondly, it analyses the process and outcome of planning practice involved in the making of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, focusing on the representative participation and the accountability of government decisions. Thirdly, the analysis will focus on the question of whether and how the current mode of urban planning practice succeeds (or fails) to empower local communities, particularly the disadvantaged groups. Fourthly, the chapter provides some of the important ways to address issues raised by the earlier sections and present a model for community participation in planning practice that can enhance empowerment outcomes. The concluding section summarises the key points of this Chapter.

8.2 Planning policies for participation: Intentions and provisions

The ﬁndings of policy analysis highlight three key points, viz: a) historical shift of planning policies has increased the opportunity for community participation to occur, and as such, policy intentions are informed by some ideals of communicative planning. These intentions, however, fall short of creating legislative requirements that can empower local communities,b) policy provisions for community participation ignores the diversity of society, and hence, the participation of disadvantaged groups within the society remains ignored. So, policy rhetoric is hollow in terms of promoting representative participation, and c) in contrast to the democratic values and principles in which policies are situated, the policy provisions do not address the fundamental need for government decisions to be answerable to local communities aspirations. Instead, policy implementation practice is dangerous in that they generate a false legitimacy of pseudo-participatory practice where participation is, at best, instrumental. Instead State’s planning practice is re-positioned the status quo within the shied of participatory democracy.

The analysis below now focuses on reasons and implications of ﬁndings according to the key objectives of the thesis.

8.2.1 Neo-liberalism in planning reforms

Neo-liberalism as an idea does not necessarily intend to foster effective participation of local communities. It is the free market and individual competition that decide the fate of planning effectiveness. The policy analysis indicates that until the 1980s, in NSW, community participation was not even backed by legislation (Gleeson & Low, 2000). In the late 1970s and

194 1980s planning systems around the world were under pressure by neoliberal reformists and the NSW government was no exception. It was under a continuous battle to control the economic and land markets, and private development. Consequently, in 1979, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979) was adopted. It was initially a progressive legislation; however, since then it has been amended many times with little change in the structure and intent of community participation. Throughout, the intention of planning legislation remains unclear as to what and how community participation in planning practice can be effectively promoted in practice.

In the 1990s ecological concerns were promoted by national and international frameworks and treaties, for example, Agenda 21. At the same time, as indicated in Chapter 2, there was a neoliberal turn in planning systems that led to consecutive planning reforms in NSW and Australia. However, these reforms delivered very few positive and directly visible spaces for local communities. They provided little enabling environment and the incentives for the communities to be interested in, or participate to, the activities that the agencies had planned.

The key planning instruments, as well as Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (SMS) are found to be promoting the rhetoric of participation without actually supporting effective participation in any meaningful way. And the policy provisions do not intend to foster representative participation, neither do they require the accountability of government agencies to local communities. The current policy intentions and provisions, therefore, fail to guide the planning practice that promotes effective community participation aiming to empower local communities. Then the important questions here to ask are why such failure has produced in the ﬁrst place, and then sustained for such a long time, and what can be done to address this – this will be explained in the latter sections of this Chapter.

8.2.2 Failure to adapt the ideals of participatory democracy

The policy analysis reveals that the policies have largely failed to adapt some of the key ideals of participatory planning and democracy. For instance, the intention and content of three key planning instruments in NSW, viz.: SEPPs, LEPs and DCPs in which the provisions of community participation are mainly in the form of exhibition and submission. Although it can be argued that having these modalities of participation is better than not having them at all. But the underlying intentions of these instruments are purely instrumental. This is what the names 195 suggest, and that they aid government control of decisions, not to promote community empowerment. They offer very limited (and insecure) opportunities for community participation (in the case of SEPPs and DCPs). As such these policies are not consistent with many ideals of communicative planning theories, such as information sharing, face to face meetings, deliberative dialogues, interaction and a consensus building process (Forester, 1987; Healy, 2005; Innes, 1996). While the SMS did include some participation opportunities and included some level of consultative mechanisms, such as expert panels and Community Forums (together with extensive advertising and exhibition procedures), the participatory planning process still fell short of the principles of collaborative planning highlighted by key thinkers such as Forester, Healey and Innes.

Failure to promote participatory practices was clearly evidenced in several fronts. The ﬁrst was that the structure and purpose of community participation was contingent on the Minister’s discretion. This means decisions are ultimately the responsibility of the Minister who can potentially complete the task without any public input. The second failure, in the case of LEPs, concerns the opportunity for face-to-face participation for community groups. This is conditional upon necessary conditions met according to ’gateway determination’. Ironically there is no clear information on what these determinants are and how these can be met. It is clear that community participation, while outlined by legislation in NSW planning policies, is still trapped within the ’top-down’ approach of decision-making that was in vogue in the 1960s and 1970s. The current planning policies do not yet fulﬁl the participatory ideals of communicative planning which emerged in the late 1980s.

8.2.3 Policy silence on representative participation

There is no policy provision on community participation that aim to bring about representative participation of the cross-section of community groups. The reasons are diverse and can be summarised into three major parts:

1. limited guidance on how to include various opinions, needs and aspirations of local communities,

2. ignorance of the diversity of the community groups and

3. no speciﬁc measures to bring forward a cross section of society.

196 The key reasons for this policy silence are many, but one key reason is the pragmatic need for the policy to be generic, resource limitations and the like. Another reason is bureaucrats and experts, who are the drivers of the process, fail to understand the diversity of community needs, aspirations and interests and the professional staff may have controlled the process to achieve the required target within resource and time constraints. As a result, policies lack the provision of necessary guidance on how to engage diversiﬁed community groups effectively - the absence of the heterogeneous idea of community groups is in fact contradictory to the idea of collaboration. The participation process is adopted in such a way that inhibits the participation of the less advantaged groups in society. Hence the policies are, at times, detrimental for the representation of a cross section of community groups.

Failure to represent community groups in the planning process is also evidenced from the use of “one-ﬁts-all” technique to include different community groups. This is not suitable for planning practice to involve multi-cultural societies like Sydney. Despite policy provisions for public “involvement” and gestures towards some elements of bottom-up approach in the decisions practice, the process follows the same old path of the top-down approach to planning. There has been little change. Although the policies provide some opportunities in the form of public hearing, submission invitations and consultation, they are completely silent with respect to the input from disadvantaged community groups such as those with an Aboriginal or migrant groups – reﬂecting the out-dated assumption of almost homogenous community for whom plans need to be developed. Sydney is a multi-cultural city. Unfortunately, some groups are most likely to have limited access and capacity to participate, while others can easily co-opt. It is no wonder that disadvantaged groups are almost completely left out of the ’so-called’ participatory process. Clearly, the opportunities for participation outlined in policy provisions are limited, have been implemented in haste through universal techniques and have ignored the diversity of communities.

8.2.4 False legitimacy and upward accountability of decisions

The analysis indicates that policies offer a very limited accountability measures for the government agencies to answer to the local communities. This has created a situation where ’false legitimacy’ is developed in which community groups are seen to be participated, but regardless of their participation and input, the ﬁnal decisions are not necessarily reﬂecting to what the community wants and needs. This has been internalised as an illegitimate decision making 197 system. This is clearly contradictory to the ideals of participation and democratic governance.

The policies also have limited specificity and flexibility about the timeframe and a clarity of information on the process and purpose of participation about who will be included in the target groups. There is no precise definition of what is meant by ’community’; if it is people who are outside of the State Government, or Local Government, or business groups or residents of the neighbourhoods. Lack of clarity and flexibility contradicts the ideals of deliberative planning in what Forester urges us to have information sharing which is essential for democratic decision-making.

The use of information as a source of power is key to address the marginalisation of certain stakeholders in planning practice (Forester, 1996; Innes, 2004). This is not reﬂected in Sydney. The provision of limited information has negative impact, not only on the interest and performance of the community groups as it effectively marginalises them, but also it deprives them with their rights to be part of the larger governance system. As Illsley (2003) suggests, community groups expect full disclosure of relevant information and they tend to be suspicious when information is withheld. No wonder suspicions on government planning ofﬁcials are rampant. The implication of this is that community groups are not willing to be open or able to communicate meaningfully with planning professionals as well as other stakeholders and may not feel interested in participating altogether.

Transparency is one of the most important components to enhance accountability, and for the effectiveness of participation (Barnes et al., 2008; Guyer, 1992; Moore, 1997). It was revealed that there is no policy provision requiring access to information about the outcome of community participation, the performance of planning authority and the exercise of appealing power. This is evidenced in the Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979 of NSW where all submissions need to be considered when making and amending plans. However, there is no provision to provide feedback to the communities about the fate of their input. As such the ﬁnal outcome and feedback on community input is never communicated to the communities. As a result decision makers do not explain whether and how community’s views have been adopted and why. This demonstrates a complete lack of transparency about what bases community input and submissions were used to determine the outcome. The only provision is to publish a summary of the public hearing or submissions. This is clearly insufﬁcient; it often raises many more 198 questions than it provide answers. Lack of transparency and false legitimacy lead to a situation where chain of accountability is linked up to the higher levels of decision hierarchy, while local communities are deprived of their rights to know of and act upon the decisions that affect them.

8.2.5 Empowering whom?

There is an over-representation of the advantaged community groups, and the under-representation of the disadvantaged groups. The policy analysis reveals that the provisions for community participation do not allow communities to share decision-making power with government agencies, or influence the decision that affects them. Hence it fails to achieve any real possibility of empowerment. Practice contradicts with the idea of empowerment outlined in the participation framework provided by IAP2 where it highlights the situation where final decision-making is placed in the hands of community groups for their empowerment (IAP2, 2007b). As discussed, the provisions for community participation outlined in the policies and legislation are weak, unclear, insufficient and even incompatible to deliver genuine participatory outcomes. They are not really consistent with the key principles discussed in communicative planning theories, such as, deliberative dialogue, face to face meetings, facilitated debate and mediation, and information sharing (see Forester, 1987; Friedmann, 1987; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996).

The weak policy that has compromised community empowerment outcomes is manifested in a number of ways. Firstly, to achieve successful, consensus-based decisions from planning practice, Innes (2004) argued for the need to meet some pre-conditions, such as: active participation of the full range of stakeholders, set ground rules for behaviour at the outset, dialogue where all participants should be equally able to participate, provide accessible and fully shared information, encouraging a self organising capacity and exploring all interests. None of these conditions was fully reﬂected in the policy provisions. The only way through which local communities can offer their input is by submissions (except Metropolitan Strategy 2005). And there is no provision for communities to participate throughout the process, neither before ﬁnalisation nor in the monitoring and evaluation phase. Clearly consensus-based decisions was never going to be achieved. The decisions were, by necessity or interest, imposed by the government decision makers.

199 Secondly, submissions are not the most convenient ways to generate input from most community members. And technical jargons used in the plans are complex to understand. Previous studies found that as an attempt to influencing policy, writing a submission to the department does not work (e.g. McGuirk, 2001). This is because sometimes submissions are left aside or community submissions have to compete for quality and acceptance with the submissions made by business groups or expert, who have much higher level of technical know-how, expertise or the capability to hire experts. Community submissions are likely to loose in this unwinnable battle, even when the authenticity of information and need are reflected, albeit in a less ’professional’ and less ’standard’ manner. As a result, despite community groups making efforts for submitting input, they are unable to meet the professional criteria. Their input is likely to have found the shelf in a filing cabinet.

Thirdly, community participation is sought at a very latter stage of the planning process. Universal platform are used to engage different groups of community members. These opportunities seek comments only after the draft is prepared (not for the draft preparation). They are often contingent upon the consideration of the Minister and some experts. In the SMS, the opportunities in the form of submissions and consultation were principally palatable only for society’s elite groups. These came only once in the planning process which barely gives an opportunity for community groups to engage in meaningful argumentation. This is consistent with several arguments in the literature (e.g. Maginn, 2007; Searle, 2006).

In theory, community participation in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy closely follows the lowest rungs of the ladder of participation offered by Arnstein (1969), Choguill (1996) and the IAP2 spectrum (IAP2, 2007b), in the sense that there was nominal scope for the local community to inﬂuence various aspects of the plan and almost no intention and outcome of community empowerment. Therefore, the existing participation opportunities in policy intentions and provisions are not clear, not sufﬁcient and has a very limited potential to foster the effective participation of communities in decision-making about policy issues. As Lewenstein (2003) argued, when policies are not supportive of the use of community knowledge in policies and practice, not only the community is likely to lose, but also the losers include wider community of practice including the government.

200 8.2.6 Contradiction to community inclusion

Some legislative provisions can even be seen to be contradictory to the idea of effective community inclusion. The opportunities for community participation outlined in the planning instruments of NSW are summarised below in Table 8.1 in relation to critical aspects of effective community participation.

Factors identified in SEPPs under EP& A LEPs under EP& A DCPs under Envi- the literature for ef- Act 1979 Act, 1979 ronmental Planning fective participation Assessment Regula- tion 2000 Information provision After the draft devel- After the draft devel- — about the plan oped and finalised oped, modified and finalised Before or when draft- No No No ing the agendas Interactive and parallel No No No process Facilitated meet- No. Submission by Public hearing when No ing, public hearing, invitation only if the authority deems es- dialogue and mediation Minister considers sential; Submission by invitation determined by ‘gateway determination’ Ensuring different No initiative specified No initiative specified No initiative specified groups (translation of the materials, using different techniques)? After drafting/before No A report is publicly No finalisation (genuine available only if it is re- consideration of the quested in submissions inputs/communicating back with the community groups) Modification No No No Input after modification No If authority deems nec- No essary Feedback after finalisa- No. Just notification No. Just notification - tion Engaging in monitor- No No No ing process

Table 8.1: Summary of CP opportunities in Planning Instruments in NSW (Source: Environmental Planning Assessment Act, 1979 and Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000)

The opportunities of community participation in the planning instruments of NSW are summarised below in Table 8.2, in relation to the criteria of effective community participation.

201 Factors identified in Sydney Metropolitan Sub-regional Strate- Monitoring process the literature for ef- Strategy gies fective participation Information provision Informed after the draft Informed after the draft - about the plan developed developed Before/ when drafting No No No agendas (Inclusion community’s views in the planning agendas)? In interactive and paral- No No Submission by invita- lel process? tion Facilitated meeting, Yes (forums) Submission by invita- No public hearing, diation logue and mediation? Ensuring different Random sampling No No groups (translation of the materials, using different techniques)? After drafting or be- No No No fore finalization (genuine consideration of the inputs, communicating back with the community groups) Modification No No No Input after modification No No No Feedback after finaliza- No No No tion

Table 8.2: Summary of CP opportunities in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 (Source: Policy analysis of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005)

The above Tables (Table 8.1 and 8.2) indicate that there is a very limited reflection of the key ideas of communicative planning in relation to the inclusion of diverse groups of local communities in urban planning policies and practice. From the above analysis it is clear that at the State and regional levels there are more opportunities for community participation; for example, in Community Forums and public hearings. However, these opportunities are limited at the local level (e.g., only submissions in LEPs). The question then is whether this differential availability of opportunities is significant for community participation to become effective. The answer is in the affirmative.

The literature suggests that community participation is inﬂuenced by place attachment, place identity, and the sense of community of the community groups, as these factors motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to protect or improve their community and participate in local

202 planning processes (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Hence, in the local planning process, community groups would be more interested in participating and would be more capable of providing input than in the regional or metropolitan levels. Therefore, the provision of limited opportunities at local level rather than regional levels is not well justiﬁed if the policies intend to enhance the effectiveness of community participation.

8.2.7 Explaning limited opportunities for community participation

An important question to emerge is why opportunities were limited. Reasons for limited opportunities may be due to resource and time constraints, and a lack of interest, capacity, skills and expertise. However, one key reason why the opportunity for participation was limited was because the bureaucrats and experts were the driver of the process and they controlled the process and outcome of urban planning and participation. There are following speciﬁc reasons:

Firstly, it was a pragmatic necessity for the Department, which is required to apply uniform legislative guidelines in practice. The uniform guidelines allowed the Department to achieve its target of legitimising the plan within a short time and in a cost effective way.

Secondly, the professional staff may have controlled the process to achieve the required target within resource and time constraints. As indicated above, applying multifarious methods to cater for diversiﬁed groups of communities to participate would incur greater cost, time and effort which the Department might want to avoid.

Thirdly, the control may be rooted in the culture and structure of the planning bureaucracy because, despite the change in policy intentions, there were no signiﬁcant changes in the conventionally trained planning staff and upwardly accountable and target-oriented bureaucracy. This resulted in the process adhering to centralisation rather than decentralisation and ignoring the ideas of representation, downward accountability or empowerment.

Fourthly, it might be the case that planning bureaucracy still lacks respect and conﬁdence in the capacity of communities to provide meaningful input into the policy. With the existing bureaucratic structure and tradition, it is unable or unwilling to receive information from local communities. If so, it was a matter of necessity and legislative and institutional requirements that ensured the Department of Planning’s control over the design and delivery of the limited

203 opportunities for community participation. This conﬁrms the argument of Innes and Booher (2010) that maintaining the coexistence with formal Government and the problem of mismatch with the bureaucratic tradition of decision-making are the major challenges for collaborative planning.

Then, it was the matter of necessity and legislative and institutional requirements that made the Department of Planning’s control over the design and delivery of the limited opportunity for community participation. The underlying issue here is essentially about the custodial culture and scientiﬁc tradition of the planning bureaucracy that captures the policy and legislation, rather than the problems of the creating opportunities for effective community participation.

The limited opportunity for community participation implies that valuable community knowledge is not obtained for the urban policy which can promote inclusive planning and development. Clearly the benefit from civic science as outlined by Backstrand (2003) is not realised. At least three implications can be drawn from this. Firstly, the planning bureaucracy still lacks respect and confidence about the capacity of communities to provide meaningful inputs into the policy. With the existing bureaucratic structure and tradition, it is unable or unwilling to receive knowledge and information from local communities. Secondly, the institutional structures of agencies, their visions and working styles, are not compatible to, and sympathetic with, community structures and knowledge base. However, the community knowledge may be more suited to local conditions than scientific knowledge. Soussan et al (1995) viewed the lack of attempt to respect and recognise the community knowledge as a lost opportunity. The knowledge base for planning must integrate both community and scientific knowledge, which enhance each other as stakeholders seek to understand complex problems and to find effective solutions. Thirdly, the agencies often make wrong assumptions about the nature of the community from which the knowledge is obtained. They aim to obtain from, and transferring knowledge to communities having a common interest and that community will passively take up whatever is supplied. Unlike the conventional wisdom of planned intervention, communities are not the passive recipients of development (Long & Long, 1992). The interests of the community may be diverse and it is therefore wrong to assume that there is a presence of a clear community of interest.

204 Given the above analysis, one question emerges; should we aim for creating opportunities for communities to participate in the urban planning, policy and practice? Findings indicate strong interest of communities to participate in the policy and development process. The underlying rationale behind such interest is the fact that the community groups have something to offer and gain from the development. Efforts from the community groups are feasible to achieve, and is important for improving and informing policies that can promote effective community particiaption in planning practice. However, communities are persistently frustrated by top-down and unaccountable bureaucrats. Communities may be inclined to disregard legislation set in place by the State, even though the consequences of being penalised are substantial. Not recognising the valuable knowledge and efforts of the communities may induce policy failure and affect the stability and sustainability of the policy and development process. There are some of the important practical and ethical reasons to create more opportunities for community participation.

Aiming for better opportunities for effective participation of communities necessitates changes to the institutions, planning and development system if they are not to de-value the knowledge of the communities. In part, these changes might emerge from within the planning and development bureaucracy. If the assumption is that a version of the planning system and development practice will and should remain intact, how might it be reshaped to capture the knowledge of diverse communities in society? In principle, the idea would be to create a set of synergies such that communities gain from a broader system of planning and development. For this, there is a need for mechanisms to improve the capacity and attitude of professionals and communities. It is important to note that even if knowledge is obtained from communities and is internalised into decisions, there is a problem in the nature of existing knowledge and the issues of power involved in it. Most efforts in planning and development have treated the problems too much as a matter of knowledge, while real barriers to more fundamental progress in participatory planning practice are power and control issues. Clearly, the excessive focus on knowledge alone is not sufﬁcient to address diverse problems of development. Issues of power are more often central than the issue of knowledge.

8.2.8 Insights for enhancing opportunities for community participation

Urban planning practice maintains a top-down, status quo decision-making system while community participatory practices are to legitimise the plans. The underlying issue here is that institutional structures of agencies, their visions and working styles, are not compatible with, and 205 sympathetic to, community structures and knowledge. Effective community participation will require the terms of reference to be very carefully worked out and the procedures, methods and techniques for running the actual Forums to be clearly set out at the outset and included in the policies. While the executive Government, by deﬁnition, will always control the process, the implementation of the legislation and regulations is the responsibility of the bureaucracy. In the case of the SMS, the bureaucracy is responsible for: the role of expert panels, the selection of representatives from government agencies and non government organisations, the management of Community Forums, and the methods to limit control over the process by elite groups. These are all matters that require serious consideration if community participation is to work effectively and be accorded the public legitimacy it requires. Based on the above analysis, the following options can help enhancing the effectiveness of community participation:

A clear deﬁnition of community is required in the policies, with the speciﬁcation of • different groups;

A clear purpose for participation should be detailed in the policies, including the steps, • mechanisms and the minimum time period for participation;

Speciﬁc policy measures to ensure fair representation of the disadvantaged community • groups, such as migrants, NESB people and community groups of all ages.

Explicit policy intentions and provisions for more locally relevant opportunities for • providing input; for example, meetings, open dialogue, facilitated debates, mediation and providing sufﬁcient information.

A set of implementable guidelines backed by legislation for the management and • organisation of speciﬁcally targeted community participation forums for different groups in regional, sub-regional and local levels.

The bureaucracy of planning agencies should be judged in such a way that promoting • democratic and people-centred planning is the fundamental part of their core responsibilities. Incentive structures are set contingent upon the quality and effectiveness community participation.

206 8.3 (Un) representative participation: Reasons and implications

Despite the government’s claim of creating multiple opportunities for local community groups to participate, the process failed to represent a cross section of the community groups. Community members who attended the 12 community forums, were mainly highly educated, high-income earners, and were from well established groups of population (and aged more than 55 years). The majority of them were male and had been living in Sydney since birth or for living there for more than 25 years. This supports Miller’s ﬁndings that the person who contributed to the community participation process in Australia, was married, middle aged, a higher than average income earner; a well-educated man active in voluntary organisations, and active in local politics. He owned his home and car and was a resident of the area for a long time (Miller, 1988). The participation process was under represented by females, young groups of people and, particularly, disadvantaged groups of society. The ﬁndings also indicate that disadvantaged groups were not properly represented or under-represented in Future Forums and Local Government Forums. Then the question is why so? The following sections provide explanations.

8.3.1 No representation of demography and socio-economics

The community groups are diverse, not only in demographic variables such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability, but also they are diversified in terms of knowledge, skills and opinion (Hill & Moore, 2000). The key findings indicate the lack of representation of some community groups. In community forums there is no representation of the people from the age groups of below 35 years which is contradictory with a previous study’s findings recommending the inclusion of young adults or different age groups in any planning or development program. Such inclusion leads to a sense of ownership which helps to reduce vandalism and crime, increase safety and protect the local environment (Asam u, 2004; Manzi & Smith-Bowers, 2006).

Forums were seriously under represented by the migrant communities of Sydney. Consequently, there was very little input from migrant groups, or particularly those migrants who have not lived in Sydney for a long time. However, this increased the probability of the planning outcome to exclude the interests of migrant population of Sydney and thus encouraged the risk of social exclusion of migrants or refugees. The ﬁndings are contradictory with the literature where involving representative community groups in the planning process, particularly in multi-cultural 207 societies, has been recurrently advocated for the quality of the planning outcome and for its sustainability. While it must be acknowledged that this is a difﬁcult issue as it raises the cost and length of the process (Cameron & Johnson, 2004; Uyesugi & Shipley, 2005; Karagkounis, 2009), this representation is crucial for a city like Sydney where almost 1 in 3 individuals identify themselves with some overseas heritage.

Participants were well-educated and the plan was made with the input of these groups, bypassing the input from many people who are less educated. The over representation of educated people and the under representation of the rest of the community does not imply that the other community groups are not interested in participating. Their absence may be due to the process of participation or a design fault which might not be compatible with groups such as migrants (Syme & Nancarrow, 1992). However, a level of education may be a factor in the non-participation of relatively powerless groups, as identiﬁed in several studies (Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992).

The participants were from higher income groups; 51 percent had an income level from $ 40,000-60,000, whereas only 34 percent of Sydney population had this level of income. Only 13 percent of the participants said their income was below $ 20,000, but in Sydney, the people with that particular level of income was 38 percent (Figure 5.1e). As a result, the low-income people were kept out of the planning process and the Strategy was made without input from people with a lower income level.

It was also found that participants were from groups who were well settled and socially well connected. Some of the participants were members of more than one organisations. This signiﬁes that people who have less social or political connections were absent from the process, and the plan was made with people who are more prone to be involved in volunteer activities, more interested in politics or social activities, have connections with political or religious organisations, such as churches. This aligns with the argument that community participation only attracts relatively more empowered members of society who have experience of volunteering, as participation in the planning process depends on volunteer participation (Cameron & Johnson, 2004). To include people in the process who are less empowered requires strategies and encouragement. Such strategies should be specially targeted to groups such as Aboriginal peoples, migrants or people with a disability, who were largely absent in the participation 208 process. The ﬁndings also support the claims that “living in the city” is an important factor in determining the community’s attitude about participation (Beyazli & Aydemir, 2011) as most of the participants of community forums of the SMS had been living in Sydney since birth or for more than 25 years.

8.3.2 Exclusion of disadvantaged community groups

Disadvantaged groups were almost completely left out in the so-called participatory processes. The investigation into whether disadvantaged groups’ interests were represented in the final decisions reveals that these participation platforms were organised and exclusively managed by government bureaucrats where the interests of social elites-educated individuals, government employees and business groups-were dominant in the process at the expense of the general community and disadvantaged group interests. This could explain why the strategy contains few direct initiatives to address specific problems likely to be experienced by disadvantaged groups, such as access to transportation, and a standard of health and community services on the level available to more affluent areas of the metropolis. This raises the question of why the Strategy did not contain policies that specifically addressed the needs and interests of the disadvantaged to a much more prominent position so that their importance was prioritised in terms of targeted programs, funding and implementation (Rawls, 1972).

The opportunity for Aboriginal peoples and NESB (Non-English Speaking Background) groups to participate in a meaningful way was almost non-existent, thereby leaving them without a voice in the process. This is evident from the findings of section 5.3 which show that almost all (89 percent) of Community Forum attendees expressed their views, however, this is not significant to ensure the representation of the communities’ interest, on the grounds of the very little reflection of community groups’ input in the outcome, as discussed in section 6.2.3. Hence, final decisions were made by bureaucrats and politicians with little or no input from these marginal groups. It is often argued that the voices of the traditionally voiceless groups (e.g., the poor and minorities) are critical for the plans to succeed in terms of achieving equity, efficiency and sustainability (Healey, 1998; Sarker et al., 2008; Shrestha & McManus, 2005). This was absent in the planning process of SMS.

Sydney Metropolitan Strategy did have some participation opporunities, such as expert panels and Community Forums together with extensive advertising and exhibition procedures, the 209 participatory planning process still fell short of the contemporary collaborative planning principles outlined by Forester (1992), Healey (2005) and Innes (1996). Furthermore, the plan failed to meet community expectations, marginalised environmental groups and received a lukewarm reception from certain sectors of the business community. What can be reasonably argued here is that the key policy objectives and provisions in the SMS were pre-determined by government elites and that the public participatory processes were really there to give the strategy a degree of political legitimacy. These ﬁndings concur with previous studies, in regards to the representation of community groups, with elite domination, which is a major hurdle for effective participatory planning to overcome. For example, in the collaborative planning processes social elites and experts can easily co-opt the decision proceedings (Fung & Wright, 2003) which can lead to well-intended projects failing in terms of key objectives; because local elites can misrepresent community interests and seize control of a project (Cernea, 1993). This type of participation can be described as form of “covert privatisation” that can easily lead to centralised control with a loss of desired incentives of the people (e.g., Anderson, 2000; Pavri & Deshmukh, 2003).

8.3.3 Reasons and actors behind unrepresentative participation

The main reasons for the failure to represent the cross section of the society in the so-called participatory forums, as identiﬁed in section 5.4, are: a) bureaucratic institutional system b) using random sampling with the belief that this would represent all community groups, c) using a private data-base instead of the electoral lists, d) using easy and cost effective conventional techniques, such as advertising in the local newspapers and written invitations, e) choosing a small sample size, presumably to minimise costs, f) using a universal technique to represent diverse groups of people, g) not offering ﬂexibility of time and venues, and h) limited time and resources.

There was no willingness on part of Government agencies to ensure effective community participation. Bureaucratic institutional settings are one of the underlying causes for this, leading to the failure of enhancing representative community participation. This is consistent with the arguments of Innes and Booher (2010) that the co-existence of collaborative planning with formal government and with the bureaucratic tradition does not work and cannot bring about an expected outcome. They argued that in the current governmental system, planning ofﬁcials are cynical about any type of public decision making, except by the representative government. On 210 the contrary, the practice of collaborative planning offers an open ended decision making approach to deal with the current complex, changing and fragmented system of societies. Hence communicative planning practice can be seen as an attempt to implement democratic ideals through an undemocratic apparatus. To overcome this challenge, a fundamental change of current governance and institutional arrangement is needed. The importance of community participation and a democratic planning system needs to be realised by the politicians and bureaucrats. Making politicians and bureaucrats aware of the importance of community participation and social justice is one recommended step in addressing the problem of the underrepresentation of marginalised groups in planning practices.

Using random sampling as strategy of selecting potential participants could not ensure a representative cross-section of the society which is required for descriptive representation (James, 2011). There should be stratiﬁed targeted sampling to ensure the inclusion of different groups of people. As suggested in the literature, quotas or reserved places for women or minority groups should be instigated to ensure a fair representation of the population in participation (Blair, 2000).

The unavailability of the electoral list was due to privacy issues. However, using a list from a private mail-house company who made that list to conduct different types of life style surveys, brought problems. People who subscribed for participation in different types of life style surveys may be more prone to participate in social issues. Alternatively, they may have enough spare time or be unemployed or retirees. The unavailability of electoral list for the purpose of community consultation in the planning process is a policy issue that needs to be addressed. There should be a policy provision to make the electoral list available for the purpose of community consultation by the state or local planning agencies.

Written invitations, advertising in websites or in local newspapers to join the consultative forum did not serve well to include different groups in the planning process. This only attracted the elite of society who were well-educated and socially connected. Inviting people through leaﬂets and posters written in the community language, disseminating information through local cultural and religious centres, such as churches, mosques or community centres, through cultural activities and advertising in the media and newspapers in community languages should be used to cater for the different segments of society. Choosing only 1,000 community members is very small sample size to represent people of the greater Sydney region of 4,119,190 people to 211 participate in a strategy for next 25 years (ABS, 2007). The sample size should have been greater to represent cross section of Sydney population.

The community forums used formal presentations and workshop techniques, with reasonable effort from facilitators, predominantly designed for mainstream educated Australians. They seem unsuitable for the people from NESB groups, Aboriginal peoples or poorer groups. The reason for this might be the assumption among policy makers of the homogenous nature of communities or the lack of seriousness among policy makers about the input from the community groups. This is similar to the ﬁndings of the literature that one of the major causes of failing to represent a cross section of community groups in the planning process is by ignoring the concept of community on a wider scale. As any attempt to equate the concept with a geographical or spatial area that assumes a homogeneity of interests within them (Massey, 1997) is misleading in the sense that communities living in the same geographic area do not necessarily share the same ethnicity or customs, nor do they always have the same interests (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). In the planning system, when society is assumed as an homogeneous entity, there is a possibility that the opportunities created for participation would be parochial and were made as a requirement only to legitimise the planning goals (Hall, 1983; Lane, 2005). It seems the intention of the participation process was just to provide lip service to maintain the status quo.

Different types of techniques to include different community groups are useful considerations, such as questionnaire surveys, web-based surveys and focus group discussions using pictures, photos and maps. Some researchers advocate a questionnaire survey to be used as a supplementary method of bringing forward a community’s views in the participation process (Golobic & Marusic, 2007; Olsson, 2008; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992).

When the time and venue of the events are unsuitable that restrains people at work or those engaged in earning their livelihood from participation, even if they are interested in participating. One of the reasons for community groups non-participation in planning processes is their engagement at work or earning money. As a consequence, participation workshops attracted people who were unemployed or retired, or those who were available during the day. This is conﬁrmed from the composition of the community members in the Forum. Around half of them were engaged in service or trade, whereas 33 percent were retirees and 6 percent were unemployed. If we assume that people who were in service or trade took time off to attend, this is 212 not easy for all, especially community members who are from lower income earner groups. As a result, the participation process could not capture a representative sample of the community. There should be arrangement of paid leave from the workplace or monetary compensation for those who attend the workshops, particularly for the people of the low-income earner group. Also, the workshops should be on different days of the week as well as different times of the day.

Resource and time limitations were the other reasons for limited opportunities which resulted in the failure of a representative participation. This is because of community participation not being a priority and therefore failing to be allocated a sufﬁcient budget from the treasury. Moreover, due to limited time, planners are sometimes required to choose shortcuts just to maintain alignment with legal requirements. Despite the ideas of communicative planning theories, the planning practice in many developed countries, including Australia, is using conventional community participation techniques, such as submissions or one off meetings or public hearings. There should be policy provisions in regards to time speciﬁcation and the minimum required time, which is essential for the different steps of the community participation process.

8.3.4 Drivers of participation

Community members who attended the Community Forums were asked about their drivers that condition participation. Four major points were identiﬁed:

1. concern over environment

2. socio-economic reasons

3. the intention to give input and

4. socialisation.

It was found that, those who participated, had a strong concern for the environment. Socialisation, such as meeting with friends and having informal conversation with friends and family, also played an important role in motivating community members to attend the forum (see Figure 5.6). These results indicate that community members who are proactive in protecting their environment, suburb or the city are more prone to participate. This ﬁnding is consistent with the study by Beyazli and Aydemir (2011) who examined the factors associated with urban 213 consciousness and its relationship with the community’s interest in participation and revealed that the more people are conscious about their living environment the more they will tend to be involved in consultative actions at planning departments’ hearings or the planning process. To educate community groups about their surrounding environment will also help in raising consciousness about their neighbourhood. However, this ﬁnding is contradictory with studies of Miller (1988) who found that community groups with a direct economic interest in land use matters tend to over-represented in the community participation forums.

Socio-economic concerns, which affect community members personally, also were identiﬁed as the one of the major factors for participation. The ﬁndings concerning the motivation behind participation are personal socio-economic and environmental consciousness. This highlights the issue of people’s apathy towards engaging in the participation process which does not directly relate to the community’s personal needs. Finding draws attention to the issue of social capital and its relation to people’s interest in participation. Communities, who have local ownership developed through a process of regular communication, cooperation and the maintenance of their assets, develop a sense of social ownership and place attachment. Importantly, place attachments, place identity and a sense of community (Lin, 2000; Saegert & Winkel, 1996) are the factors which can motivate ordinary residents to act collectively to protect or improve their community and environment and participate in local planning processes (Manzo & Perkins, 2006).

Attending the forum for socialisation or without any specific reason indicates that there might be always be some people who attend the forum out of curiosity or to pass time with friends. The reason may also be that the invitation letters were sent according to a private database where people registered their name to voluntarily take part in different types of life style surveys, as noted above. These are people who look for events to pass time and to contact people. However, a good facilitator in the forum who delivers information in an attractive way would be beneficial for these attendees to enable them to provide quality and meaningful input. Arranging various community activities programs which might create social networks and social capital tagged with community participation activities would also be beneficial.

Findings identiﬁed probable causes of non-participation in planning process as: a) not knowing about the event, b) personal limitations, such as an inability to manage time, c) travel costs, d) caring for family members, and e) a lack of interest. The ﬁrst cause of non-participation indicates 214 the importance of the dissemination of the message of invitation to attend the forums. This should reach all the groups in communities. There should be assistance in regards to travelling to and from the meeting venue and arranging childcare.

People who do not have interest to participate may be because of the irrelevance of the planning context with their everyday life. Olsson (2008) questioned the necessity of the active or direct involvement of communities in infrastructure planning and planning issues of national interest. It is important to note here that regional or sub-regional plans have less relevance with communities in regards to their local suburb. While designing opportunities for participation for communities in the planning process, the participatory techniques need to be as relevant as possible according to the proximity of their locality, alignment with their interest and values.

Community groups’ apathy towards participation has also been identiﬁed. In the literature, this issue was raised by Listerborn (2007), who argued that the apathy of community members towards participate is the opposite of the assumption in communicative planning theory, that citizens will be eager to participate and will take the initiative. This is supported in many studies (e.g. Bucheker et al., 2003; Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Community members, especially from the less advantaged groups of society are apathetic about participation because of their belief that there is no beneﬁt for them in participation or their participation will have no impact on the planning outcome (Bucheker, 2003; Foley & Martin, 2000). Sometimes people are so engaged in earning their livelihood or in ensuring their basic needs that they cannot be interested in planning or environmental issues. It is therefore recommended, especially in developing countries, that the economic and social aspects of sustainable development along with the physical environment are considered together, to make the environmental planning issues as relevant as possible (Adomokai & Sheate, 2004).

Community group’s interest in participation sometimes depends on the community satisfaction of their previous experience of participation. The literature suggests that participants justify the effectiveness of participation according to the inclusion of their input in the planning outcome (McGuirk, 2001). Communities’ satisfaction levels also depend on their participation objectives and whether they were found or not found in the agendas. Empel (2008) argued that to make community groups eager to participate, planners should carefully consider the community’s objectives in the agendas (Empel, 2008). 215 Providing incentives critically inﬂuenced the decision of community groups to participate. It was found that cinema tickets were offered to the community members as a token of thanks. But the majority of community members in the questionnaire survey said that there would be no difference in their participation if there was no incentive. The underlying cause of such attitude of participants can be explained by the idea that the majority of them were from the well educated and wealthy groups of society. As previously noted, disadvantaged groups were under-represented in the forums. However, providing incentives for attending forums did have a positive impact on participation. It was recommended by State and Local Government staff members, especially in the suburbs of low-income earner families, as a strategy as well as a way of showing courtesy. Incentives may be in the form of food, refreshments, childcare and assistance in travelling or entertainment. Some monetary remuneration, based upon income levels or a policy of allowing paid leave from the workplace to attend the meetings seems required, on the grounds that people sometimes cannot participate or cannot attend meetings because of work. Notably, genuinely considering the community input is recommended as more effective than any incentive. This is related to the accountability of the process.

8.3.5 Insights for enhancing representative participation

Representation of the cross-section of society is strongly emphasised in current communicative planning theories; particularly in the consideration of all interests and in providing opportunities to participate in decision-making (Brand & Graffikin, 2007; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996). Yet methods of obtaining diverse representation on community advisory committees and facilitating the voices of the minority of community members are scarce (Thruston et al., 2007). Some techniques are identified from the analysis of the findings coupled with references from literature. These are: a) including a community’s interests in the agenda,b) adopting a community survey (questionnaire survey/media sponsored survey); c) using multiple methods; d) hiring multi-cultural key persons to communicate with particular community groups; e) offering translation, workshops and focus groups; f) providing assistance in regards to travelling to the meeting venue; g) assisting in child care, and h) monetary compensation for attending meetings or a policy for paid leave from workplace.

To include community group’s interests in the agenda, a discussion before the agenda setting is important. This will ultimately help in making community groups interested in participating. Previous studies offered the idea of a questionnaire survey to understand a community’s views 216 before the workshop or forum (Golobic & Marusic, 2007), which ultimately will provide an important insight into a community’s social structure, attitudes and value orientations and can help planners to prepare more user-focused proposals. It might be a feasible option to conduct a background information survey among the community groups to understand issues on the regional level before agenda setting and then run the forums. In the questionnaire survey, communities might be asked on which particular themes they want to have their say, and then invite them to express their views on those speciﬁc workshops. Workshops can be arranged based on particular issues or sub-region or local area in more detailed format. In the case of regional or metropolitan level planning, a media sponsored survey could be conducted to make the process cost effective. Some studies essentially recommended using survey techniques only as a supplementary tool.

Some researchers argue for ﬁnding representative interests instead of directly involving all stakeholders (e.g. Hodge, 1998), or by selecting a key stakeholder group who will work on behalf of the community (Brody, 2003). However, this technique was proved ineffective in this study (see section 8.3.2). It is also argued that sometimes NGOs and voluntary associations act on planning issues as if they represent the public’s voice but this has been found controversial, in the sense that these organisations are not formed through the democratic electoral process and there is chance of the misrepresentation of public voice (Alfasi, 2003).

To include community groups of different capacity and interests, there should be multiple combinations of participatory techniques, such as workshops, seminars and focus group discussions. As recommended in some studies, it could be beneficial to find key individuals from migrant communities and to find a culturally appropriate way to enable community groups to participate (Cameron et al., 2005). Other studies argued for hiring multicultural workers to translate materials and to specifically target ethno-cultural groups through direct and personal contact, extensive translations, workshops offered in languages other than English, providing training for planning staff about multicultural and diversity issues and involving community members in the implementation phase to work as watchdogs or to relay the community’s concerns back to the team (Sandercock, 1997; Uyesugi & Shipley, 2005). However, all of these steps increase the program costs. Web based techniques, as recommended (Brabham, 2009; Craig, 1998; Howard & Gaborit, 2007), can also be offered as supplementary techniques to include community groups, particularly the younger groups of the society. 217 In regards to providing incentives, there should be assistance in travelling to the meeting venue, in child caring, monetary compensation to attend the meeting, and allowing for flexible times and venues. There should be a policy provision of paid leave from the workplace to attend the community participation discussion, meetings and workshops of planning decision-making. Key recommendations for ensuring representation in the participation process are summarised in Table 8.3.

Insights to improve planning policies Availability of electoral lists when neces- • sary for participation purpose; Paid leave from work place and monetary • compensation to attend meetings Awareness raising through media and train- • ing Speciﬁcation about minimum required time • and schedule Learning about community groups and their • environment and neighbourhood relations Arranging travel assistance, child caring • when necessary

Insights to improve planning practice Questionnaire survey before workshops and • forums Combination of techniques (questionnaire • survey, web based survey/inputs, focus groups discussion) Flexibility of the meeting times and venues • Discussion of communities before agenda • setting and inclusion of community group’s interests in the agenda Making the process more open and ac- • countable Nurturing local leadership • Attending to social diversity and cultural • sensitivities

Table 8.3: Summary of the key recommendation in ensuring representation

218 8.4 Explaining upward accountability in planning practice

Practice of the planning decision-making process to engage with local communities and to realise the potential of democratising decision-making practice is seriously jeopardised by the problem of accountability. This is because the decision agendas and process is controlled from the higher level of governments and the bureaucracy, leaving very little space for the local communities to provide any meaningful input into the decisions that directly affect them.

The community participation processes are over represented by the elites of the society. However, with the representation of speciﬁc groups (well educated, higher income earners) of the communities in the participation process will lead to empowerment, which means the empowerment of the already empowered – so there is a chance of over empowerment here. This is because of the absence of downward accountability.

As long as the accountability of decision-making is maintained from the top, community empowerment through participation cannot be fully realised. Upward accountability of the decision-making process and the representative participation within this frame can effectively further disempower the local communities. The analysis of the following ﬁndings will reveal this.

8.4.1 Access to information and planning rules

There is limited access to information for the community groups. The means through which information was provided, such as discussion papers, the ministerial direction paper or the website were not easily accessible in terms of source and timing for diverse groups of communities. The content of the information was very limited (both in quantity and quality). Sometimes community groups were provided with misleading information. For example, community groups were provided with the information about proposed planning implications only at the meeting whereas the provision of information beforehand would have assisted community groups in participating more effectively. Forester emphasised that planners should be comprehensive, sincere, legitimate and truthful while speaking and when they communicate with stakeholders in planning practices (Forester, 1989). This was absent in the participation process.

Providing information to the community groups through these channels listed above is very narrow and sometimes inaccessible even when attempts are made. The way information is

219 accessed also complicates the meaning of information. For example community members who could participate in community forums were not sent detailed information. To gather details about the strategy, community members only had the options of visiting the website or consulting planning officials (Department of Planning, 2004). This seems not to be accessible for the disadvantaged community groups who have financial or language limitations. Even those whose English is proficient are not always familiar with browsing the internet to find targeted information.

Reaching any planning ofﬁcial before the community forum was not offered or was implausible. In this situation it is not possible, or even desirable, that ordinary citizens, including indigenous Australians, non-English-speakers, and young people, who take part in the Community Forums would be able to understand the published discussion papers and website information covering the planning issues. The deliberative democratic process is serious questionable, as Maginn (2007) argued. He emphasised the endowment of these community groups by providing resources and enough time to develop a sufﬁcient understanding about participation and environment. This is consistent with the arguments of Adomokai and Sheate (2004).

The causes of limited access to quality and sufﬁcient information for community groups are: i) the ministerial direction papers were not publicly available, they were sent to the future forum participants only through mail; ii) discussion papers were available through websites and the Department of Planning; iii) newspaper advertisements or brochures could disseminate the message to a wider public, but those contain limited information about the planning process and the consultation process iv) putting all the information in the website excluded community groups who might have difﬁculties using the internet or do not have internet access in their home. v) These are the disadvantaged groups of society. Therefore, there is very little chance for the individual communities to respond to the invitation for submissions.

This situation represents the absence of downward accountability in the participation process, as indicated in literature (Guyer, 1992; Moore, 1997; Scott, 1976). The underlying reasons for providing such limited access to information are several: first, it is a part of bureaucratic culture to provide only nominal information; and second, there might be fear of losing power if more information is shared with the communities. As many studies suggest, when civil society are 220 better informed they organise countervailing powers which act as new mechanisms to apply influence (Burg, 2004; Friedmann, 1992). If community groups obtain more information they will be more conscious about their rights and demand a greater share of power. Their expectations may increase and this may be impossible to fulfil, which is opposite of Forester’s notion of the proper use of information which can result in the shifting of power relations and thus can empower marginalized people (Forester, 1989). Third, if community groups obtain more information they will be able to oppose the plan or to negotiate which might not be favourable for the Department. Fourth, there were resources and time limitations. As a consequence, community groups lack an understanding of the planning process and its implications and the input they provide is only superficial. All of these factors lead towards further marginalisation of community groups; as they are being used only to legitimate the strategy, rather than being empowered.

So how can we make the process more accountable? Clearly there should be timely and sufﬁcient access to relevant information available for the community groups from the very beginning of the process. This should be about the agenda setting, the target about what community input is expected and what the implications of that input is, and the outcome of the process. Besides, accessible and fully shared information is one of the pre-requisite of consensus-building in the planning process (Innes, 2004). This is supported by ﬁndings of a community participation exercise which indicates that community groups expect full disclosure of relevant information and they tend to be suspicious when information is withheld (Illsley, 2003).

Cowell (2004) argued that a transparent process increases the success of community participation. To provide information, the following issues need to be addressed: a) it should be clear, authentic, sufﬁcient and relevant; b) there should be information available for the diverse community groups to clarify the purpose of the community consultation exercise; c) community groups should be part of discussion about how their input will be used, who will evaluate it and on what basis it will be evaluated; d) information about the possible alternatives of any proposed program or projects and the consequences, along with the cost and time can help community groups make decisions; e) information needs to be provided on how community groups would participate and what the system of participation will be, such as submissions, meetings or workshops; f) the information dissemination needs to be not only through a website, but through 221 news papers, posters and leaﬂets available in popular places, such as schools, restaurants or shopping malls, and also there needs to be demonstrations about the basic skills of participation through television, radio before the meetings or workshops, and g)there should be translations of the information available in major community languages.

8.4.2 Absence of transparency

The participation process failed to ensure transparency. To make the process transparent, and to provide information and feedback, the interaction should be designed in such a way that community groups can ask any questions comfortably and get answers. This was limited in the community participation process as indicted in section 7.2.2. The system of providing limited and misleading information not only hindered the transparency of the process but also jeopardised community capabilities and interest in participation. The role of the media in raising awareness, advocacy or working as watchdogs was also found to be limited. The investigation into the accessibility of the media indicates that the planning process or the community participation process was not duly open to the media to ensure the transparency of the process.

8.4.3 Limited provision of information on performance of government actions

Explaining the exercise of power and giving feedback to the communities on the rationale for the decisions taken are immensely important for accountability (Curry, 2001; Kakumba, 2010). But the planning process did not report to the community about the implications of their input or about the outcome as discussed in section 7.2.3. This also includes appreciating community’s input, thanking them and publishing a summary of their input. Not giving feedback to communities is contradictory with the deﬁnition of ’public participation’ (IAP2, 2007a). The implications of this is that the process jeopardised effective participation and at times disempowerment. For example, if community groups were given feedback about their input or an explanation of the decision taken, they would have been more interested in participating. Hence it is worthwhile to consider a community forum after the ﬁnalisation of the plan to discuss with communities about the results of their inputs: which of those have been adopted or which have been abandoned and why. This will not only make the process more transparent and accountable but also attract more interest from community groups and will ultimately increase their sense of ownership of the plan.

222 To establish legislation in favour of downward accountability is strongly recommended by the policy makers for democratic and participatory decision-making (Curry, 2001; Ribot, 1999; 2003). However, it is argued that without increasing the capacities and institutional practices it would be quite unusual that Local Governments and authorities will respond to constituents (Onyach-Olaa, 2003). Healey, while discussing the institutionalisation of collaborative planning, emphasised not only on the planners’ choice in choosing the right option but also the institutional surroundings which could compel the planner to act with an “honest, open and reasoning approach”. The importance of ethical conduct and the need for further studies on ethical dimensions were also highlighted by Healey, which further indicates the importance of transparency in the planning process (Healey, 1999). The opportunities given by her for stakeholder participation are: information giving (which should be transparent, open and not distorted), institutional surroundings which make planners act in a deliberative democratic way, and the inclusion of opportunities for monitoring or appealing to ensure accountability.

8.4.4 Limited access to appeals

There was no opportunity for community groups to appeal against any formal decision, or to lodge any formal grievance or objection to any decision after the outcome was ﬁnalised (except by going to the court). The bureaucratic system does not feel an obligation to genuinely consider the input of the community, or to incorporate it. For such a culture, community participation in the planning process represents ’ticking the box’ or is for political show. It is not really to make the process inclusive of communities. There needs to be a shift in thinking of the bureaucratic process and mindset towards democratisation of bureaucracy and democratic decision-making. The systems of appeal, and formal grievance should also be allowed as measures of enhancing downward accountability. Appropriate policy and legislation in support of this must be developed.

8.4.5 The absence of integrity

The planning process is marked by an absence of integrity for effective community participation evident in the absence of answerability, limited transparency, the absence of proper guidelines and directions concerning community groups’ roles and responsibilities and not communicating back with communities about the potential implications of their input. However, the majority of community members were satisﬁed or considered the process as good, very good

223 or satisfactory. However, when they were asked about the final outcome or the genuine consideration of their input, they were unsure. The positive views of the community groups about the participation process could not be justified, on the grounds that most of the community groups were unsure about the final outcome, were unaware about the planning legislation and policies, had limited knowledge about genuine participation and were not given any feedback or information about the implementation of the input they provided. This implies that they were deluded about the participation process and the absence of accountability is the main underlying reason for this. This notion is supported in the literature which emphasises that unless there is downwardly accountability local people are treated as subjects to be managed and used, not as people to be empowered (Curry, 2001; Ribot, 1999).

Another example of the Planning Department’s absence of integrity is the issue of using the forums as political shows. The Minister’s presence in every community forum raises questions about the integrity of government’s intention of conducting community participation. The presence of the Minister made community groups feel honoured and they were attracted by this, but they remained in the dark about the issues, such as to what extent their views could influence the outcome or how the decisions would affect them in the long run. This creates a barrier in the genuine engagement of the community groups. Although the Minister’s attendance placates a community’s dissatisfaction or helps to implement the plan to some extent, it is in the therapy level of Arnstein’s ladder of participation, which means it is tokenistic (Arnstein, 1969). In regards to spectrum of participation by IAP2, it is in the first spectrum of ’informing’ and in the manipulative level of participation in Pretty’s classification of participation (Pretty, 1995). This type of participation involves a waste of tax payer’s money, human resources and time and brings no benefit to community groups. To overcome this problem, the community participation exercise needs to be designed in such a way that community groups can obtain a real idea about the processes and outcomes, about their roles and contributions.

Authentic, accessible and relevant information is the ﬁrst requirement to ensure accountability. The media should be used to disseminate the correct information and to help in raising awareness. Civil society organisations sometimes help to achieve accountability by acting as watchdogs or through advocacy for constituents (Islam & Mahjabeen, 2003). Secondly, the parameters of participation need to be set upfront and shared with communities so that it becomes clear to people what they can or cannot do. Transparency of the participation process 224 needs to be enhanced by appropriate legislation. Thirdly, the planning process needs to be designed so that there is space to integrate the community’s input into the outcome. These insights are summarised in Table 8.4.

Insights to policies Technical help in the department or council • in writing the submissions in a meaningful way. Training for bureaucrats • Education for community groups about im- • portance, major impacts and legal matters related to plan and environment Sharing of authentic, sufﬁcient information • Insights to planning practice To provide opportunities of participation • for community groups in an iterative way Providing opportunities at beginning of the • process. Provision of multiple participatory tech- • niques; such as survey, web based participation, using of face book, twitter, small roundtable consultation and focus group discussion

Table 8.4: Summary of the key recommendation in ensuring empowerment

8.5 Lack of community empowerment and the rhetoric of participation

The community participation process failed to achieve the goal of empowerment. While there were some positive initiatives of the government, such as the attempt to organising forums, submissions and workshops, there were fundamental problems in the system; for example, upward accountability and the unrepresentative participation of community groups. This fails to empower, and sometimes disempowered, the local community groups. However, despite the community ignorance of the ﬁnal outcome of the strategy, their negative view about their input being genuinely considered, and their limited knowledge about genuine participation, and their perception about the participation process was high, this indicate that they had misapprehension about their positive participation in the forums. This resembles the level of non-participation as 225 elaborated in Arnsein’s “ladder of participation” where power holders attempt to educate or “cure” citizens of their ignorance on a particular issue but do not provide real opportunities, except by pretending that the community’s involvement plays an important role. The study also indicates that community groups’ interest in participating in planning processes in future was jeopardised, which conﬁrms Arnstein’s argument that empowerment is the key to the participation process but many people can be easily disempowered if there is no genuine opportunity for power-sharing (Arnstein, 1969). The following analysis will make this idea clear.

8.5.1 Participation without sharing decision-making power

Community groups did not have much leverage over the final decision nor did they share decision-making power throughout the process. The investigation into the different stages of the community participation practice revealed that community groups were not provided with sufficient information, did not get genuine opportunities to express their views and had no control over the inclusion of their inputs. This indicates a failure to achieve the higher levels of the ladder of participation indicated by Arnstein (1969), IAP2 (2007b) and Choguill (1996), where community groups share the decision making power, have greatest amount of power and control over decision-making, or control the final decision. The cause of this failure is the top-down planning process where there is a tendency to maintain the centralisation of power rather than encouraging decentralisation.

8.5.2 Community groups as the least inﬂuential stakeholder

Community groups have very minimal or no influence over the structure, intent and outcome of their participation. Most of the participants of the community forum responded that their influence was either very poor or they were unsure or did not know about their influence. However, one group of community members thought that their influence in the outcome was good or satisfactory, which points to them misapprehending the process and the outcome. Community groups’ least influence was confirmed with them being identified as the least influential stakeholder and the state government as the most influential stakeholder in the SSIs and the questionnaire survey (Figure 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). However, the main reason identified here is government’s provision of very narrow and limited opportunities for community participation. It was more lip service aligning with the dictates of the legislation. Attention was not paid to the effectiveness of the participation process which did not allow community groups to influence the

226 outcomes or to achieve the goal of empowerment. This concurs with the argument about the current practice of community participation identiﬁed in the literature: that the purpose of community participation is only legitimisation (Flyvbjerg, 1998; McGuirk, 1995; 2009).

The Government’s provision of very limited opportunities which led community groups to be least inﬂuence stakeholder was evidenced by:a) submissions as the only opportunity for community participation (in some cases); b) one off opportunity throughout the process (Only one meeting); c) the formal, top-down nature of the planning system;d) offering opportunities at a late stage of the process, and community groups’ co-optation; e) limited facilitation in the meeting; and f) providing universal techniques instead of multiple techniques. These factors are discussed below with their implications for the urban planning system.

Submission is one of the opportunities through which community groups can influence policy as part of their participation. As the study findings indicate, not all groups of communities can write submissions in an effective way. Besides, when community groups write a submission, most of the time they are not effective, as usually submissions are put aside by officers and do not get due consideration. Thus the mechanisms through which the system of participation operates not only ensure the legitimacy of the planning system but also serve the interests of capital (McGuirk, 1995). This is consistent with another study (McGuirk, 2009) which argues that when the objections, appeals, or oral hearings are the main source of contact with the communities who are related to specific developments, communities have no immediate impact upon policy formulation.

A community forum was offered in one afternoon session followed by a workshop with a question-answer session. This was offered in a group of suburbs only once throughout the planning process (see section 6.2.1; Table 6.1). This is what has been identified in the literature as a minimal opportunity for community groups to engage in meaningful argumentation (Maginn, 2007; Searle, 2006). The timing and formal nature of opportunities and the lack of opportunities for informal contact hinder community groups’ influence on policy outcomes. There is a gap in the theory and practice of communicative planning. For example, in the context of the Australian planning system, communicative planning theory has been found to be irrelevant (March, 2010). This is because, as March argues, planners have very little scope to apply the communicative planning idea as most of the opportunities available are submissions, lodging objections, lobbying 227 councillors, speaking at council meetings and making formal submissions to panel hearings. The provision of opportunities for the participation of community groups should be iterative so that they can influence the outcome. There should be technical help in the department or council to help communities in writing submissions or providing oral input in a meaningful way.

The top-down nature of planning practice was found to be responsible for limited opportunities leading to the low influence of community groups on the decision outcome (see section 6.3.1). For example, community forums were offered at a late stage of the planning process (section 6.2.1). This is contradictory to the effective participation criterion, recurrently recommended in literature, which is the benefit of the early involvement of communities in the participation process (Durum & Brown, 1999; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 1997). Flyvjberg also argued that, in the planning practice, opportunities for community groups to participate are set in such a way and at such a stage that they have very little or no influence on the policy outcome compared to other big stakeholders (Flyvbjerg, 1998). Community groups were not able to participate in meaningful discussion as there were no opportunities. These opportunities are stressed in communicative planning theory; for instance, the three interlinked processes of dialogue, debate and negotiation promoted through the deliberative practices of facilitating, moderating and mediating (Forester, 2008).

The argument of the formal top-down nature of the planning system not allowing the community’s input to influence the outcome, as identified in section 6.3.1, has also been supported in studies which focus on including community’s input into the planning outcome. The assumption was offered by MacCallum (2001) and McGuirk (2009) that the communities’ input cannot fit in a linear or funnelled planning system which does not allow planners to incorporate community’s views despite their genuine interest. As indicated before, the community forums need to be scattered throughout the planning process to make it compatible with the inclusion of the community’s input. The importance of communities’ input in the planning process and in outcomes needs to be understood by bureaucrats, planners and politicians. There needs to be bureaucratic to democratic a paradigm shift which should allow more time and money for and a favourable attitude towards communities’ effective participation in the planning process.

Community groups’ co-optation has been identified as another cause of their least influence in the outcome and the process (section 6.3). It was found that this co-optation is due to community 228 groups’ position compared to business groups or political lobbyists. This is due to number of factors, such as, the limited capacity of community groups, the provision of limited facilitation in the meeting, offering universal community participation to include diversified community groups with multiple needs and capacities. Community groups are co-opted in the meetings by the stakeholders who are articulate and who have access to informal connections and channels to determine the outcome. This study’s findings indicate that community groups sometimes felt embarrassed expressing their opinion due to the assumption that others might know more than them. This is supported in the literature about community groups’ unfamiliarity with, and feeling intimidated while, participating due to the bureaucratic environment and technical language (Bailey, 2010).

Innes’s concept of an ideal speech situation (Innes, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2002), the network power, transaction costs and the idea of ’trust and reasonableness’ (Innes & Booher, 2002; Harper & Stein, 2003; Sager, 2006) were offered to address this issue of power imbalance in communicative planning which is relevant for the community as well as for a less powerful stakeholder. Yet networking, trust and reasonableness require reciprocity and a long term commitment from the participants to build trust and networks which seems difﬁcult to achieve in terms of time and resource constraints and also in terms of participant’s commitments. As noted, drop outs are a common problem in community participation. This is supported in studies which report that local intuitive and moral input were undermined for the sake of rationality/ science which ultimately led to an outcome resembling the outcome of traditional planning processes (Chettiparamb, 2007; Lahiri-Dutt, 2004).

Community groups’ co-optation also occurs due to the limited facilitation of the forums. Regarding facilitation of community forums of the SMS, the findings (section 6.2) show that there was a popular radio breakfast show star who worked as a facilitator with 20-30 more facilitators. This radio star’s work was like ice breaking and he was hired as an attraction. Facilitators were also hired from external organisations. Besides, the DoP staff members were at the tables to listen and to record, to provide information and to give specific instructions. However, this is questionable in the sense that these facilitators were not necessarily planning professionals. The role of facilitators has been questioned in previous studies on the ground of their little knowledge on planning (Neuman, 2000). It is confirmed from the results that the facilitations in Community

229 Forums and Local Government Forums could not properly inspire communities to make a meaningful contribution or to avoid elite dominance in the meeting. The reason might lie in the fact that hiring planners might incur more cost and is time demanding and it is also necessary to attract community groups to attend the meeting. However, as a consequence, the goals of effective participation are compromised. Facilitators should be among the planning communities who are well informed about professional jargon, and planning alternatives and from those community members who are familiar with the particular community language, culture and locality.

A universal technique is not suitable for community groups of diverse needs and capacities. A technique comfortable for use among mainstream Australians might not be suitable for NESB people or indigenous Australians. As such, using a ’one size ﬁts all’ technique can further marginalise people who are facing challenges in communicating in terms of language or are in a disadvantaged position in the society. The provision of multiple participatory techniques to cater for input from different community groups so that they can comfortably have their say could be beneﬁcial. Multiple techniques can be in combinations of surveys, focus groups discussions, small roundtable consultations, media sponsored surveys and web based participation input into the planning process. This last form of participation would cater to input from young groups, as would using facebook and twitter. It is also required that the planners understand the power of the different actors to predict their potential. The expression of views from all interests should be facilitated, as indicated by Innes (2004).

8.5.3 Nominal reﬂection of community’s views in the ﬁnal outcome

Community groups who attended the community forums provided their input, however, they do not share the decision making power and were co-opted. They were marginalised as the least influential stakeholders. The investigation of the reflection of community groups’ inputs in the outcome confirms the assumption of community groups’ further marginalisation in the planning process. Input from the community groups had a limited direct influence on the final decisions. The strategy, however, addressed conflicts through several initiatives, but there were a very limited reflection of the community’s views in the outcome and the views communities expressed were not considered genuinely. This is evident in the questionnaire survey when community groups were asked whether their views were genuinely considered. However, the results of SSIs indicate that community groups’ views were not considered genuinely. Some of the interviewees 230 were so cynical that they felt that keeping a record of the communities’ input was just showing courtesy. People lost their interest in participating in the future and they became cynical about the process and the agencies. This led them towards further disenfranchisement and disempowerment.

There are a number of probable reasons for the limited reflection of the community groups’ views in the decision outcome. First, the Government was not interested in or capable to genuinely consider the community’s input due to their bureaucratic mindset. As the Department of Planning controlled the nature, frequency and process of community consultation, it was a pragmatic necessity for the department, which is required to apply uniform legislative guidelines in practice. This situation resembles what McGuirk (2001) identified as effective participation being trapped in conventional institutional and political surroundings and rules. This finding also supports what Huxley’s (2000) notion on the objectivity of planning and the planner’s role. She indicated to the conflict between the role of planner as a critical friend in practice and contextualisation of planning is in its institutional, administrative, legal and discursive framing.

Sometimes participants’ views are not taken into account because of the planner’s perception of themselves as the representatives of consensual public interest, coupled with the fact that the community’s views are diversified and often problmatic. They are also not taken into account because of the nature of the planning process, where planners decide how much time to allocate to the official channels of participation, whether to ignore the opinions presented, and how to balance them against the other interests (McGuirk, 1995). This makes the participation process rhetorical. Reorientation training is required for the bureaucrats on community participation in planning and its importance. It is also required for politicians and for all communities. Using TV and radio as well as other media can spread information about the benefit of community participation in urban and regional planning.

Second, community groups might not able to give meaningful input because of their limited capacity, skills and expertise, which was expressed by members of the State Government who were involved in the community participation exercise (see section 6.2.2). This might be due to the lack of understanding of the concept of participation and the planning policies by the community groups. The community groups’ position was aggravated by their limited access to information and the lack of genuine opportunities to express their opinion properly. 231 Third, community group’s inputs were not found valuable, because they did not have scientiﬁc or academic level leverage, their comments were considered inferior when compared to the input of big stakeholders or experts. As a result, community groups participate but their interest and views on the local knowledge is not included in policy. Relevant education and training should be provided for community groups. For example, introducing the planning process in school programs so people can understand what the planning environment is and how to participate in it.

Fourth, the planning bureaucracy lacks respect for, and confidence in, the capacity of communities to provide meaningful input into the policy. The cause of this may be rooted in the culture and structure of the planning bureaucracy itself because, despite the changes in policy intentions, there were no significant changes in the conventionally trained planning staff and upwardly accountable and target-oriented bureaucracy who prioritised the formal science-focussed decision-making process. The reason may also lie in the fact that the strategy was targeted to secure Sydney’s place in the global economy rather than targeting social justice and sustainable development. The institutional structures of planning agencies, their visions and working styles, are not compatible with or sympathetic to, community structures and knowledge bases. The existing bureaucratic structure and tradition is unable or unwilling to receive information from local communities. This co-optation of the community might occur for the sake of rationality, expertise or scientific knowledge but the purpose it serves is the interest of capital, as confirmed by previous studies (Brody, 2003; Flyvjberg, 1996;1998; Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; March, 2010; McGuirk, 2001). However, the main underlying issue in regards to genuinely considering the input of community groups is essentially the custodial culture and scientific tradition of the planning bureaucracy that captures the policy and legislation, rather than the problems of the creating opportunities for effective community participation.

Fifth, the agencies often make incorrect assumptions about the nature of the community from which the knowledge is obtained. According to the literature, the involvement of communities in planning or decision-making is affected by the shaping of the deﬁnition of community by political agendas or sometimes a community’s sense of identity as a member of a particular community (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994; Raco & Flint, 2001; Thruston et al., 2007). However, in practice, planners aim to obtain information from communities and to transfer knowledge to communities with a predetermined common interest and with the assumption that community will passively take up whatever is supplied. But the interests of the community may be diverse 232 and it is therefore wrong to assume that there is a presence of a clear community of interest. As a consequence, valuable community knowledge is not obtained for policy and practice. In summary, it can be said that the concept of community participation does not ﬁt into current planning practices or policies. This denies a socially just outcome. To change the process so that community input will be genuinely considered, the planning process needs to be transparent and ensure accountability.

8.5.4 Failure to increase community understanding and knowledge

Community groups place a high importance in sustainable urban development. However, at the same time, they have a limited understanding of the nature and impact of community participation in planning legislation and policies. The community members who participated in community forums of the SMS, did not have clear idea about what genuine participation was. This implies that the participation process failed to increase the knowledge and understanding about participation and planning. This jeopardised the goal of empowerment to be achieved through participation.

Community groups had different understanding of participation. Approximately half of the respondents mentioned that participation was attending the meeting and providing input into decision-making, reading brochures and making submissions, voting in local, state and federal elections and helping to implement government decisions. This group of people perceived the idea of participation as helping the government in implementation, which is consistent with the deﬁnition of participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) and IAP2 (2007a). However, others thought that participation was attending meetings, making submissions and voting, but they did not think that the idea of participation was involved with implementation. There are some people among this group who considered participation only as making submissions, voting or attending meetings. This is misleading for the implementation of the plan. The chances are more for this group of communities to attend the meeting only to be informed and they have stereotyped idea of participation. Participation by submission or voting only, but not engaging in meaningful discussion, does not align with the idea of effective participation explained in current communicative planning theories (Forester, 1995; Healey, 2005; Innes, 1996).

As a consequence of community groups’ misleading and unclear idea about the meaning of participation the goal of effective community participation is jeopardised. Because according to 233 their understanding community groups think that lodging a submission is enough. Sometimes, even if they attend the meeting, they do not know what their responsibilities are, how they can give input or what they can claim or expect from the planning agencies. Perhaps this can be explained by the idea that as there was no dedicated information session or training program where they could learn about the participation programs in the planning process. Community groups did not know what to expect or demand. Because of this they are easily exploited, placated, manipulated and consequently, further disempowered.

The consequence of absence of proper knowledge about participation is a situation which leads towards co-optation, as also highlighted in the literature. For instance, Hibbard and Lurie pointed to special interest groups’ domination of meetings with their charts, maps, empirical evidence and expert advice, which makes it difficult for non-experts in community groups to participate meaningfully (Hibbard & Lurie, 2000). This is supported by the findings of community groups’ feelings of unfamiliarity and intimidation while they participate due to the bureaucratic environment and technical language (Bailey, 2010). To overcome this barrier, communities need to know about what participation means is, how they should respond to the invitations to the community participation workshops/forums and what are their rights and responsibilities. Hence the idea of communicative planning should be introduced to communities through educational programs as part of the essential environmental knowledge. To participate meaningfully, communities should be aware of or be endowed with basic background information (Adomokai & Sheate, 2004; Maginn, 2007). Adomokai and Sheate (2004) identified three categories of knowledge for community groups to participate meaningfully. These are: the general knowledge of the importance of the plan or environment, understanding the major impacts of the development in the plan and their effects and knowledge about legal matters. They argued that community knowledge of these three things does not need to be at the same standard as professionals, but when communities have a sound understanding of the principles, their chance for meaningful participation will increase.

Another significant consequence of the community groups ignorance about the relevant planning legislation and policies is community groups’ perception about the planning process. Sometimes community groups have wrong assumptions or expectations about their participation opportunities or about the participatory process which jeopardises their intention of giving input or future participation. 234 There are several probable causes. Firstly, this situation is due to limited accessibility to these policies, their minimal relevance to the community group’s everyday life and also because of the DoP’s attitude of allowing limited flow of information. Secondly, the system of involving communities at the end of the planning process, just one step before of finalisation, which gives them very little chance of becoming familiar with the process. This is found in the literature which indicates that the active participation of stakeholders from beginning of the process increases trust, understanding and support for policies (Duane, 1997; Durum & Brown, 1999; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 1997). Community groups need to be provided with opportunities to participate from the beginning of the process. However, these causes are related to the accountability and transparency of the planning process which will ultimately enhance the effective participation and empowerment of community groups.

8.5.5 Failure to increase community satisfaction, conﬁdence and ownership

The community participation process failed to increase community’s satisfaction, trust in the system and ownership of the project. This is evidenced by several findings. For example, in regards to inclusiveness, the majority of the respondents said that the process was inclusive. The majority of them had negative view (either poor or very poor) about Sydney’s planning decision making system, (despite their highly positive perception concerning participation process). But when respondents were asked about the final decision, they were either unsure or did not know. This indicates that many community groups were largely ignorant of the final outcome of the planning process. Community groups did not have much faith and confidence on the planning authority and their decision-making system (Figure 6.13). They did not have a sense of ownership over the project.

These uncertainty and negativity and low confidence about the planning system and authority undermine effective participation as identified in the literature. Literature suggests, when community groups find that the outcomes are not in their interest, they are very dissatisfied and often resist implementation processes (Empel, 2008; McGuirk, 2008). One of the fundamental reasons for this situation is not communicating back with community groups in regards to the status of their input and the final outcome, which is due to the absence of downward accountability measures in the process.

235 This situation also jeopardised community groups interest in participating in decision making, which ultimately disempowered them rather than bringing empowerment (Clarke & Ageyemen, 2011; Evans & Percy, 1999). However, it has been found that community groups understand the significance of the plan and its impact on their life (Figure 6.15). This finding does not support the argument that community members may be apathetic towards participation because of their belief that there will be no benefit or impact of their participation in the planning (Bucheker et al., 2003; Foley & Martin, 2000), although this applied especially to the less advantaged groups.

To increase community groups’ sense of ownership and confidence on the planning system and authority, communities’ interests need to be included in planning agendas and to be reflected in the final outcome. There should be regular communication with communities to build a sense of local ownership, increasing cooperation and place attachment which helps to achieve empowerment in the participation process (Saegert & Winkel, 1996).

8.5.6 Towards empowerment: Insights from below

The main underlying issue in regards to the empowerment of community groups concerns the planning department’s adherence to centralisation, a custodial culture and the scientiﬁc tradition that inﬂuence the policy and legislation, rather than the problems of the creating opportunities for effective community participation. To change the process so that communities can share the decision making power, the planning process needs to be transparent and downward accountability needs to be ensured and supported by legislation and policies.

Addressing accountability issue is a challenge. The practice of urban planning is deeply entrenched with the persistence of upwardly accountability. The situation found in this study results, is the empowerment of already empowered groups and no empowerment or disempowerment of disadvantaged groups of communities. This widens the gap between these two groups leading the outcome towards social inequity and against the goals of sustainability.

The irony is that without addressing accountability issues, which is at the heart of the empowerment problem, urban planning practice cannot be seen as democratic or genuinely committed to collaborative planning that places community interests in the centre. While it is not possible, or even desirable, that disadvantaged groups of communities will claim downward accountability. First of all, to do this they need to be represented in the forum and then even if 236 they are represented and they claim, or the accountability is demanded by the empowered communities, this requires special arrangements from the State. In the current practice, the higher level of authority in the governments and bureaucracy is protected by conventional power and resources; there is pseudo-democratic system that backs this power. This system maintains status quo, legitimacy of the plan at the same time it preserves the purpose of capital or serves the powerful stakeholders’ interests. The previous sections indicate how disadvantaged groups are missed out from the process and how elite groups are over represented in the participation process in absence of downward accountability. Thus society’s disadvantaged groups are becoming more marginalised through this pseudo democratic system. A paradigm shift from bureaucratic to democratic system is required to rethink the entire system for the enhancement of downward accountability.

The Figure 8.1 demonstrates the argument that downward accountability is the missing link to achieve the empowerment of community groups. The representation of a cross section of community groups can be enhanced by facilitating downward accountability measures. While community groups will be represented in the participation process, they are supposed to be empowered, and the empowered communities can demand accountability, so there is a cycle of effective community participation and the empowerment process.

Figure 8.1: Accountability as the missing link in ensuring effective participation

In urban planning practice, participatory techniques, such as submissions, invitations and one off public forums have failed to reflect the community’s views and interest in the final outcome and to empower them. Consequently: a) there should be community groups’ interests included in 237 the agenda; b) there should be opportunities to engage in a meaningful dialogue; and c) after finalisation, community groups should be told of the status of their input and the final outcome.

The question remains that whether empowerment of local communities be ensured if they are fully represented and if there is downward accountability. The analysis of the findings indicate that still there would be the issues of power as in the centre of the problem. This power dominance might visible in the form of scientific knowledge against the devalue of civic knowledge (MacGuirk, 2001) or in the form of resource or social-political connections. A cultural shift would require to understand the benefit of local lay knowledge and communities’ input. This requires long time exercise of deliberative participation in planning practice.

The linear planning process is another issue to consider in this perspective. From analysis it seems that community participation forums need to be scattered throughout the process. Forums should be conducted at least three/ four times to allow community groups to influence the outcome. The community participation should be conducted throughout the planning process from agenda setting to finalisation and monitoring, instead of only once in a late stage. In regards to strategic planning practice, it should be at first, before agenda and strategic direction setting. It will help in community groups’ interests to be incorporated in the agenda. The second community participation forum and meetings should be concurrently with the other forums and meetings, e.g., Local Government forum and other stakeholder consultation forums. The third community participation forum should be after finalisation to share with community groups about what have been finalised, why their input have been taken in the final outcome or not and to provide opportunity if they have any opposition. The fourth community participation meeting/forum should be in monitoring process. The summary of the recommendations are presented in Table 8.5.

238 Recommendations in relation to policy implication Endowment of community groups by pro- • viding resource and enough time to develop a sufﬁcient understanding. Information available for the community • groups from the very beginning of the process- about the agenda, target, how communities input are expected and what the implications of those inputs and the outcome of the process. Allowing media to disseminate information • and to work as watchdog.

Recommendations in relation to planning practice Media sponsored questionnaire survey can • help policy makers to decide about agenda and issues before conducting community participation forums. Opportunity to lodge any formal grievance • or objection by the community groups on any decision after the outcome has been ﬁ- nalised (except in court) and to resolve it within the department.

Table 8.5: Summary of the key recommendation in enhancement of empowerment

8.6 Model for effective community participation in planning practice

From the above analysis frameworks for community participation in urban planning practice are proposed here. Two different models are included: one for local level planning (Figure 8.2) and another for strategic or regional level planning (Figure 8.3). In the local level, the model has been designed with more opportunities for community participation compared to the regional level, considering community groups’ closer engagement with local issues than regional issues, which was discussed in section 8.2.4. The explanations of different components of the models are included below. These models need to be supplemented by enabling policy and legislations. Some policy provisions are also included in this section.

8.6.1 Community participation model for local planning practice

For community participation in local level planning practice, a model with eleven steps is offered here to enhance empowerment through representation and accountability in urban 239 Figure 8.2: Community participation in local level planning practice (Drawing on local environmental planning practice of NSW)

240 Figure 8.3: Proposed model for community participation in strategic/regional level planning practice

planning practice. This model has been developed based on the analysis of the current local environmental planning practice of NSW. This is a procedural model which suggests increasing the number and frequency of community participation dialogue/ meetings, enhancing deliberation among different groups of communities, both within and outside the local communities, and making decisions that reflects local needs and aspirations. Another significant step added to this model is in relation to information access and dissemination. This thesis argues that the model offered here are not necessarily should be followed exactly, but it offers some major components as steps. The process might be flexible according to the context but basic components need to be ensured. The steps are elaborated below.

Step 1: A community participatory informal gathering, interest group discussions, general meeting or key people workshop is designed to prepare the planning proposal. The aim here is to clarify who they are, what they want and how etc, and discuss the needs, challenges and opportunities of the community. The gathering is desirably organised and facilitated by the locally trusted leaders, or it can be facilitated by the independent experts (but not planning agency staff members), but the nature and structure of the meeting must be driven by local communities themselves. In current practice, the planning proposal is prepared by the planning ofﬁcials without any consultation with community groups. This step is suggested based on the argument that inclusion of community groups before agenda setting and the inclusion of them in the designing of the proposal empower them by creating a sense of ownership (see section 8.4 and Table 8.3).

241 Step 2: In the second step the option of gateway determination is included following the current practice. However, in current planning practice, it is decided whether community participation would be required and how it would be conducted. In the proposed model in the step of gateway determination, it will be decided what information and techniques of participation will be employed based on the community proﬁle and needs of the particular local area. It also assesses the feasibility of the proposal.

Step 3: Step three speciﬁes the activities, amendments and getting approval from the government departments, including resource security and legislative formalisation.

Step 4: Consultation with relevant service providing stakeholders and public authorities; such as, energy and water service providers or the treasury.

Step 5: In this stage the community participation opportunities/techniques to offer will be decided. In current practice, these are an exhibition of the proposal and submission invitations. Along with this, in proposed model, other community participation tools such as forums, questionnaire surveys and focus group discussions are proposed to be employed, according to the community proﬁle and to the extent of potential planning impacts. To effectively conduct community participation exercises in this step, it is essential to disseminate information from the beginning, as shown in the Figure 8.2 and recommended in Table 8.5 and in section 8.5.1. In the current practice the only opportunity for community participation is through public hearings. However, for meaningful discussion, dialogue, negotiation, and face to face meetings are essential as are recommended in communicative planning theories and discussed in section 8.5.

Step 6: In this step the input community groups provided through discussions, submissions or meetings will be considered in details by a community panel, representative of different interest groups.

Step 7: The planning proposal is reﬁned and modiﬁed in this stage to incorporate the input.

Step 8: The planning proposal is forwarded to the department for ﬁnalisation in this stage. It is important to note that the department is closely contacted during the whole process, as the department is seen to be a facilitator and important partner for this process to succeed, not a

242 problem to block the community effort. The rapport developed during the process should help receiving ﬁnalisation and legal approval.

Step 9: Communicating back with the communities is identified as an important initiative to ensure effective participation (see section 8.5.2 and Table 8.5). Based on this, at this step another community participation opportunity is proposed to be offered to community groups before final approval. This community participation opportunity, in the form of a meeting or workshop to inform them of the status of community groups’ input and the probable final decisions. Publishing a summary report is recommended before this step, as indicated in the Figure 8.2.

Step 10: In this stage Minister would approve or refuse the plan.

Step 11: This stage is a community reﬂection. Again, community participation opportunity is organised here to share experience, assess the entire process – both success and failures, and generate insights for future planning practice.

8.6.2 Community participation model for strategic/regional planning practice

A ten-staged model for community participation in urban planning practice at strategic or regional level was presented in Figure 8.3. Each stage is presented in a square. This model was developed based on the analysis of the community participation practice in the SMS. The details of the stages are discussed below. However, as the Figure 8.3 shows the process step by step from left to right, the description here also follows that sequence. As like the local environmental plan, this model also offers the essential components but it allows ﬂexibility in terms of using techniques and time slots according to the context.

Step 1:Questionnaire survey: Before agenda setting a large-scale questionnaire survey is designed in the proposed model. This questionnaire survey will be administered through stratiﬁed sampling techniques, so that different groups of society can be possibly covered and will serve as a type of background study. Through this survey, the planning authority will get a broad idea about the community’s aspirations and needs which can be included or excluded in the agenda. In the questionnaire survey, there might be an option for respondents to give information about whether the respondents want to participate, and when community consultation will occur, like an early invitation. Respondents may also indicate if they want to be in any speciﬁc group,

243 such as groups for Indigenous Australians, those of non English speaking backgrounds or migrant groups from a particular background; as well as indicate in which particular sub-region they would choose to be included. This type of large scale survey can be conducted through media sponsorship to make it cost effective. This idea of questionnaire survey has been discussed in sections 8.3.5 and 8.5.3.

Step 2: Dissemination of information This stage has been designed to operate throughout the process so that community groups and all other stakeholders are continually updated. This information should be given through the departmental websites and leaﬂets, along with media such as both national and local newspapers and through radio and television. There should be options for translation into major community languages.

Step 3: Agenda setting In this step agendas of the planning proposal will be designed collaboratively with community representatives, other stakeholders, state agencies and Local Government representatives. The information collected from the questionnaire survey will be used here as background information to understand community needs, views and aspirations which serves as the foundation for the proposal. After this stage the release of discussion paper is scheduled. This stage has been designed as a Future Forum in current practice.

Step 4: Submission invitation After the release of discussion papers, the sending of submission invitations has been designed in this stage, with the time frame of several months (can be adjusted according to the context). There should be speciﬁc guidelines about how to write the discussion papers. There should be technical assistance, offered by the department, to assist community groups in writing submissions in meaningful way.

Step 5: Local Government forums After the exhibition of the plan and submission invitations closed, this forum has been proposed for meetings and deliberative workshops about the proposed plan with Local Governments only. These forums should be attended by Local Government staff members concerned with the sectors relevant to the plan, along with Mayors, General Managers and councilors of the Local Government bodies.

Step 6: Community forums Community forums are proposed in this stage to be held in different locations, covering every suburb and with different interest groups separately. It is

244 recommended in this stage to use different techniques, such as focus group discussions or small round table discussions, websites or internet based consultations, in different time slots and venues to allow flexibility for diversified groups of communities. Different techniques of participation will allow community groups of different needs and capacities to contribute their input to the process. To invite community groups, multiple methods of invitation need to be utilised, such as, invitations through stratified sampling and using media, such as local newspapers, leaflets and posters. The information collected in questionnaire survey will also be used in this step. The current practice for inviting community groups, the method of random sampling, failed to represent a cross section of the community groups. Using stratified sampling along with other techniques will contribute to enhancing the representation of the various segments of community groups, as indicated in section 8.3.4 and Table 8.3.

Step 7: Finalisation In this stage, after receiving input from state agencies, submissions, Local Government forums and different community forums, the strategy will be ﬁnalised by compiling all the input – the consideration of input conducted by a panel that includes the majority of members from local community groups (and chaired by a local resident).

Step 8: Communicating back with the communities and an option for formal grievance These measures will enhance downward accountability towards community groups in the process, as indicated in section 8.6.2 and Table 8.5. Community groups will be provided with feedback about their input and whether and to what extent the input have been adopted. Reasons for this will be explained along with the final outcome. Here, after the finalisation of the strategy and before the launching of the plan/strategy, an option for a formal grievance with any particular part of the strategy is proposeed. This objection would need to be solved within a particular time period negotiating along with communities before final approval. These two steps are absent in current planning practice and proposed here to further the downward accountability of the process.

Step 9: Launching of the outcome The launching of the strategy is scheduled in this stage. At this stage it is required to adhere to the timetable. A wide dissemination of basic information on the ﬁnal outcome is also essential. It will help in raising awareness and in creating a sense of ownership over the strategy for community groups.

245 Step 10: Reviewing, monitoring and reflection This stage has been designed for community participation in reviewing, monitoring and reflection the planning process after its launching. The review process is designed as both forms of an annual review and a five yearly review. Community groups should be invited to participate in meetings along with other stakeholders, State and Local Government bodies. Submission invitation is another opportunity designed here to include communities in the review and the monitoring process. In the current practice, community groups are not invited to face-to-face meetings; their only opportunity to contribute is through submissions. However, this stage is supposed to develop community groups’ sense of ownership and influence, as mentioned in Table 8.5 and section 8.4.6.

In both models outlined above, the foundation to enhance the effectiveness of community participation lies within ‘the practice of deliberation’ among stakeholders. As Forester (1999b) suggests, stakeholders learn “. . . from conversation and argument, the actual interpretation and reconstruction of what parties working together say and do. So, critical listening, reflection-in-action and constructive argument all interact”(p.12). The question of how and who could play a crucial to bring about the good practice of deliberation? Again, a professional planner can play an important role within a frame of planner as deliberative practitioner. In fact, they can provide a communicative bridge between conflicting interests among stakeholders and the ’right’ thing to do – so, linking morality within the context of political complexity. They can advise to encourage productive and well-informed deliberative discussions at a meeting or workshop. They can facilitate stakeholders to anticipate the plural and conflicting stories of differently affected people. In short, planners have a very crucial role to play, but encouraging a participatory process, as succinctly argued by (Forester, 1999b, p.12), requires “. . . as well as commitment to shared evidence and good argument, a commitment to the distinctions between warranted truth and demagogic posturing”. It is also crucial to understand for planners and other stakeholders that participatory processes have limitations and that deliberation, if done properly, can counter many of the limitations of participation.

8.7 Conclusion

This chapter has analysed the effectiveness of community participation in urban planning practice. From a theoretical perspective, the empowerment of local communities is the fundamental goal of effective participation and it must meet at least two basic requirements: 246 representative participation of local communities and accountable decisions of government agencies towards the local community. The analysis reveal a number of important ﬁndings which indicate the shortfalls of planning policies and practice to bring a cross section of the community groups to the participation process and to maintain downward accountability. This sometimes leads the process towards the disempowerment of community groups rather than their empowerment.

The reasons for this were identified from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The concept of community participation does not fit in current urban planning practice despite the recurring attempt to, and claims of, involving communities in planning process by the planning agencies which results in failure to represent the cross section of the community groups. From a theoretical perspective, the current planning discourse of communicative planning theory does not support there is effective community participation in planning practice. This is evidenced in the ignoring of the concept of the heterogeneity of community groups and the limitations of communicative planning theories to deal with power imbalances. From a pragmatic perspective, planning practices do not follow communicative planning theory fully to include diverse communities. Deliberative practice, which is the heart of communicative planning, is at best superficial.

Some of the crucial insights to enhance effective community participation in planning practice were identified as: The bureaucratic mindset of the planning authorities which makes the process adhering to centralised power rather than decentralisation. The democratic idea of community participation does not fit with a bureaucratic institutional arrangement. The whole system needs to be changed.The prioritisation of economic competitiveness and attracting investments rather than ensuring social or environmental justice. The undermining of local knowledge or community’s input by the policy makers and planners; as for instance the dominance of scientific knowledge and devalue of civic knowledge Not understanding the concept of community participation in terms of its heterogeneity, limited capacity and their local connectivity by the policy makers. The analysis in this chapter supports the hypothesis that downward accountability and representation of community groups can further the goal of empowerment for community groups. But the thesis argues that to deal with the power as a central issue to address for effective participation needs cultural shift and long time practice within planning system.

247 In the context of the inability of planning practice and to some extent communicative planning theory to fully inform effective community participation, a modiﬁed framework was proposed based on a number of factors and strategies identiﬁed from the results and analysis.

The major ﬁndings, contributions to theories, policies and practices in accordance with the research questions outlined in ﬁrst Chapter, are summarised in the next Chapter along with the limitations of the study and directions for future research.

248 Chapter 9

Conclusions

9.1 Introduction

This chapter concludes the thesis. It highlights key research ﬁndings and the contribution of the thesis to the theory, policy and practice. It is ﬁrst helpful to recall key research questions. The overarching research question which the thesis sought to answer was - what makes the participation of local communities in planning practice more effective? The hypothesis of the thesis was that effective community participation must empower local communities, particularly disadvantaged community groups; and this empowerment must meet at least two basic requirements: a) the representative participation of local communities in the participation process, and b) the accountability of government agencies towards the local community.

The ﬁndings and analysis reveals that contemporary urban planning practice of Sydney falls way short of the promise of participatory planning to enhance effective community participation. There are several key arguments made in this thesis.

Firstly, urban planning practice of Sydney, despite its gesture towards participatory and communicative leanings, fails to empower local communities, particularly the disadvantaged groups. Contrarily to the ideals of participatory and democratic governance, I argue in this thesis that current planning has created a situation where already powerful individuals and groups, both within bureaucracy and community, are over-empowered, while the less powerful individuals are further marginalised. As such, it has widened the gap between the powerful and the powerless – a very unsatisfactory outcome of a participatory planning practice, which is producing outcomes that are socially unjust and morally indefensible.

249 Secondly, representative participation was neither a policy intention, nor the outcome of the participatory practice. Even if there was an intention to achieve full representation, it is impossible or unfeasible to achieve. I argue that the key reasons for the failure to represent a cross section of the Sydney population are embedded in the problematic ’random selection’ of the participants. Random selection, or random sampling, in particular, was problematic as the process of selection of participants was not really random. Even when the process was perfectly done and was fully random, it would have been still counter productive to social justice outcome, as it is likely that many disadvantaged groups would have every chance of being missed out. Effectively participation was, at best, instrumental and largely tokenistic.

Thirdly, even when there is full representation, its value in the current practice is almost useless because there is no downward accountability of decisions to local communities. I argue that there is a systemic maintenance of status quo and repositioning of bureaucratic upward accountability of decisions. In this thesis, I argue even if there is commitment to representation and downwardly accountability, there can still have a problem in the nature of existing ’scientiﬁc knowledge’ and the devalue of civic knowledge to inform policies and the issues of power involved in it. Yet still most efforts in planning practice have treated the problems too much as a matter of knowledge, while real barriers to more fundamental progress in participatory planning practice are power and control issues. Clearly, the excessive focus on knowledge alone is not sufﬁcient to address diverse problems of effective participation in planning practice. Issues of power are more often central.

Fourthly, I propose models for community participation based on deliberative practice. These models, if appropriately conceptualised and applied to a given context, can potentially address some of the most critical issues identified in this research. I argue that the planners need to re-position themselves as deliberative practitioner and only then they can be useful bridge between conflicting interests among stakeholders and the planning ethics – linking morality within the context of political complexity. Planners can advise to encourage productive and well-informed deliberative discussions at a meeting or workshop. They can facilitate stakeholders to anticipate the plural and conflicting stories of differently affected people. In short, planners have a very crucial role to play, but they need to be acutely aware of the challenges and limitations of encouraging a truly participatory process in different social, economic, political and environmental contexts. The next section summarises the key findings.

250 9.2 Summary of key ﬁndings

9.2.1 No effective community participation

Three fundamental criteria were found to be essential for effective community participation. These are: empowering community groups (Arnstein, 1969; IAP2, 2007 a,b; Nelson & Wright, 1995), bringing forward a cross section of the communities (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Crook & Manor, 1994; Mahwood, 1983; Ribot, 1999), and ensuring accountability of the process to those community groups (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; IAP2, 2007a, Lockie, Franetovich, Sharma & Rolfe, 2008). Empowerment of participants has been identiﬁed as a central component of participation (Arnstein, 1969; IAPA1, 2007a). However, the practice of participation are silent about the heterogenic nature of communities and also on their limited capacity, social relationships and their poor connectivity to the planning process and the system where community participation is contextualised. Accountability (Agrawal & Ribot, 19999; AP2, 2007a) has been identiﬁed as a third vital component mentioned in participatory theories related to empowerment and representation.

From pragmatic perspective, the principles of communicative planning theory is not followed for community participation activities. This is the current discourse designed to involve stakeholders in the planning process. However, this thesis argues that communicative planning theory may not be the best compatible theory for the inclusion of community groups in the urban planning process. Community participation in planning practice should be treated differently than other stakeholder participation. There is an increasing call for an evaluation or rethinking of communicative planning theory and practice in urban planning in terms of community participation (March, 2004; MacCallum, 2008; McGuirk, 2001; 2008; Maginn, 2007). Inspired by this research gap, in theory and practice, this study investigated community participation in urban planning practice in relation to empowering communities by bringing forward a cross section of the society and through downward accountability.

9.2.2 Silent planning and policies

Australia urban planning policies have shifted their focus from little or no consideration for providing opportunities to community participation to a more explicit emphasis on bringing a range of communities to participate in planning and implementation processes. Yet the planning policies and instruments of NSW do not contain all the ideas of communicative planning theories 251 like information sharing, face to face meetings, deliberative dialogues, interaction and consensus building processes (Forester, 1987; Healy, 2005; Innes, 1996). In fact it lacked contemporary communicative planning principles set down by Forester, Healey and Innes. Furthermore, policy intentions are not necessarily implemented in practice to deliver signiﬁcant positive outcomes.

Under these policies the top-down status quo is maintained and only the legitimisation purpose of the community participatory exercise is ensured. The question emerges whether policy intention and provision are enough to bring empowerment for communities. The answer is no. There is possibility that the institutional structures of agencies, their visions and working styles, might not be compatible to, and sympathetic with, community structures and knowledge. This thesis argues that the success of community participation is also depend on broader political economy and social relations – for the policies to be successfully designed and implemented the context is a major factor.

9.2.3 (un)Representative participation

The investigation on representation of community groups indicate that participants are predominantly from the elite groups of the society. Disadvantaged groups of people were absent from the process and the plan had been made with input from elite groups, who are more prone to be involved in volunteer activities, and more interested in politics and social activities. This supports the argument that the community participation process attracts only empowered members of society who are willing to advance for volunteer in participation (Cameron et al., 2005). This failure to represent the cross section of the society widen the gap between society’s advantaged and disadvantaged groups and lead towards a situation where empowered groups become more empowered and disadvantaged groups become further marginalised.

The reasons behind this lie both in the faulty selection process (such as using random sampling) and the limited opportunity for community participation provided. The culture of bureaucracy seems to be prime reason for limited opportunities. This culture promotes opportunities for only elite groups and experts, limits the ﬂow of information and tends to adhere to centralised power instead of decentralisation. A number of techniques and policy provisions have been offered in this thesis to further representation of the cross-section of the society; such as, engaging communities before agenda setting and conducting a media sponsored questionnaire survey, using community speciﬁc techniques rather than using a universal technique, using 252 multiple techniques in inviting community groups for participation. However, the question remains whether it is possible to represent the whole society or even if it is possible, whether the empowerment of local communities will be ensured. This thesis argues that unless disadvantaged groups are targeted and focused separately to be part of the process there is every chance of them to be missed out and even when there is full representation, its value in the current practice is almost useless if there is no downward accountability of decisions to local communities

9.2.4 Accountability as “missing link”

There is a systemic maintenance of status quo and repositioning of bureaucratic upward accountability of decisions. The community participation process in planning process is found to be limited in terms of transparency, accessibility and comprehensibility of shared information, access to appeal and integrity of the process. This absence of downward accountability jeopardise community groups’ effective participation by deterring their input to be reflected in the outcome and hence a pseudo democratic system is maintained. There is a real challenge to further downward accountability in planning practice. However, a number of initiatives have been proposed in this thesis as attempts of addressing this challenge. Conducting workshop/forum just before and after finalisation of the plan to communicating back with the communities, the option for formal grievance to be solved within the department and considering the community inputs along with a independent panel constituted with community members are some of the few. On top of these, the thesis argues that broader transformation is needed in the mindset of people in general, bureaucracy and professionals in particular. Here scientific knowledge informing the policies and practice need to be hammered in favour of civic knowledge. Yet, this thesis argues that real barriers to more fundamental progress in participatory planning practice are power and control issues which require a long term effort.

9.2.5 (dis)Empowering local communities

The community participation process failed to empower community groups rather than led the process towards disempowerment for marginalised groups and over empowerment for already powerful groups from community. The planning process did not share decision making power, did not allow community groups to inﬂuence the outcome of the process, community’s input are co-opted in the name of rationality, science and expert knowledge, but serving the purpose of capital. This situation conﬁrms that community groups’ empowerment can be furthered through

253 the participation process if they are represented and if there is downward accountability. However, the question remains whether community groups will be fully empowered if they are represented fully and there is downward accountability. It is concluded that still there will be the issue of power dominance which requires understanding the value of local community input and its implications in the planning process and thus need a cultural and paradigm shift.

Some critical questions to answer is what happens if community groups are too much empowered or can community be the ultimate solution to all planning problem. This thesis answer to the question as no, community can be and must be seen as part of solutions, but planners as deliberative practitioners, must play a crucial roles. Community alone cannot do the whole lot.

9.3 Implications of the study

This research has important implications for the theory, policy and practice of community participation in urban planning. Following section summarised the contributions this thesis has made in theory and policy.

9.3.1 Implications for theories

By mapping out the development of the idea of community participation in urban planning, identifying its characteristics and theoretical foundations, as well as issues related to urban planning practice, this thesis makes a contribution to urban planning practice and theory.

This thesis contributed to the concept of community and participation. Community participation in urban planning practice needs to be understood from the perspective of the heterogenic nature of community groups, the diversity of communities’ needs, interests and views. Also important are the concept’s underpinnings in the socio-cultural, economic and political context along with the limited capacity of community groups in terms of resources, knowledge and capacities.

In planning practice communicative planning theory operates as a procedural theory for community participation. This theory is under criticism for its ignorance of power relations and for the limited credible strategy to address it. This theory fails to address the limited capacity of community groups. There are a number of calls for research on the issue of effective participation 254 of community groups in the planning process (McGuirk, 2001; 1995; March, 2004; Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; Maginn, 2007). This thesis is a response to these calls by contributing in the further understanding of communicative planning theories in relation to community participation in urban planning. This thesis argues that a community speciﬁc and more detailed approach is essential to effectively include community groups in the planning process.

The thesis offers an analysis of community participation in relation to achieving the goals of the fundamental component of effective community participation: empowerment through representation and downward accountability. The idea of empowerment is hollow if representation and accountability are not dealt with together. As the ﬁndings indicate in the community participation process of current urban planning practice, elite groups of the society are over-represented, which make the already empowered groups over empowered and marginalised groups further marginalised. Even if, disadvantaged groups of the society are represented, their empowerment cannot be achieved unless there is a downward accountability system which will ensure proper utilisation of the participatory forums and genuine consideration of community groups’ input.

This thesis contradicts the conventional idea in the literature that people mainly participate when there is direct economic interest in land use matters (Miller, 1988). It argues that people also tend to participate when they are environmentally conscious and they want to be part of the decision making system. The thesis offers the idea that deliberative process of community participation can go wrong if driven by traditional authority and in bureaucratic culture.

There are very few researches with cross-cutting information from the participating community members. Previous research on community participation has typically been interview based and mainly with the planning staff or the stakeholders. This thesis focused mainly on the process and the outcome. This research adopted a more in-depth approach, combining the questionnaire survey with the participating communities and interviews supplemented by multi-scalar policy analysis.

Finally the thesis concludes that if representation and downwardly accountability is ensured, empowerment will be enhanced. However, still there is possibility of unjust outcome for power issues remaining central of the problem. Effective community participation is a process which 255 needs time to develop as a culture among planning authorities and communities, as it involves understanding the concept of community participation and its importance, adopting a democratic mindset and requires institutional changes.

9.3.2 Implications for policies and practice

This thesis clearly defines the factors found to influence effective community participation in the planning process. Community groups’ understanding of the planning system, facilitation, and provision opportunity in an iterative way and flow of information are few of the factors. These factors offer for policy alternatives to achieve the empowerment of local community groups through community participation. However, this thesis challenges the idea of creating more opportunities for community groups at a regional level and less opportunity at a local level whereas community groups’ relevance to the planning process and objectives are more prevalent at the local level than at the regional level.

The thesis contributes to urban planning practice by offering a conceptual framework for community participation. It is argued that there should not be any over arching universal procedure to be followed to achieve effective participation for communities. Instead the conceptual framework offered in this thesis is an approach to create opportunities for participation from the perspective of a community’s capacity, its background and the planning context. The framework does not indicate that the procedure needs to be strictly followed, but indicates essential steps to incorporate into the planning process. These essential components are: using a combination of techniques to include communities; for example, submission invitation and surveys need to supplement the workshops/meetings which will lead the process further towards achieving representation and empowerment . Also, techniques should be community speciﬁc such as separate focus group discussions for NESB people or migrant or Indigenous Australian communities, and web-based participation, as well as using maps and photographs.

This thesis offers the idea that the meetings or forums as opportunity of participation should not be offered only once throughout the process, as is conventional in current planning practice. The opportunities should be scattered throughout the planning process so that community groups can participate at several stages of plan formulation. There should be a continuous ﬂow of information, disseminated through media (print, television and radio), posters, leaﬂets and brochures which will make community groups to be aware of the issues and interested to 256 participate by creating sense of ownership. The process needs facilitators sensible to the community groups’ needs and capacities. However, this framework should be enhanced by a democratic institutional setting and well informed community groups.

This thesis argues that even if there is appropriate policies of effective participation the practice might go wrong. This is because planning practice is embedded in socio-economic, cultural and political context. Democratic ideas may trapped in undemocratic system. Hence, context is a major factor to determine the achievements of the fundamental goals of community participation.

9.4 Future direction of research

Research is a cyclical process of identifying problems, designing the research approach, collecting and analysing data, interpreting the meaning of data, producing knowledge and increasing understanding and wisdom. Answering the research question means the emergence of new questions to be answered. There is much more to understand about ensuring effective community participation in urban planning practice. There is further need for research on the issues of community groups’ participation and the community participation process to ensure outcomes are representative, empowering and downwardly accountable.

The mechanism of community groups’ participation in the planning process is continuously under change through the influence of political, social and economic situation at local, national and global levels, the roles of the other stakeholders and the changing nature of the community itself. Community participation in urban planning practice needs to be investigated on different scales, times and locations to identify the factors. This thesis is limited to a developed country context. There is the potential to undertake similar types of research in other parts of the world with different political and economic situations and environments. There is a need for the research on effective community participation to focus on different segments of the community, such as migrants, NESB, the poorer and indigenous groups of people. This thesis sheds light on some of the issues relevant to them but there is a need for in-depth research on specific groups. Besides, the issue of community group’s inclusion in the decision making process is not limited to urban planning practice but is significant for understanding participatory decision making of natural resource management, disaster management and preparedness, as well as for other social development programs. Research on these different fields of community participation will

257 unpack many other issues to further the goals of effective community participation. There should be more research on the aspects of community groups’ interests, and the motivations for their participation in relation to the opportunities of participation offered by the planning authorities.

9.5 Final reﬂections

This thesis has illustrated the problems associated with community participation to bring an effective participatory outcome in urban planning theory, practice and policies. Community participation would help to achieve in planning practice the goals of social justice, sustainability and empowerment. Until now, the goals have not been promoted. The thesis argues that the community participation process is being operated in a way which maintains centralised decision making, exploitation of the opportunities for the purpose of serving capital and the marginalisation of community groups instead of empowerment. It seems that a democratic concept is trapped by an undemocratic environment and institutional setting. Critical assessment of community participation does not mean that the thesis is against community participation in urban planning practice. Instead it is a sympathetic-positive attempt to contribute to facilitating the relationship of communities with the decision making system which affects their life. The thesis encourages the understanding of community participation from the perspective of the heterogeneity of the socio-cultural aspects of community groups and their limited capacity. It also advocates for cultural and systemic changes in the existing political and economic environments to ensure social justice and sustainability.

258 References

Adato, M., Hoddinott, J., & Haddad, L. (2005). Power, politics, and performance: Community participation in South African public works programs. In Research Report of the International Food Policy Research Institute (No. 143, 1-73). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Adomokai, R., & Sheate, W. R. (2004). Community participation and environmental decision making in the Niger Delta. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 495-518. Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649. Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralisation: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas, 33, 473-502. Alfasi, N. (2003). Is public participation making urban planning more democratic? The Israeli experience. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(2), 185-202. Alreck, P.L., & Settle, R.B. (1995). The survey research handbook. Chicago: Irwin. Amy, D. J. (1987). The politics of environmental mediation. New York: Columbia University Press. Anderson, J. (2000). Four considerations for decentralised forest management: Subsidiarity, empowerment, pluralism and social capital. In T. Enters, P. B. Durst & M. Victor (Eds.), Decentralisation and devolution of forest management in Asia and the Paciﬁc (RECOFTC Report No 18). Bangkok. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Asamu, S. O. (2004). The environmental planning and management approach towards the development and management of the Osun natural spring project, Ibadan, Nigeria. GeoJournal, 61, 183–189. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Community proﬁle series (No. 2001.0–2006). Retrieved May 24, 2011, from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/51c9a3d36edfd0dfca256acb00118404/ a8004c69a984826bca257213002196a6 Bailey, N. (2010). Understanding community empowerment in urban regeneration and planning in England: Putting policy and practice in context. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 317-332. Bajracharya, B., & Khan, S. (2004). Integrating sustainability and principles of Local Agenda 21: A study for 4 local governments in NSW and Qld. Australian Planner, 41(3), 56-60. Barnes, M., Skelcher, H., Dalziel, R., Jeffares, S., & Wilson, L. (2008). Designing citizen-centred governance. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Baum, S. (1997). Sydney, Australia: A global city? Testing the social polarization thesis. Urban Studies, 34(11), 1881-1902. Bennett, L. (2002). Using empowerment and social inclusion for pro-poor growth: A theory of social change. Working draft of background paper for social development strategy paper. Washington, DC: World Bank. Berk, P. R., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., & Dickson, J. (2002). Planning and indigenous people: Human rights and environmental protection in New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 115-134. Berke, P., & Conroy, M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development?. Journal of American Planning Association, 66(1), 21-33.

259 Beyazli, D., & Aydemir, S. (2011). Does urban consciousness help understand the citizens’ role in planning?. European Planning Studies, 19(5), 839-860. Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21-39. Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2010). Governance for resilience: CALFED as a complex adaptive network for resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(3), special section 1-16. Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(4), 242-262. Brand, R., & Graffikin, F. (2007). Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6(3), 283-313. Brody, S. (2003). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation in the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 407-419. Brommelstroet, M. (2012). Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to strategies for real PSS improvement. Computers, Environment and Urban System, 36, 96-104. Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2003). Participatory landscape development: Overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 29-46. Bugs, G., Granell, C., Fonts, O., Huerta, J., & Painho, M. (2010). An assessment of public participation GIS and web 2.0 technologies in urban planning practice in Canela, Brazil. Cities, 27, 172-181. Bunker, R., & Holloway, D. (2006). How much of city of cities, a plan for Sydney’s future is likely to happen. Issue paper no.2. Sydney: City Future. Burg, S. V. D. (2004). Informing or empowering? Disclosure in the United States and the Netherlands. Local Environment, 9(4), 367-381. Cameron, J. & Johnson, A. (2004). Evaluation for development: Planning for public involvement in SEQ 2021. Australian Planner, 41(1), 49-55. Cameron, J., Grant-Smith, D., & Johnston, A. (2005). Formative evaluation for improving collaborative planning: A case study at the regional scale. Australian Planner, 42(4), 22-29. Cameron, J., Mulligan, M., & Wheatley, V. (2004). Building a place[U+2010]responsive society through inclusive local projects and networks. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 9(2), 147-161. Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (1999). Ethical frameworks and planning theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(3), 464-478. Cernea, M. (1993). The sociologist’s approach to sustainable development. Finance and Development, 30(4), 11-13. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. New York: Longmafn Scientific and Technical. Chambers, R. (1995). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In N. Nelson & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice (pp. 30-42). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 14(August -September), 13-17. Chettiparamb, A. (2007). Re-conceptualizing public participation in planning: A view through autopoiesis. Planning Theory, 6(3), 263-281. Choguill, M. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for under developed countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431-444. Clarke, L., & Ageyemen, J. (2011). Is there more to environmental participation than meets the 260 eye?. Understanding agency, empowerment and disempowerment among black and minority ethnic communities. Area, 43(1), 88-95. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation the New tyranny? (pp. 1-15). London: Zed Books. Cowell, R. (2004). Community planning: Fostering participation in the congested state?. Local Government Studies, 30(4), 497-518. Craig, W. J. (1998). The internet aids community participation in the planning process. Computer Environment and Urban Systems, 22(4), 393-404. Creighton, J. L. (1995). Trends in the field of public participation in the United States. Interact: The Journal of Public Participation, 1(1), 7-23. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crook, R., & Manor, J. (1994). Enhancing participation and institutional performance: Democratic decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa (Report to ESCOR, the Overseas Development Administration, Phase II). London: Economic Social Committee on Overseas Research. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. Curry, N. (2001). Community participation and rural policy: Representativeness in the development of millennium greens. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(4), 561-576. Cuthill, M. (2001). Developing local government policy and processes for community consultation and participation. Urban Policy and Research, 19(2), 183-202. Dalby, S., & Mackensie, F. (1997). Reconceptualising local community: Environment, identity and threat, Area 29(2), 99-108. Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331-338. Davis, J. (2005, April 2). Natural assets are priceless part of equation. The Newcastle Herald, pp. 19. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process an essentially contested concept?. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 421-434. Day, P., & Klein, R. (1987). Accountabilities: five public services. London: Tavistock. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. (2004a). Planning for a better future. Sydney: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. (2004b). Metropolitan Strategy: Ministerial Direction Paper. Sydney: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. Department of Local Government. (2007). Comparative information on New South Wales local government councils: 2005/2006. Sydney: NSW Department of Local Government. Department of Planning. (2004). How will the strategy be used. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/ uploads/paper/introduction/index.html Department of Planning. (2005). City of cities: A plan for Sydney’s future. Sydney: Department of Planning. 261 Department of Planning. (2006). Standard instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, No. 155. Retrieved 5 May, 2011, from http:// www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning reforms/p/2006-155.pdf Department of Planning. (2007). West central subregion: Draft subregional strategy. Sydney: Department of Planning. Department of Planning. (2009). Local plan making: A guide to preparing local environmental plans. Sydney: Department of Planning. Department of Planning. (2010). Metropolitan plan for 2036, Sydney. Sydney: NSW Department of Planning. Department of Planning & Infrastructure. (2011). The way ahead for planning in NSW? Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review. Retrieved 20 February, 2013, from http://www.planningreview.nsw.gov.au/IssuesPaperPhase/tabid/117/Default.aspx Dovi, S. (2009, November). Measuring representation: Rethinking the role of exclusion. Paper presented at Measuring representation conference, Universitat Bern. Berne, Switzerland. Downe - Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313-321. Duane, T. (1997). Community participation in ecosystem management. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24(4), 771-797. Durum, L. A., & Brown, K. G. (1999). Insights and applications assessing public participation in U.S. watershed planning initiatives. Society and Natural Resources, 12(5), 455-67. Eisenhardt. K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Empel, C. V. (2008). The effectiveness of community participation in planning and urban development. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 117, 549-556. Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979, No. 2003. Retrieved 30 August, 2011, from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation Act 2000. Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au Evans, B., & Percy, S. (1999). The opportunities and challenges for local environmental policy and action in the UK. In S. Buckingham-Hatfield & S. Percy (Eds.), Constructing local environmental agendas: People, places and participation (pp. 172-185). London: Routledge. Faludi, A. (1973). A reader in planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fay, B. (1987) Critical social science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Feagin, J. R. (1991). A case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Fischler, R. (2000). Communicative planning theory: A Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 358-368. Flyvberg, B. (1996). The dark side of planning: Rationality and realrationalitat. In R. W. Burchell, S. J. Mandelbaum & L. Mazza (Eds.), Exploration in planning theory (pp. 383-394). New Burnswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353-366. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283-306. Foley, P., & Martin, S. (2000). A new deal for the community? Public participation in regeneration and local service delivery. Policy & Politics, 28(4), 479-491. 262 Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local landuse regulation. Journal of American Planning Association, 53(3), 303-314. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. In J. M. Stein (Ed.), Classic reading in urban planning: An introduction (pp. 437-455). New York: McGraw-hill, Inc. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice. Albany: State University of New York Press. Forester, J. (1996). Beyond dialogue to transformative learning: How deliberative rituals encourage political judgement in community planning process. In S. Esquith (Ed.), Political dialogue: Theories and practice (pp. 295-333). Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Forester, J. (1999a). Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. International Planning Studies, 4(2), 175-193. Forester, J. (1999b). Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447-456. Forester, J. (2008). Editorial. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), 299-304. Fraser, H. (1995). Four different approaches to community participation. Community Development Journal, 40(3), 286-300. Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. New York: Doubleday. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. NJ: Princeton University Press. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Oxford: Blackwell. Fung, A., & Wright, E.O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso. Ghanem, R. (2008). Amendments to the New South Wales planning system—sidelining the community. Local Government Law Journal, 14(2), 140-149. Gibbons, P., & Lindenmayer, D. (2007). Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog?. Ecological Management and Restoration, 8, 26-31. Gilmour, D. A., & Fisher, R. J. (1991). Villagers, forests and foresters: The Philosophy, process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press. Gleeson, B. (2004). Governance, sustainability and recent Australian metropolitan strategies: A Socio-theoretic analysis. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 345-366. Gleeson, B., & Low, N. (Eds.). (2000). Australian urban planning: New challenges, new agendas. Melbourne: Allen and Unwin. Golobic, M., & Marusic, I. (2007). Developing an integrated approach for public participation: A case of land-use planning in Slovenia. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 993-1010. Goodland, R., Paul, B., & Jacquil, C. (2005). Effectiveness at what? The processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23(6), 923-938 Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112. Gray, G. J., Enzer, M. J., & Kusel, J. (2001). Understanding community-based forest management: An editorial synthesis. In G. J. Gray, M. J. Enzer & J. Kusel (Eds.),

263 Understanding community-based forest ecosystem management (pp. 1-23). New York: Hawarth Pess Inc. Grennan, H. (2006, April 25). Concern on city’s future. Sydney Morning Herald, pp. 27. Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Guba, E. G. (Ed.).(1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury park, Calif: Sage Publications. Gundry, K. G., & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). Research report: Do public meetings represent the public?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(2), 175-182. Gurran, N. (2007). Australian urban land use planning: Introducing statutory planning practice in New South Wales. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Guyer J. (1992). Representation without taxation: An essay on democracy in rural Nigeria, 1952-1990. African Studies Review, 35(1), 41-79. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason, Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Habermas, J. (1985). A philosophico-political profile. New Left Review, 151(81), 75-105. Haigh, B. (1979). Second reading speech for the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill (pp. 3049). Paper presented at New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Debates. Hall, P. (1983). The Anglo-American connection: Rival nationalities in planning theory and practice, 1955-1980. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 10(1), 41-46. Hall, P. (1992). Urban and regional planning (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Hallman, H. W. (1972). Federally financed citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 32, 421-427. Hamdi, N., & Goethert, R. (1997). Action planning for cities: A guide to community practice. Chichester: John Wiley. Harding, R. (Ed.).(1998). Environmental decision-making: The roles of scientists, engineers and the public. Sydney: Federation Press. Harmon, M.M. (1995). Responsibility as paradox. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hart, D. K. (1972). Theories of government related to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 32, 603-621. Healy, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63(2), 143-162. Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan. Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1531-1546. Healey, P. (1999). Institutional analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111-121. Healey, P. (2005). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299-320. Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(1), 1-15 Hibbard, M., & Lurie, S. (2000). Saving land but losing ground: Challenge to community planning in the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 187-195. Hill, L.H., & Moore, A. B. (2000). Source of diversity in community development practice. Journal of the Community Development Society, 31(2), 386-398. 264 Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111-124. Hillier, J. (1998). Beyond confusion noise: Ideas toward communicative procedural justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 14-24. Hillier, J. (2002). Direct action and agonism in democratic planning practice. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tew-dwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 110-135). London: Routledge. Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be ”real”. Planning Theory, 1(2), 37-59. Hillier, J., & Healy, P. (2008). Vol. 3: Contemporary movements in planning theory. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hodge, G. (1998). Planning Canadian communities: An introduction to the principles, practice, and participants (3rd ed.). Toronto: ITP Nelson. Horelli, L. (2002). A methodology of participatory planning. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 608-628). NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Howard, T. L. J., & Gaborit, N. (2007). Using virtual environment technology to improve public participation in urban planning process. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(4), 233-241. Hung, K., Shirakaya-Turk, E., & Ingram, L. J. (2011). Testing the efficacy of an integrative model for community participation. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 276-288. Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological applications, 10(5), 1270-1274. Huxley, M. (2000). The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 369-377. Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative procedural justice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19, 333-342. Ikeda, Y. (2009). Digging up the earth in New York city: A community-based environmental movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York (UMI No. 3378580). Illsley, B. M. (2003). Fair participation- a Canadian perspective. Land Use Policy, 20, 263-273. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of planning education and research, 14(3), 183-189. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472. Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus building: Clarification for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5-20. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999a). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9-26. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999b). Metropolitan development as a complex system: A new approach to sustainability. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(2), 141-156. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236. International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) (2007a). Good public participation result in better decision. Retrieved 1 February, 2012, from http://www.iap2.org. International Association for Public Participation Australia (IAP2) (2007b). IAP2 public participation spectrum. Retrieved August 13, 2010, from http://www.iap2.org.au/resources/iap2s-public-participation-spectrum 265 Irvine, J. T. (2006). Speech and language community. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 689-698). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier. Islam, N., & Mahjabeen, Z. (2003). The role of civil society organizations in urban development in Dhaka City. Oriental Geographer, 47(2), 13-47. Jamal, T. B., Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2002). Beyond labels pragmatic planning in multistakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 164-177. James, M. R. (2011). The priority of racial constituency over descriptive representation. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 899–914. Judy, T. (2008). What is community?. In T. Judy, D. Wilkinson & B. Cheers (Eds.), Working with communities in health and human services (pp. 21-42). South Melbourne, Vic. : Oxford University Press. Kakumba, U. (2010). Local government citizen participation and rural development: Reflections on Uganda’s decentralisation system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76, 171-186. Karagkounis, V. (2009). Introducing a community work perspective in local policymaking: A pilot community intervention in the Municipality of Aigeiros, Thrace, Greece. Community Development Journal, 45(2), 237-252. Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 21-36). New York: Routledge. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). The foundation of behavioural research. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Khan, S., & Swapan, M. S. H. (2011). Non-democratic planning environment in democratic states: Examining the complexities of ’public participation’ practice in South Asian countries. In Proceedings of World Planning School Congress 2011. Perth: University of Western Australia. Kiely, A. (2009). The effects of the recent amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on the role of local government. Local Government Law Journal, 14, 186-196. Kiyaga-Nsubuga, J., & Olum, Y. (2009). Local governance and local democracy in Uganda. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 2, 26-43. Kulas, J.T. (2009). SPSS essentials: Managing and analyzing social sciences data (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jpssey-Bass. Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104, 352-381. Lahiri-Dutt, K. (2004). ’I plan, you participate’: A southern view of community participation in urban Australia. Community Development Journal, 39(1), 13-27. Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299. Lane, M. B., McDonald, G.T., & Morrison, T.H. (2004). Decentralisation and environmental management in Australia: A comment on the prescription of the Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(1), 103-125. Lane, M., & McDonald, G. (2005). Community-based environmental planning: Operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(4), 709-731. Latimar, M. K. (1979). Black political representation in southern cities: Election systems and other casual variables. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 15(1), 65-86. 266 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Lepani, B., Freed, G., Murphy, P., & Macgillivray, A. (1995). The economic role of cities: Australia in the global economy. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development, AGPS. Lewenstein, B. W. (2004, June 8). What does citizen science accomplish?. In CNRS Colloquium, Paris. Lewis, H. (1974). Public participation in planning. In A. Whittick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of urban planning (pp. 850-852). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785-795. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publications. Lipman, Z., & Stokes, R. (2008). The technocrat is back: Environmental land-use planning reform in New South Wales. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 25(2), 305-323. Listerborn, C. (2007). Who speaks? And who listens? The relationship between planners and women’s participation in local planning in a multi-cultural urban environment. GeoJournal, 70, 61-74. Lockie, S., Franetovich, M., Sharma, S., & Rolfe, J. (2008). Democratisation versus engagement? Social and economic impact assessment and community participation in the coal mining industry of the Bowen Basin, Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(3), 177-187. Lyons, M., Smuts, C., & Stephens, A. (2001). Participation, empowerment and sustainability: (How) do the links work?. Urban Studies, 38(8), 1233-1251. MacCallum, D. (2008). Participatory planning and means-ends rationality: A translation problem. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), 325-343. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R., et al. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929-1938. Maginn, P. J. (2007). Deliberative democracy or discursively biased? Perth’s dialogue with the city initiative. Space and Polity, 11(3), 331-352. Mahwood, P. (1983). The place of traditional political authority in African pluralism. Civilisations, XXXII(2), XXXIII(1), 209-237. Maida, C. A. (Ed.).(2006). Sustainability and communities. New York: Berghahn Books. Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Kampala: Fountain Publisher. Manin, B., Adam, P., & Susan, S. (1999). Elections and representation. In P. Adam, S. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation (pp. 29-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A Contingent ’Yes’. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628-657. Manzi, T., & Smith-Bowers, B. (2006). Gated communities as club goods. Housing Studies, 20(2), 245-359. Manzo, L.C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335-350. March, A. (2010). Practising theory: When theory affects urban planning. Planning Theory, 9(2), 108-125. Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 237-253. 267 Massey, D. (1997). Space/power, identity/difference: Tension in the city. In A. Merrifield, & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The urbanisation of injustice (pp. 100-116). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Mawhood P. (1983). Local Government in the third world. Wiley: Chichester. Maxwell, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of applied social research method. Thousand Oak: Sage Publications. McComas, K. (2001). Public meetings about local waste management problems: Comparing participants to nonparticipants. Environmental Management, 27(1), 135-147. McGuirk, P. M. (1994). Economic restructuring and the realignment of the urban planning system: The case of Dublin. Urban Studies, 31(2), 287-308. McGuirk, P. M. (2001). Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 33, 195-217. McGuirk, P.M. (2009). Power and influence in urban planning: Community and property interests participation in Dublin’s planning system. Irish Geography, 28(1), 64-75. Mckoy, D. L., & Vincent, J. M. (2007). Engaging schools in urban revitalization: The Y-PLAN (Youth-Plan, Learn, Act, Now!). Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(4), 389-403. McLoughlin J. B. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. London: Faber and Faber. Milbrath,L. W. (1981). Citizen surveys as citizen participation mechanisms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4, 478-496. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications. Miller, T. (1988). Consulting citizens in Sweden: Planning participation in context. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. Minichiello, V. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Longman. Moore, M. (1997). Death without taxes: Democracy, state capacity, and aid dependence in the fourth world. In G. White & M. Robinson (Eds.), Towards a democratic development state (pp. 84-121). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moser, C. O. N. (1989). Community participation in urban projects in third world. Progress in Planning, (32), 71-133. Moser. C. (1989). The problem of evaluating community participation in urban development projects. In C. Moser (Ed.), Evaluating-community participation in urban development projects (Development Planning Unit Working Paper No. 14). London. Mulgan, R. (2000). ’Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78, 555-573. Narayan, D. (2002). Empowerment and poverty: A sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Participation and power. In N. Nelson and S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice (pp.1-18). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Neuman, M. (2000). Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism?. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 343-350. New South Wales Department of Planning. (1988). Sydney into its third century. Sydney: Department of Planning. O’Donnel, J., Ferreira, J., Hurtado, R., & Ames, E. (1998). Partners for change: Community residents and agencies. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 25, 133. Oloka-Onyango, J. (1994). Judicial power and constitutionalism in Uganda: A historical perspective. In M. Mamdani & J. Oloka-Onyango (Eds.), Uganda: Studies in living 268 conditions, popular movements and constitutionalism (pp. 463-518). Kampala: Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik and Center for Baltic. Olsson, K. (2008). Citizen input in urban heritage management and planning: A quantitative approach to citizen participation. Town Planning Review, 79(4), 371-394. Onyach Olaa, M. (2003). The challenges of implementing decentralisation: Recent experiences in Uganda. Public Administration and Development, 23(1), 105 113. Painter, M. (1992). Participation and power. In M. Munro Clark (Ed.), Citizen participation in government (pp. 21 35). Sydney: Ian Buchan Fell Research Centre, The University of Sydney. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patricia, B. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research method (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pavri, F., & Deshmukh, S. (2003). Institutional efficacy in resource management: Temporally congruent embeddedness for forest systems of Western India. Geoforum, 34, 71 84. Peile, C., & McCouat, M. (1997). The rise of relativism: The future of theory and knowledge development in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 27(3), 343 360. Peterson, N. A., & Reid, R. J. (2003). Paths to psychological empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community and citizen participation in substance abuse prevention activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 25 38. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247 1263. Productivity Commission. (2011). Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessment, Research Report. Canberra: Productivity Commission. Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Ltd. Raco, M., & Flint, J. (2001). Communities, places and institutional relations: Assessing the role of area based community representation in local governance. Political Geography, 20, 585–612. Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American journal of community psychology, 15(2), 121 148. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Redcliff, M. (1995). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London and New York: Routledge. Ribot, J. C. (1996). Participation without representation. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(3), 40 44. Ribot, J. C. (1999). Decentralisation, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: Legal instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 69(1), 23-65. Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington DC: World Resource Institute. Ribot, J. C. (2003). Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: Institutionalising popular inclusion. Forests, Source of Life, proceedings of the XII World Forestry Congress, Quebec City. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M.

269 Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion (pp. 305-329). London: Sage Publications, Inc. Rinner, C., & Bird, M. (2009). Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps—a public participation GIS case study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 36, 588-601. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315-353. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 517-550. Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot: Avebury. Sager, T. (2006). The logic of critical communicative planning: Transaction cost alteration. Planning Theory, 5(3), 223-254. Sandercock, L. (1997). The planner tamed: Preparing planner for the twenty ﬁrst century. Australian Planner, 34(2), 90-95. Sarker, A., Ross, H. & Shrestha, K. K. (2008). Common pool approach for water quality management: An Australian case study. Ecological Economics, 461-471. Save Our Suburb. (2004). Comment on discussion paper: Sydney greater metropolitan region. Sydney: Save Our Suburb. Savini, F. (2011). The endowment of community participation: Institutional settings in two urban regeneration projects. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(5), 949 - 968. Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zimmerman, M.A., & Checkoway, B.N. (1995). Empowerment as a multi-level construct: Perceived control at the individual, organizational and community levels. Health Education research, 10(3), 309-327. Scott, J. C. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press. Searle, G. (2004). Planning discourse and Sydney’s recent metropolitan strategies. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 367-391. Searle, G. (2006). Is the city of cities metropolitan strategy the answer for Sydney?. Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), 553-566. Selin, S. (1999). Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3/4), 260-273. Shrestha, K. K. & McManus, P. (2005). Sustaining inequity? Rethinking the history of Nepalese forest policies. In Calver et al (Eds.), A forest conscienceless: Proceedings of 6th national conference of the Australian Forest History Society Inc (pp. 681-691). Rotterdam: Millpress. Shrestha, K. K. & McManus, P. (2008). The politics of community participation in natural resource management: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal. Australian Forestry, 71(2), 135-146. Smith, S. (2008, March) The NSW planning system: Proposed reforms (Brieﬁng Paper No. 1/08). NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Sage

270 handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (1996). Planning theory for environmentally sustainable planning. In Geography Research Forum (pp. 80-100). Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2003). Power, trust and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 125-139. Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2005). Rawls’s ’Justice as fairness’: A moral basis for contemporary planning theory. Planning Theory, 4(2), 147-172. Stivers, C. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the administrative state. Administration & Society, 22(1), 86-105. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larner, J. (Eds). (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Syme, J. G., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1992). Predicting public involvement in water management and planning. Environment and Behaviour, 24, 738-758. Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage. Tendler, J. (1997). Good government in the tropics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. The Warren Centre. (2004). Warren centre metro strategy submission. Sydney: The Warren Centre. The World Bank. (1993). Public involvement in environmental assessment: Requirements, opportunities and issues. Environmental assessment sourcebook update (No. 5). Washington, DC: Environment Department, The World Bank. Thurston, W. E., Farrar, P. J., Casebeer, A. L., & Grossman, J. C. (2004). Hearing silenced voices: Developing community with an advisory committee. Development in Practice, 14(4), 481-494. Tillet, U. (2004, May 27). Infrastructure needed to cope with growth. Central Coast Express Advocate, pp. 1, 10. Toon, J., & Falk, J. (Eds.). (2003). Sydney: Planning for politics town planning for Sydney regions since 1945. Sydney: Planning Research Centre, The University of Sydney. Tosun, C. (1999). Towards a typology of community participation in the tourism development process. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 113-134 Ulltveit-Moe, K. H. (2006). Regional policy design: An analysis of relocation, efficiency and equity. European Economic Review, 51, 1443-1467. UNFPA. (2008). State of world population 2007: Unleashing the potential urban growth. New York: UNFPA. UN-HABITAT. (2010). State of the world’s cities 2010/2011: Bridging the urban divide. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT. United Nations Commissions on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development. Brazil: UNCED. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). (2010). Aarhus convention. Retrieved on November 11, 2010 from http://www.unece.org/env/pp/contentpp.html United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved on October 31, 2010 from http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163. United Nations. (1993). Agenda 21: The United Nations programme of action from Rio. United States: United Nations. United Nations. (2004). Agenda 21. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52 271 Uyesugi, J. L., & Shipley, R. (2005). Visioning diversity: Planning Vancouver’s multicultural communities. International Planning Studies, 10(3-4), 305-322. Vallejo, J. (2008, October 25). Residents to sue over city planning. The Daily Telegraph, pp. 2. Wallerstein, N. (2006). What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health? (Health Evidence Network report, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen). Retrieved 10 October, 2010, from http://www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf file/0010/74656/E88086.pdf. Warner, B. E. (2001). John Stuart Mill’s theory of bureaucracy within representative government: Balancing competence and participation. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 403-413. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences Vol. 49) (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc. Wellstead, A. M., Stedman, R. C., & Parkins, J. R. (2003). Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 1-11. White, S.A. (1994). The concept of participation: Transforming rhetoric to reality. In S. A. White, K. S. Nair & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and development (pp. 15-32). New Delhi: Sage Publications. Whitehead, R. (2005, May 30). Campaign for Sydney, a Herald series. The Sydney Morning Herald, pp. 1. Willmott, P. (1989). Community initiatives: Patterns and prospects. London: Policy Studies Institute. World Commission on Environment and Development Commission Brundtland (1988). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yaffee, S. L., & Wondolleck, J. (1997). Building bridges across agency boundaries. In K. A. Kohm & J. F. Franklin (Eds.), Creating a forestry for the 21st century: The science of ecosystem management (pp. 381-396). Washington, D.C: Island Press. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research, design and method (3rd ed.). Newbury park: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications. Zehner, R, & Marshall, N. (2007). Community participation: To be involved or not to be involved—is that the question?. In S. Thompson (Ed.), Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning (pp. 276-289). Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University Press. Zimmarman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Plenum Press.

272 APPENDICES

Appendix I

The letter requesting community forum participants to participate in the questionnaire survey in this study:

«Courtesy Title» «First Name» «Last Name» «Company» «Address 1» «Address 2» «City» «State» «Postal Code»

Dear «Courtesy Title» «Last Name»

You may remember attending a community forum run by this Department in ?? 2004??. The forum was designed to collect information and views from the community to inform a long term Sydney planning policy document called the Metropolitan Strategy, City of Cities A Plan for Sydney’s Future.

The Department was recently approached by a PhD candidate from the University of Sydney, Ms Zeenat Mahjabeen, requesting contact with those who attended the community forum, in order to conduct a survey in relation to her studies.

The Department was happy to help Ms Mahjabeen in order to support independent research related to its functions, but, in order to allay any privacy concerns, decided to send out the survey documents itself, rather than pass names to Ms Mahjabeen.

Consequently Ms Mahjabeen provided copies of the survey and a cover letter, and post paid return envelopes, to the Department. In a separate process the Department then enclosed one of each, plus a copy of this letter, in addressed envelopes and arranged postage.

If you wish to respond to the survey you need only read Ms Mahjabeen’s cover letter, fill in the survey, and post it back to Ms Mahjabeen in the envelope she has provided. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. If you have any questions about the survey, which is not a Departmental project, please contact Ms Mahjabeen directly. Her details are on her enclosed cover letter. For questions about the process the Department followed in sending this letter please do not hesitate to ring me on 9228 6116. Yours sincerely David Watson, Manager FOI & Privacy

273 Appendix 2

274 275 276 277 278 Appendix III

279 280 281 282 283 284 AppendixIV

(List of codes for SSIs analysis) Respondents for SSI, their codes and key characteristics All the respondents had attended participatory forums of the Sydney Metropolitan Strat- egy 2005 (SMS) Level oNo Codes Key attributes of the respondents SG/rp1 Reference panel member; a lawyer, solicitor 2 and town planner. Worked in government and private sectors of Australia SG/rp2 Reference panel member; civil engineer, worked in various state agencies; interested in communication areas State government SG/ex1 Renowned planning expert. Teaches planning 2 and policy in university SG/ex2 Urban and regional planner; managing director of a business ﬁrm which is engaged in community and stakeholder engagement around planning processes SG/dop1 One of the Key persons of SMS, works in the Department of Planning SG/dop2 One of the key persons of SMS, in a senior po- 7 sition of State governmental agency SG/dop3 Was responsible for management of community consultation and stakeholders relations in SMS SG/dop4 Held an important key position of the department; have political background SG/dop5 Worked in a senior position of Department of Planning. Had an important role in SMS. Had several years experience of working in strategic planning of Sydney SG/dop6 One of the key persons of SMS in Department of Planning. Was involved in strategic development of the strategies of SMS SG/dop7 Had worked in SMS as a communication ofﬁcer and project manager; Had experience in working in communications in state agencies 1 LG/hob In a managerial position of town planning ser- Local vice. Works in economically prosperous white Government Australian dominated council LG/rw1 In a managerial position of strategic planning 2 of a migrant and white mixed council which is economically in median position LG/rwb2 Senior environmental planner of a migrant and white mixed council which is economically in median position LG/cmb1 Director of planning and environment of a mi- 2 grant and white mixed council which is economically in median position LG/cmb2 Held an important position of a migrant and white mixed council which is economically in median position

285 LG/ff1 Senior strategic planner of an economically dis- 5 advantaged migrant dominant council LG/ff2 Place manager of a project which requires a lot of community consultation in an economically disadvantaged migrant dominant council LG/ff3 Senior environmental planner of an economically disadvantaged migrant dominant council LG/ff4 Held an important top position of the economically disadvantaged migrant dominant council, also was the member of the state parliament LG/ff5 Environmental engineer; works in communications and natural resource management in economically disadvantaged migrant dominant council CP/lad Executive Director of a local governmental as- Community sociation which works as advocacy group, the Representative 5 area of which was to be largely affected by the proposal of the strategy CP/cm1 Community member; active in local environmental activities. CP/cm2 Community member; active in local environmental activities. CP/cm3 Community member active in local community works CP/cm4 Community member active in local community works CP/ero Executive Director and of a research organiza- 6 tion concerned with environment; also Chair- man of a catchment management authority CP/cmx1 Community member; have higher degrees, involved in environmental movements CP/cmx3 Community member; have higher degrees, involved in environmental movements CP/cmx4 Community member; white Australian. have higher degrees, not involved in any environmental/social work CP/cmx5 Community member; migrant; have higher degrees, not involved in any environmental/social work CP/cmx6 Community member; Indigenous Australian; have higher degree, involved in social work CCP/nps1 Chief Executive Officer of a not for profit 3 service providing organization in Sydney metropolitan area CP/nps2 Works in a not for profit service providing organization in Sydney metropolitan area CP/nps3 Works in a not for profit service providing organization in Sydney metropolitan area Total 35

286 Appendix V-1 RETHINKING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN URBAN PLANNING: THE ROLE OF DISADVANTAGED GROUPS IN SYDNEY METROPOLITAN STRATEGY1

Zeenat Mahjabeen Urban and Regional Planning and Policy, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006.

Krishna K. Shrestha Urban and Regional Planning and Policy, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006.

John A. Dee Urban and Regional Planning and Policy, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006.

ABSTRACT: Community participation is considered fundamental to fair and representative decision making in contemporary urban planning practice. It is often argued that the voices of the traditionally voiceless (e.g. poor and minority groups) are critical if plans are to succeed in achieving equity, efficiency and sustainability. However the participation of poor and disadvantaged groups in planning processes is difficult to achieve particularly where programs are located in powerful political and bureaucratic structures. In these situations community inputs are often ignored and the decisions are made through an elite culture of political and bureaucratic control. An important question to emerge is: Is it possible to achieve effective participation which includes poor and minority groups in programs that are controlled by political and bureaucratic elites? This study critically investigates the opportunity for participation involving disadvantaged groups2 (aboriginal groups and groups from a non-English speaking background) in the making of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) – a major plan initiated by the NSW government to guide the future of Australia’s largest and most socio-economically and culturally diverse city, over the next 25 years (from 2005 to 2030). The results of this study show that the SMS created opportunities for stakeholders to provide inputs into the decision making process through expert working groups, local government level forums and public submissions. These participation platforms were organised and exclusively managed by government bureaucrats where the interests of socio-economic elites ― educated individuals, government employees and business groups ― were dominant in the process at the expense of community and disadvantaged group interests.The opportunity for aboriginal and non-English speaking groups to participate in a meaningful way was almost non-existent thereby leaving them without a voice in the process. Hence the final decisions were made by bureaucrats and politicians with little to no inputs from these groups. The principal implication of this study is that since there was no effective participation of poor and minorities groups in the plan-making process, specifically targeted platforms organised under a new independent body that is downwardly accountable to these groups are needed to initiate, institutionalise and sustain effective and fair participation.

1 This paper was presented at the 32nd ANZRSAI Conference held in Adelaide from 30th Nov – 3rd Dec 2008. 2 We acknowledge that disadvantaged groups can be defined differently in different contexts. Here, we use the term specifically referring to groups of people that are socio- economically, culturally and linguistically in minority in Australian society.

287 1. INTRODUCTION In a global movement promoting democracy, justice and sustainability, community participation is now central to planning and policy reforms around the world. Community participation is considered fundamental to fair and representative decision-making in modern-day urban planning and is also a key element in achieving sustainable development (Ribot, 2003; Redcliff, 2005; Shrestha and McManus, 2008). When community groups are actively engaged in planning and implementation processes, plans are likely to be more closely matched with stakeholders’ needs, interests and expectations, motivating them to help achieve socially and ecologically beneficial outcomes (Healey, 1998; Shrestha and McManus, 2005; Sarker et al., 2008). In addition, it is often argued that the voices of the traditionally voiceless groups (e.g. the poor and minorities) are critical for plans to succeed in terms of achieving equity, efficiency and sustainability. However, the participation of poor and disadvantaged groups (and other community groups) is usually submerged in a culture of powerful political structures and institutions where community inputs can all too often amount to little more than tokenism. Hence, the important question to emerge is: Is it possible to achieve effective participation of poor and minority groups in programs that emerge from centrally controlled bureaucratic and political structures? There is a growing body of literature showing that community participation in urban planning will help to bring together information, knowledge and skills from various backgrounds in a way that will improve the outcomes (Margerum, 2002), achieve mutual learning and the personal growth of participants (Sager, 1994; Healey, 1997), create a sense of ownership over outcomes (Healey, 1997), and generate agreement over solutions and increase support for implementation (ibid). The participation of relevant stakeholders can also be considered as a vehicle to bring about increased democratisation of the decision making process (Sager 1994; Healey 1997) and a beacon of hope in solving a range of planning and implementation problems (Jenkins, 2001). There are, however, increasing concerns among community groups and scholars that the current plan-making process, particularly in developed countries such as Australia, is dominated by powerful politicians, senior bureaucrats and professional planners who are principally concerned with pre-determined standards, targets, time-frames and economic imperatives. Community groups are encouraged to participate with little or no consideration of the individual stakeholder’s socio-economic background, needs and expectations. The principal aim of this paper is to investigate critically the opportunity for participation by disadvantaged groups (aboriginal groups and groups from non- English speaking backgrounds) using the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) as a case. Specifically, the paper will explore the following three interconnected sub-questions: 1. What opportunities are provided to different stakeholder groups, particularly for disadvantaged groups to participate in the making of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS)? 2. Are community inputs appropriately reflected into the final decisions (or programs) in the SMS? 3. Is there any program in the SMS directed at disadvantaged groups? If there is, does such a program reflect the need and interests of disadvantaged groups? The paper is structured as follows. First the concept of participation is described in relation to relevant urban planning theories as well as stakeholder issues concerning participation in urban planning. Next a brief review of the planning policy in NSW as expressed in the SMS is presented describing its purpose and the major forums employed to receive stakeholder participation and inputs. This is followed by an analysis of the strengths and opportunities of these forums to address issues regarding disadvantaged groups in relation to inputs in the making of the SMS. The paper concludes by highlighting some of the pitfalls of bureaucratic plan-making in its attempt to understand and account for the legitimate interests and expectations of disadvantaged groups. 1.1 Participation: A conceptual overview According to Agenda 21, one of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making - “… decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work” (UNCED, 1992, p.23.2). The Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’, places participation at the heart of sustainable development, viz: …the recognition of traditional rights must go hand in hand with measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility in resource use. And this recognition must also give local communities a decisive voice in the decisions about resource use in their area (WCED, 1987, p.115-116). Ribot (1996, p.40) defines participation as: Community or popular participation is about communities having decision- making powers or control over resources that affect the community as a whole, such as forests and grazing commons or community development. But, for such decisions to internalise social and ecological costs or to assure equitable decision-making and use, they must be devolved to a body representing and accountable to the community.

288 Arnstein (1969) produced a seminal work which critiqued and defined participation in terms of power relationships.3 She developed a “ladder of participation” which defined different degrees of involvement of participants in relation to the delegation of decision-making power (Arnstein 1969). While Arnstein herself admits that the ladder is a simplified model of participation, it precisely captures an important point that many people can be disempowered in decision-making processes. The ladder is outlined in Table 1.

Table1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation.

Citizens obtain the majority of decision-making 8. Citizen Control seats, or full managerial power. Degrees of Some power is delegated to agency decision- makers Citizen as well as to citizens. Power 7. Delegated Power Citizens are enabled to negotiate and engage in 6. Partnership trade-offs with traditional power holders. A high level of tokenism. Citizens have the right to 5. Placation advise, but no decision making right or power. Citizens may hear and be heard, but they have no Degrees of power to ensure that their views will be considered Tokenism 4. Consultation by decision-makers. Citizens may voice opinions, but have no influence to ensure follow-through or assurance of 3. Informing changing the decision Non-participation where power holders attempt to educate or “cure” citizens of their ignorance on a No 2. Therapy particular issue. Participation Highest level of non-participation, where power holders do not enable people to actively participate. 1. Manipulation

Source: Arnstein, 1969, p. 217 – modified.

Nelson and Wright (1995, p. 7-8) identify two types of participation: ‘participation as a means’ ― i.e. a process of achieving the aims of a project more efficiently, effectively or cheaply, and ‘participation as ends’― i.e. a process of giving some degree of control of a development agenda to a community or a group. In an ideal participatory planning process, participation can be considered as an end. In practice, however, it is generally seen as a means to achieve certain prescribed outcomes.

3 Power is described “as how people stand in relation to each other in the system” (Nelson and Wright, 1995, p.7-8).

289 1.2 Participation and urban planning Stakeholder participation in urban planning has a long history. According to Roberts (2004), citizen participation was found in written form in the Greek City States, in Ecclesia of Athens. In the Middle Ages, artisans of the city formed organisations to fulfil their purpose of controlling public matters in favour of their work interests. Town meetings as public participation forums, although dominated by the elite groups, were held in the New England Colonies in America. And in the 19th Century, various groups were invited to comment on state and local level projects. It was the first three decades of 20th Century, however, that saw social groups formally participate in government planning and implementation processes (Roberts, 2004). In terms of legislation, community participation first appeared as a requirement in urban renewal programs in the Housing Act of 1954 (United Kingdom). In the early post World War II years of the 1950s, it was a case of ‘tell and sell’ where governments around the world introduced modernisation agendas and cyclical economic development plans. Hence it is a truism to say that planning theory has experienced a tortured history in its attempt to establish a firm basis in practice for stakeholder participation. The master/blueprint planning approach, also known as the comprehensive rational model, in the first two decades after World War II became the standard urban planning model. According to this model, professional experts, usually employed by government were charged with identifying a comprehensive range of problems (requiring comprehensive knowledge) and devising broad solutions based on rational planning thought and expert knowledge with little or no public input. Several competing theories emerged which challenged the rational comprehensive model. Prominent here were McLoughlin (1969) and Chadwick (1971) who promulgated planning models based on systems theory, which in turn were challenged by Faludi’s (1973a; 1973b; 1986) procedural theory in the early 1970s. These theories however did not include participation in any contemporary meaning of the concept of stakeholder participation. Participation of stakeholders in the planning process became a central tenet of the communicative planning theories that emerged in the late 1980s and 1990s. Drawing on Habermas’ (1987) theory of communicative action, a body of theoretical knowledge developed on how to connect the systemic side of human life and the value-driven side of human introspection—the latter being defined as the ‘lifeworld’. Prominent writers in this field were Healey (1988; 2006) and Forester (1989) who attempted to interpret and apply communicative action theory to planning decision-making focusing on ways to account for the language of practical conversation and communication. Forester (1993) analysed the effects of political and social influence on social action and showed how planners can modify the exertion of political power in planning processes. He argued that planners can use ‘information’ as a source of power and by proper use of it, they also can empower citizens through democratic planning processes (Forester, 1989). In a similar way Sager (1994) used Habermas’ critical theory of communicative action to examine how mainstream planning theories are related to the concept of power and conflict. Healey (1999) further refined communicative planning theory in relation to societal and institutional capacity where she defined institutional capacity as a combination of social, intellectual and political capital. Healey believed that as this capital grows and spreads through collaboration and networks, the ‘civic capacity’ of a society will grow and participants will be more confident with ability and competencies to solve their problems (Healey, 1999, p. 428). The proponents of collaborative planning argue that it produces commonly accepted objectives and has a commitment to implementation. In this sense collaborative planning assumes that sharing information and interaction creates new ideas, leads to more creative solutions, builds social capital and reduces racial tensions and social conflicts (Ananda and Herath, 2003; Baum, 1999; Margerum, 2002). Innes (1996) advances the concept of consensus building with equality in the collaborative process. She argued that all types of stakeholders — public agencies, powerful private interests and disadvantaged citizens ― are supposedly treated equally within the process of collaborative decision making (Innes, 1996). Her thesis is that learning takes place in the collaborative forum and at times conflicts are resolved and innovations emerge which can be seen as a process of give and take and joint problem solving (Innes and Booher, 2004a). However, this position has been criticised on the ground that equal participation of various stakeholders with different interests and levels of power and authority is misleading (Hiller, 2003). 1.3 Key issues of community participation in urban planning

290 Collaborative planning has now become popular in contemporary planning theory and practice. It is aligned with the concept of communication through democratic decision making processes which seek to bring to bear a range of stakeholders’ views on decision spaces that are often entangled with sets of ‘wicked’ problems and issues (see Rittel and Weber 1973). An important question to emerge here is how effective is collaborative planning in dealing with often competing and irreconcilable interest sets couched within a maze of democratic procedures and regulations? The problem with collaborative stakeholder participation is often that planning policies often do not clearly state the purpose of participation. The NSW legislation, for example, only requires the exhibition of plans for public comment but says little about how the comments will be used and for what purpose. In this sense the purpose of participation tends to fit the definition of participation as a means ― that is, a process of achieving the aims of a project more efficiently, effectively or cheaply (Nelson and Wright op cit, 1995, p. 7-8). Nelson and Wright (1995) argue that if community groups and other non- government organisations are to benefit from participation in plan-making, they need to be given sufficient power and authority to enable them to influence decisions in a meaningful way. Similarly other scholars argue that collaborative planning cannot influence decisions because it emphasises the process of consensus building rather than producing results and hence this can also produce bad results and cause increased costs and a loss of time (Cameron, Grant-Smith and Johnson, 2005; Lowry, Adler and Milner, 1997). A major hurdle for participatory planning to become fair and effective lies in the problem of elite domination. In collaborative planning processes elites and experts can easily dominate the proceedings (Fung and Wright, 2003) which can lead to well-intended projects failing in terms of achieving key objectives because local elites can misrepresent community interests and seize control of a project (e.g. Cernea, 1993). This type of participation can be described as form of “covert privatisation” that can easily lead to centralised control with the loss of desired incentives of the people (e.g. Anderson, 2000; Pavri and Deshmukh, 2003). Power imbalances such as these can be addressed in multi-stakeholder process of participation by providing equal seats to all groups of stakeholders and also by funding travel expenses or providing preparatory materials of communications (Hemmati, 2002). In addition, there are techniques available on methods and organisation of community forums in relation to the use of expert advice (see Carson et al, 2002; Gastil and Levine 2005). Finally, the question of power to influence planning and implementation decisions is important. Fisher (2003, p.20) explains the relation between power, decision making and implementation in relation to community forestry as: “Power can be thought of as the capacity to have a meaningful (effective) input into making and implementing decisions…. Having a meaningful role does not mean that an actor makes all decisions, but rather his/her interests are given serious attention in negotiations. Meaningful decision-making also involves implementation. If a decision cannot be implemented or enforced, then the role in decision-making does not involve effective power”.

2. RESEARCH METHOD The research employs an in-depth case study analysis as a methodological strategy. The focus of the research is on local/regional level stakeholder participation platforms/forums organised by the NSW Department of Planning in the making of the SMS. NSW has experienced a significant level of planning reform since 2004. The SMS represents as one of several comprehensive strategies intended to guide the future of Australia’s largest city over the next 25 years (2005-2030). A fundamental element in the making of SMS and in the planning reform process in NSW is that government planning and decision making must have effective community participation to achieve sustainable development. The study of opportunities and impacts of the disadvantaged groups’ ability to participate in the making of SMS is particularly important given that Sydney is one of the most socio-economically and culturally diverse cities in Australia. This research is largely based on critical analysis of relevant literature and policy documents. Data are collected from the internet, census materials, records and publications by individuals and organisations. The research has employed a triangulation method to establish the validity and veracity of the data sources in order to enhance the value and accuracy of the study. A database – Factiva.com – was used to collect 117 relevant newspaper articles with the key words – ‘Sydney Metropolitan Strategy’.

3. SYDNEY METROPOLITAN STRATEGY (SMS) 2005

291 A principal objective of the NSW planning reforms is to deliver sustainable development with public input through participation in the planning process. The reform agenda focuses on strategic planning for growth areas, simplification and streamlining of planning controls, improving development assessment processes and allowing flexibility in the use of developer levies for local facilities and services (Department of Planning, 2004). Particular emphasis is put on governance and implementation with the intention to deliver timely and strategic outcomes for NSW across all relevant areas of government responsibility. The Metropolitan Strategy Discussion Paper was released in September 2004 as the basis for discussing Sydney's future with the community. This paper sets out the vision, challenges, directions, priorities, actions and ideas for managing growth and change that will occur in Sydney over the next 25 years (Department of Planning, 2004).

292 3.1 Background Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS) 2005 is titled the ‘City of Cities’. It is the sixth strategy for Sydney since 1948. The Strategy was initiated by NSW State Government and released in December 2005. Its strategic vision sets out infrastructure investment priorities and attempts to integrate planning policies with infrastructure investment in the Sydney region by improving the information base and responding to community views through participatory processes (Department of Planning, 2005). The strategy covers a geographic area of about 10,000 square kilometres which includes 43 local municipalities (see Figure 1). A principal strategic objective is to bring state government, local government and the broader community together to discuss, review and make decisions to guide the future of Sydney's economy, environment and communities. The following five aims were identified in the Strategy: 1) Enhancing liveability, 2) Strengthening economic competitiveness, 3) Ensuring Fairness, 4) Protecting Environment; and 5) Improving Governance (Department of Planning, 2005). To achieve these aims seven strategies were outlined covering: a) economy and employment, b) centres and corridors, c) housing, d) transport, e) environment and resources, f) parks and public places and g) implementation and governance (ibid). Community groups’ participation in the preparation of the SMS is identified as a key element in the implementation and governance section of the subregional planning and strategy review and updates. Currently, ten Subregional Strategies have been prepared by the Department of Planning in consultation with local government, community groups and other stakeholders. The subregions are: 1) Sydney City Subregion, 2) East Subregion, 3) South Subregion, 4) Inner West Subregion, 5) Inner Sydney Sub-region, 6) North Subregion, 7) North East Subregion, 8) West Central Subregion, and 9) North West Subregion and 10) South West Subregion. These Subregional Strategies were put on public exhibition throughout 2007 and 2008. The intention is to implement the SMS through these Subregional Strategies which in turn give effect to the blueprint of the Metropolitan Strategy in the local level planning instruments and action statements (Department of Planning, 2005). The subregional plans have been adopted on the basis of target sets in the SMS. Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) at the municipal level must be consistent with the Subregional Strategies and the Metropolitan Strategy. The majority of local councils are now in the process of preparing new standard instrument LEPs (www. m etrostrategy.n s w.gov.au, 2004, accessed on 15th Nov 2008).

Source: www.metrostrate g y. ns w . gov.a u , accessed on 23 November, 2008.

Figure 1. Geographical area covered by ‘City of Cities’

293 In addition, the NSW Department of Planning will undertake an annual review of the process to ensure that each subregion achieves consistency with the aims and directions of the Strategy. A major review of the SMS’s strategic directions and overall aims will be undertaken each five years, coinciding with the release of the Commonwealth census data to ensure assumptions, objectives and actions remain valid (Department of Planning, 2005). Community participation has had a long history in Sydney’s planning (Hall, 2003) and the current Strategy continues this tradition by prioritising national and international policies and agreements which are grounded in the need for thorough public consultation (Searle, 2006; Department of Planning, 2005). 3.2 Opportunities for community participation in the making of SMS The NSW Department of Planning was given the responsibility to organise consultation with experts, local government, stakeholder representatives and community groups. These bodies provided inputs to the planning process through reference to a panel, Future Forums, local government and communityforums. It is claimed that more than 10,000 people were consulted and among these 1,000 were individual residents (Department of Planning, 2005). The Metropolitan Strategy was launched by the Department of Planning on 22 April, 2004 and provided a number of opportunities for the public to participate in the process (see Figure 2).

Source: Department of Planning, 2004, p. 25 Figure2. Stakeholder consultation process in Metropolitan Strategy 2005.

On 16 September 2004, with the inputs from the first Future Forum and Local Government Forum, a discussion paper was released. Submissions, comments through telephone, email or papers were invited. The Department of Planning received a number of submissions from organisations such as the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA). On 4 December 2005, the strategy was formally launched. Specific details on the opportunities for stakeholder participation are described below: a) Reference panel and working groups: Experts were consulted through one Expert Reference Panel and four Working Groups (i.e. Employment, Transport, Environmental and Housing Working groups). The Expert Reference Panel members were urban planning specialists, economists, lawyers, social responsibility specialists and faculty members of the University of Sydney, University of New South Wales and the University of Western Sydney (see Figure 3). These participants not only led the consultation process but the Forums as well. This implies that the experts were given authority to drive the agendas of the Forums.

294 b) Future Forums: Two Future Forums were organised. The first Forum began on 18-19 May 2004, and was attended by 360 senior representatives from State and Local Government, industry and community groups. The second Future Forum was held on 13 December 2004 after the Local Government and Community Forums were held to bring a range of issues together for discussion. It is not stated anywhere in the SMS how many stakeholders groups were invited and how many of them chose to participate. Although these Forums were open to community groups, the participation was by invitation only. Hence there was very limited opportunity for community groups and particularly representatives of disadvantaged groups to participate.

Source: Australian Business Foundation, 2005.

Figure 3. Expert Panel members in the making of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy.

c) Local Government Forum: On 17th June 2004, the Local Government Forum was held. It comprised Mayors, General Managers, councillors and Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs) representatives. Two hundred representatives from 51 municipalities attended the meeting (Department of Planning, 2005). d) Community Forum: Twelve Community Forums were held across the greater metropolitan region of Sydney on November and December of 2004. The participants were chosen on a random basis for Sydney, the Central Coast, and Lower Hunter and Illawarra regions. The stated aim of random sampling was to represent a wide range of groups across the community. The participants were asked to describe and discuss what they valued most about where they live, to identify things which will make Sydney a better place to live over the next 25 years and to say what they wanted Sydney or their region to be like in 25 years. Over 700 community members were reported to have participated (Department of Planning, 2005). 3.3 Community views on the future of Sydney According to the “City of Cities” plan, four main themes were raised by participants (Department of Planning, 2005). They are: 1. Protecting, preserving and having access to natural environment: This includes the conservation of bio-diversity, bushland, waterways and parks. It was one of the strongest concerns shared by the participating community groups. 2. Urban planning and development: There was no common consent about this issue, but urban consolidation, controls of high rise and high density development were raised as key concerns. 3. Public transport: This includes the improvement of public transport service quality, good networks to both the CBD and the suburbs and a combination of different transport modes. 4. A sense of community: This includes quality of access to shops, restaurants and involvement in community or social activities.

295 The SMS attempts to address the above community concerns through the seven specific sub-strategies mentioned above. It is interesting to note, however, that although the above issues and the objectives proposed in the Strategy appear to be consistent with key aspects of sustainable development, a number of initiatives are proposed for disadvantaged groups only in the Employment and Economy section sub-strategies by improving opportunities and access to jobs for disadvantaged communities. There is also a Housing section specific provision with the aim to improve housing affordability to the diverse community groups. However there is no specific community participation platform to facilitate the views of disadvantaged groups. 3.4 Issues of community participation in the SMS The SMS has been subjected to severe criticism particularly for its emphasis on economic growth at the expense of the environment. The Gosford representative of the Future Forum reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that “A lot of talks were focusing on economic growth……but not approaching it from the most important factor, and that’s the environment” (Tillet, 2004). Similarly, 90 councillors and senior staff members from 40 local councils raised a critical issue about how the environment can be managed and simultaneously support a competitive economy (Sydney Morning Herald, 2006). These criticisms and questions are indicative of a perception in the community that the SMS may be biased towards economic growth and does not give adequate weight to protect environmental resources and promote a sustainable urban structure and form. The Newcastle Herald (2005), for example, reported that: If there was a question for sustainable urban structure for lower hunter region, there must be something about protecting essential natural structure. But Sydney Metropolitan Strategy had failed to outline that. In addition to the above general development and environmental issues, the SMS contains an explicit initiative on housing affordability which has been criticised because of a lack of affordable housing for people on low and moderate incomes. Also areas of socio-economic stagnation and deprivation were considered not to have been adequately addressed in the Strategy. The proposals for affordable housing were seen as unrealistic in scope as the plan is seen as principally driven by the need to enhance Sydney’s economic role as a global city (Bunker and Holloway, 2006; Searle, 2006). Although participation is a key part of the plan-making process, its implementation can be criticised on the grounds that it was tightly controlled and biased towards vested interests. Because the Sydney Future Forums and the Local Government Forum were not open to the general public, they could be open to criticism. Furthermore they can be criticised as not transparent and biased towards the interests of business, industry, government agencies and peak non government organisations. Because attendance at the Forums was by invitation only, it is difficult to see why it was advertised on the NSW Planning Department’s website. In addition, the basis as to how and why the invitees were selected is not made clear. It is also difficult to discern why the discussion paper was released with input only from the first Future Forum and Local Government forum and why Community Forums were conducted after its release. In terms of participation, it would seem critical to have had input from community groups, especially the disadvantaged which was clearly not the major focus of consultation strategies. The SMS can also be criticised for lacking detailed information about how the Community Forums were conducted and the basis on which participants were selected and what groups they represented. Complaints and dissatisfaction among community organisations for not having opportunity to participate in the Community Forums or lack of notification of the event on the Metropolitan Strategy website have been noted in community information papers such as ‘Save Our Suburb’ 2004. Early involvement of the public is considered essential for effective public participation (Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Durum and Brown, 1999; Hsu, 2006). Referring back to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation describing types of participation and community empowerment (see Table 1), it is reasonable to assume that any community consultation that did take place in the process of making the SMS was in the later stages of the process and was controlled by political elites with an overwhelming input from business interests, professional experts and senior bureaucrats. It is noteworthy also that the participation Forums were led by a Reference Panel and Working Groups who had little scope to think outside the terms of reference as laid down by the powerful political and bureaucratic elites. In light of the above analysis, there is strong evidence to suggest that the public participation process for the SMS correlates reasonably well with Arnstein’s ‘degrees of tokenism’ in her ladder of participation (op cit).

4. DISCUSSION

The SMS created opportunities for stakeholder inputs into the decision making process through the Expert Reference Panel and Working Groups, (largely made up of elite representatives of government, professional and business groups), local government level Forums and public submissions. Community interests, however, were not directly and sufficiently represented and only found some voice through elites on the above Reference Panel and local level Forums. Analysis of the empirical data indicates that there was no direct participation of aboriginal and non-English speaking groups.

296 Critical issues in relation to community consultation concern the definition of a ‘community’ and how a disadvantaged group can be accounted for within this definition. While the Strategy indicates random sampling was used to obtain views from community groups, it is silent with respect to the actual input from disadvantaged groups. What is importance here is the potential impact of the Strategy on disadvantaged groups, who are the very people most likely to have limited access to information and the least capacity to participate effectively in the Community Forums. Although some disadvantaged groups members did participate in the process, there is no record of what views they expressed nor is there any record of their group affiliation. What we can discern from the data is that disadvantaged groups were accorded some degree of representation in the Community Forums, but their input into the planning process as a whole seems likely to have made by bureaucratic elites and peak interest groups. This could explain why the Strategy contains few direct initiatives to address specific problems likely to be experienced by disadvantaged groups such as access to transport, health and community services on a level available to the more affluent members of the metropolis. This raises a question about why the Strategy did not contain policies that specifically address the needs and interests of the disadvantaged and to have elevated them to a much more prominent position so that their importance was prioritised in terms of targeted programs, funding and implementation (see Rawls, 1972). Hence it can reasonably be argued that input from the community groups had limited direct influence on the final decisions in relation to the SMS process. The SMS does, however, address some conflicts between urban expansion and biodiversity conservation, through several initiatives such as supporting councils to achieve biodiversity certification and completing biodiversity mapping on a regional basis (Department of Planning, 2005, p. 212). It should be noted however that biodiversity certification is extremely controversial particularly with respect to compensatory habitats (see Gibbons and Lindenmayer, 2007). And while the Strategy includes the need for public transport such as the Northwest-CBD-Southwest Rail Link and new strategic bus routes to connect major commercial centres (Department of Planning, p.165-66), curiously there is no provision for light rail services even though this issue emerged strongly in the Community Forum. In respect of the above deficiencies of community participation in the plan- making process, the NSW government claims an increased level of political legitimacy for the SMS. It considers it a Strategy developed from below or the People’s Strategy. This is dubious claim in terms of the participation of disadvantaged groups because it is based on the grounds that the draft SMS was put on public exhibition, widely advertised in the media and subjected to Expert Panels and Community Forums involving more than 10,000 people over a two year period including a continuous commitment to engage people in future reviews and updates. Nevertheless there is strongly held view that strategy was significantly influenced by the will of developers and their associations such as the Property Council of Australia and Landcom (Searle, 2006). It should be noted, however, that the views of experts and private business owners were also not always accounted for in the decision-making process―an example being a private company’s proposal to recycle sewage water was resisted by the Government ostensibly because of Treasury’s fears in relation to reduced dividends from Sydney water. A further criticism is that the Warren Centre (an independent, not-for-profit organisation with industry links located at the University of Sydney) put forward a proposal for a fast train link between Parramatta and Central Sydney and that this was ignored by politicians and bureaucrats (The Warren Centre, 2004). Also the huge public interest in cycling and walking in Sydney were also largely ignored because of the Strategy’s almost single focus on road and rail construction which reflects the power of government infrastructure agencies such as the Road and Traffic Authority (RTA). Community anger with the SMS process was reported in a Daily Telegraph (2008) which asserted that residents of Sydney’s North and South-west were intending to launch a class action against State Government over the Government’s unfair acquisition of their lands below market value to build railway lines and infrastructure. Later further accusations were made that the same land acquisitions were likely to be dropped as part of Government’s cost cutting exercise.

5. CONCLUSION

297 Community participation in the making of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy closely follows Arnstein’s ladder of participation in the sense that there was no empowerment or scope for the community groups particularly the disadvantaged to influence the Plan. While the SMS did include some form of participation and included a range of consultative mechanisms such as Expert Panels and Community Forums together with extensive advertising and exhibition procedures, the participatory planning process fell well short of the collaborative planning principles set down by Arnstein, Forester, Healey and Innes (op cit). Furthermore, the plan failed to satisfy community expectations, marginalised community groups and received a lukewarm reception from certain sectors of the business community. What we can conclude is that the key policy objectives and provisions in the SMS were largely pre-determined by government elites and that the public participatory processes were really there to give the Strategy a degree of political legitimacy. Hence public participation while now required by legislation is still trapped within the ‘top-down’ theoretical paradigm of the 1960s and 1970s and is yet to fulfil the lofty ideals expressed in the above mentioned communicative planning models that emerged from the late 1980s on. If community participation is to be taken seriously in urban planning decision-making and to be inclusive of disadvantaged and minority groups, major rethinking is required with respect to the ‘consultation’ or participation process. This will require the terms of reference to be very carefully worked out and the procedures, methods and techniques for running the actual forums to be clearly set down at the outset. While executive government by definition will always control the process, the implementation of the legislation and regulations is the responsibility of the bureaucracy ― that is, the role of expert panels, the selection of representatives from government agencies and non-government organisations, the management of community forums and the methods to limit control over the process by elite groups are in the domain of bureaucracy These are all matters that require serious consideration from the part of bureaucrats if community participation is to work effectively and to be accorded the public legitimacy it requires. Based on the above analysis, the following principles are offered for community participation to become fair and effective: 1) establish an independent agency backed by legislation to set the terms of reference for community participation; 2) accord the agency the legislative competence to guarantee participation and input from disadvantaged and minority groups; 3) provide guidelines backed by legislation for the management and organisation of community participation forums; 4) provide funding for appropriate expert input and resources to enable the participatory forums to carry out the tasks required of them. Finally this study implies that the public participation process for the SMS was still very much dominated by the interests of executive government with little real and effective input from disadvantaged and minority groups.

REFERENCES

Ananda, J. and Herath, G. (2003) The use of analytic hierarchy process into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, (5), pp. 13-26. Anderson, J. (2000) Four considerations for decentralised forest management: subsidiarity, empowerment, pluralism and social capital. In Enters, T., Durst, P. B. and Victor, M. (Eds.) Decentralisation and Devolution of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC Report No 18, Bangkok. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. In J. M. Stein (1995) (eds), Classic Reading in Urban Planning: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill Inc: New York. Australian Business Foundation (2005) In the loop. 14, p.3. Baum, H. S. (1999) Community organizations recruiting community participation: predicament in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(3), pp. 187-199. Bunker, R. and Holloway, D. (2006) How much of city of cities, a plan for Sydney's future is likely to happen. Issue paper no.2. City Future: Sydney. Cameron, J., Grant-Smith, D. and Johnston, A. (2005) Formative evaluation of improving collaborative planning: a case study at the regional scale. Australian Planner, 42(4), pp. 22-29. Carson, L., White, S., Hendriks, C. and Palmer, J. (2002) Community Consultation in Environmental Policy Making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(1), July. Castells, M. (1977) (trans.) The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. Edward Arnold: London. Chadwick, G. F. (1971) A Systems View of Planning: Towards A Theory of the Urban and Regional Process. Pergamon Press: Oxford. Chambers, R. (1995) Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In Nelson, N. and S. Wright (eds) Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. Intermediate Technology Publications:

298 London. Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman Scientific and Technical: New York. Cuthill, M. (2004) Communicative visioning: facilitating informed citizen participation in local area planning on the Gold Coast. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 427-445. Davis, J. (2005) Natural assets are priceless part of equation, The Newcastle Herald, April 2. Department of Planning (2005) City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future, Department of Planning: Sydney. Department of Planning (2004) Planning for a Better Future. Department of Planning: Sydney. Department of Planning (2004) How will the strategy be used. Accessed at h tt p ://www. m e tr o strate g y . n sw.g o v .a u / d e v / u p l o a d s / p a p e r/i n t rod u cti on /in d e x . h t m l on 23 January 2008. Durum, L. A. and Brown, K.G. (1999) Insights and applications assessing public participation in U.S. watershed planning initiatives. Society and Natural Resources, 12(5), pp. 455-467. Faludi, A. (1986) Critical rationalism and planning methodology. London: Pion. Fisher (2003) Innovations, persistence and change: reflections on the state of community forestry. In Fao, R. A. (ed) Community Forestry: Current Innovations and Experiences, RECOFTC and FAO, Bangkok, pp.16-29. Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. State University of New York: Albany. Forester J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. Faludi, A. (1973a) A Reader in Planning Theory. Pergamon Press: Oxford. Faludi, A. (1973b) (ed.) Planning theory. Pergamon Press: Oxford. Fung, A and Wright, E.O. (2003) Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso: London & New York. Gastil, J. and Levine P. (eds) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Jossey-Bass. Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D. (2007) Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management and Restoration, 8, pp. 26- 31. Habermas J. (1987 [1981]) (trans.) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. Beacon Press: Boston MA. Hall, P. (2003) Australian planning: millennium reflection. In J. Toon and J. Falk (eds) Sydney Planning or Politics: Town Planning for Sydney Region Since 1945. Planning Research Centre: Sydney. Harvey D. (1981) The Process Under Capitalism: A Framework for Analysis. In M. Dear and A. Scott (eds) Urbanisation and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. Methuen: London and New York. Healy, P. (1999) Institutional analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, pp 111-121. Hemmati, M (2002) Multi-Stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. Earthscan: London. Hillier, J. (2003) Agonizing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals can not be "real". Planning Theory, 1(2), pp. 37-59. Hsu, S. H. (2006) NIMBY opposition and solid waste incinerator siting in democratizing Taiwan. The Social Science Journal, 43, pp. 453-459. Illsely, B. M. (2003) Fair participation- a Canadian perspective. Landuse Policy. 20, pp.263-273. Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), pp. 419-436. Innes, J. E. (1996) Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), pp.460-472. Jenkins, P. (2001) Relationships between the state and civil society and their importance for sustainable development. In M. Carley, P. Jenkins and H. Smith (eds) Urban Development and Civil Society: The Role of Communities in Sustainable Cities. Earthscan Publications Ltd: London. Lowry, K., Adler, P. and Milner, N. (1997) Participating the public: group process, politics and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16, pp. 177-187.

299 McLoughlin J. B. (1969) Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. Faber and Faber :London. Margerum, R. D. (2002) Collaborative planning: overcoming obstacles during consensus building. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), pp 237-253. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995) Participation and Power. In N. Nelson and S. Wright (eds) Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. Intermediate Technology Publications: London, pp.1-18. Oakely, S. (2007) Public consultation and place-marketing in the revitalisation of the port Adelaide waterfront. Urban Policy and Research. 35(1), pp. 113- 128. Parkin, A. (1982) Governing the Cities: The Australian Experience in Perspective. The Macmillan Company of Australia Pty Ltd: Melbourne. Pavri, F. and Deshmukh, S. (2003) Institutional efficacy in resource management: temporally congruent embeddedness for forest systems of western India. Geoforum, 34, pp.71-84. Planning Institute of Australia (2004) Sydney metropolitan strategy themes and issues: submission to Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources. Planning Institute of Australia NSW Division: Sydney. Redcliff, M. (1995) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Routledge: London and New York. Ribot, J. (2003) Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: institutionalising popular inclusion. In 'Forests, Source of Life', the XII World Forestry Congress, 21-28 September, Quebec City. Ribot, J. (1996) Participation Without representation. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(3), pp.40-44. Rittel H. and Webber M.M. (1973), Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, pp. 155-69. Roberts, N. (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct participation. American Review of Public Administration. 34(4), pp. 315-353. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science Technology and Human Values. 25(1), pp. 3-9. Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Avebury: England. Sarker, A., Ross, H. and Shrestha, K. K. (2008) Common pool approach for water quality management: an Australian case study. Ecological Economics, pp 461-471. Save Our Suburb (2004) Comment on discussion paper: Sydney greater metropolitan region. Save Our Suburb: Sydney. Scondanibio, L. and Manez, G. (2005) The world commission on dams: a fundamental step towards integrated water resource management and poverty reduction? a pilot case in the lower Zambezi, Mozambique. Physics and chemistry of the earth, 30, pp. 976-983. Searle, G. (2006) Is the city of cities metropolitan strategy the answer for Sydney? Urban Policy and Research, 24(4), pp. 553-566. Shrestha, K. K. and McManus, P. (2008) The politics of community participation in natural resource management: lessons from community forestry in Nepal. Australian Forestry, 71(2), pp.135-146. Shrestha, K. K. and McManus, P. (2005) Sustaining inequity? Rethinking the history of Nepalese forest policies. In Calver et al (eds.), A Forest Conscienceness: Proceedings of 6th National Conference of the Australian Forest History Society Inc. Millpress: Rotterdam, pp. 681-691. Sydney Morning Herald (2006) Concern on city's future. Sydney Morning Herald, April 25. The Daily Telegraph (2008) Residents to sue over city planning. The Daily Telegraph, October 25. The Newcastle Herald (2005) Natural assets are priceless part of equation. The Newcastle Herald, April 2. The Warren Centre (2004) Warren centre metro strategy submission. The Warren Centre: Sydney. Tillet, U (2004) Infrastructure needed to cope with that. Sydney Morning Herald, May 27. UDIA (2004) Metropolitan strategy discussion paper: Sydney greater metropolitan region. UDIA-NSW: Sydney.

300 WCED (1987) Our common future: report of the World Commission on environment and development. Zed Books: London. Wheeler, M. (1993) Regional consensus on affordable housing: yes in my backyard?. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 12, pp. 139-149.

301 Appendix V-2:

Civic Science, Community Participation and Planning for Knowledge-Based

Development: Analysis of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy

Krishna K. Shrestha* and Zeenat Mahjabeen

Urban and Regional Planning and Policy, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Fax: +61-2-9351-3031 E-mai l: k rishna.shres t h a @s y dn e y . ed u . au E-mai l: z m a h33 23@u n i.sydney.e d u.au *Corresponding author

Abstract: Participation of non-scientists in decision-making about policy issues, often referred to as ‘civic science’, is now seen to be a source of valuable knowledge for urban development. Yet, the question of whether and how knowledge with local communities is obtained and realised in urban development is largely unresolved. This paper aims to investigate the opportunities for community participation in urban policies – a vital step to realise community knowledge – within the context of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. Results indicate that there are limited opportunities for local communities to effectively participate as contributors of knowledge. The paper advances the argument about what has been characterised as ‘lost opportunity’ – the failure of the government to effectively engage with local communities and to realise the benefit from a civic science. The paper highlights the need to reframe the relationship between citizens, policy makers and scientists to bring about effective community participation that promotes knowledge-based development.

Keywords: knowledge-based urban development; KBUD; urban planning; community participation; Sydney Metropolitan Strategy; SMS; civic science; Sydney, Australia.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Shrestha, K.K. and Mahjabeen, Z. (2011) ‘Civic science, community participation and planning for knowledge-based development: analysis of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy’, Int. J. Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.412–432.

Biographical notes: Krishna K. Shrestha is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Planning and Management at the University of Sydney, Australia. His core interest is in the interplay between equity and collective action in environmental governance and climate change adaptation. His research gives particular attention to the ways in which problems of environment, development and justice are linked to systems of social hierarchy and political and economic control which affect poor and minority groups. Most of his work has been based on empirical social science research, particularly in Nepal and Australia.

302 Zeenat Mahjabeen is a PhD candidate at the Urban and Regional Planning and Policy, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia. She is currently on study leave from the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh where she is an Assistant Professor. Her core research interest is in community participation and social justice in urban and regional planning and policy in Australia and Bangladesh.

1 Introduction

Knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) has emerged as a new field of study and practise to address many issues of urban economic, social and environmental development (Yigitcanlar, et al., 2008). Notions like ‘knowledge asset’ and ‘intellectual capital’ are fundamental aspects of KBUD (e.g., Gambarotto, et al., 2011), but the questions about whose knowledge drives the development, and how the knowledge is produced and used are still contested. The existing literature indicates that KBUD draws mainly on the knowledge of scientists and professionals, but underutilises the knowledge of local communities (see Ergazakis et al., 2007). Community knowledge represents, however, an important component of knowledge base on development issues and is highly useful for KBUD. Learning from communities can improve understanding of local conditions and provide a productive context for development activities designed to help the communities. Knowledge of community provides the basis for problem-solving strategies for local communities and can help improve the impact and sustainability of development. To this end, our understanding of the opportunities for communities to participate in, and contribute knowledge into, the urban policies for KUBD is still insufficient. The main premise of this paper is, therefore, the idea of participation outlined in the ‘KnowCis Model’ of Ergazakis et al. (2007) which is an important element for KUBD, and that the vision of a truly KBUD will be realised only when the communities of the cities participate as both contributors and users of knowledge. The participation of local communities to provide knowledge into policies, otherwise informed only by formal science, loosely known as civic science (Lewenstein, 2004), has become one of the crucial elements to knowledge-based planning and development. Civic science, which is used interchangeably with citizen, participatory, stakeholder and lay knowledge, has been defined as the efforts of scientists to reach out to the public (Clark and Illaman, 2001), and also a science that is developed and enacted by the citizens who are not trained as conventional scientists (Irwin, 1995). While there has been some disagreement with respect to the question if citizens can, or should be able to assist scientists and policy makers to develop and implement policies, civic science has been justified for three principal reasons, viz.: a to enhance public understanding and mitigate public disenchantment with scientific expertise b to include local knowledge understanding and addressing the complexity of social and environmental problems c to extend the principles of democracy to the production of scientific knowledge (Backstrand, 2003).

The important role of civic science in policies and practises was highlighted by Agenda 21 in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and reaffirmed by the 2003 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Community participation is fundamental to civic science. Participation brings civil society (or communities) to the heart of the decision making process (Arnstein, 1969; Nelson and Wright, 1995). There is now a broad consensus that community participation is a key element in achieving sustainable development (Redcliff, 2005; Dressler, et al.,

303 2010). When community groups are actively engaged in planning processes, plans are likely to be more closely matched with stakeholders’ needs and interests, motivating them to help achieve socially and ecologically beneficial outcomes (Shrestha and McManus, 2008; Dressler et al., 2010). An underlying assumption of community participation is that individuals and groups will participate to provide knowledge and skills in decisions that affect them. There are, however, concerns raised about the effectiveness of participation. It is argued that the participation is a complex process and affected by the spatial and temporal dynamics of diverse communities (Gurran, 2007; Mahjabeen et al., 2009; Dressler et al., 2010). Effective participation is difficult to achieve in a given time, resource and performance criteria of bureaucratic institutions (Shrestha and McManus, 2008). A major problem lies in the assumption that policy makers create opportunities for communities to participate because they value and appreciate community knowledge (Fischer, 2000). Instead, scientists and policy makers may actually resist or just provide lip service to communities. Effective participation can actually challenge the conventional nexus between formal science and policy (Backstrand, 2003; Fischer, 2000). There is now a growing number of calls for analysing the effectiveness of community participation in terms of the availability (or lack of) opportunities for communities to participate in policies and practises (Long and Long, 1992; Lane and McDonald, 2005; Dressler et al., 2010). The study presented here is an attempt to investigate the opportunities for participation of local communities to offer knowledge into urban planning that promotes KBUD, within the context of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (SMS). We do this by asking the following research questions:

304 a What are the opportunities for community participation in the NSW planning policies and legislation? b Are these opportunities sufficient and suitable for effective participation of local communities to occur? c What are the implications of this study to urban planning that promotes KBUD? This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we review key concepts of community participation in the context of urban planning and KBUD, followed by the identification of issues of participation in urban planning and development. In Section 3 we outline methodological strategy, case studies and data collection. Section 4 presents results from the analysis of SMS to examine the opportunities for community participation. In Section 5 we discuss the reasons and implications of findings. Section 6 concludes by summarising key points and their theoretical, policy and practical implications to improve knowledge-based urban planning.

2 Community participation and planning for KBUD

Community participation is considered to be a fundamental element for urban planning and sustainable urban development. According to Agenda 21, one of the fundamental prerequisites to advance sustainable development agendas is to foster broad public participation in decision-making – “… decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work” [UNCED, (1992), p.23.2]. The Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’, places participation at the heart of sustainable development, viz:

“…the recognition of traditional rights must go hand in hand with measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility in resource use. And this recognition must also give local communities a decisive voice in the decisions about resource use in their area.” [WCED, (1987), pp.115–116]

Community participation can bring about knowledge with communities into the policy forefront that is of critical value to KBUD. Indeed, knowledge of communities is one of the central concerns for KBUD in three major ways. Firstly, KBUD is an economic development strategy, which includes technical knowledge, market knowledge, financial knowledge, and human knowledge in the form of skills and creativity of communities, within an economic model (Lever, 2002). Secondly, it indicates the intention to increase the skills and knowledge of residents as a means for human and social development (Gonzalez et al., 2005). Thirdly, it builds a strong spatial relationship among urban development clusters such as developing financial, social and human capital systems, and providing quality life and place (Carrillo, 2004; Yigitcanlar et al., 2008). A growing body of literature highlights a range of areas of KBUD which highlights community knowledge and well being such as the quality and stock of social and human capital (Clarke, 2011), knowledge-based economy (Carrillo, 2006), knowledge society (Mort and Roan, 2003) and creative class (Florida, 2005). As cities and their economies move towards to become more competitive, democratic and globalised, harnessing community knowledge into urban development has become crucial aspects of success to achieve sustainable cities (see McManus, 2004).The vision of a truly KBUD will be only realised when the people of the cities participate as both contributors and users of knowledge (Castells, 2000).

305 The success (or failure) of community participation in KBUD depends largely on how community participation is seen and conducted. Arnstein (1969) produced a seminal work which critiqued and defined participation in terms of power1 relationships. She developed a ‘ladder of participation’ which defined different degrees of involvement of participants in relation to the delegation of decision-making power (Arnstein, 1969). While Arnstein herself admits that the ladder is a simplified model of participation, it precisely captures an important point that many people can be disempowered in decision-making processes. Nelson and Wright (1995, pp.7–8) identify two types of participation: ‘participation as a means’ – i.e., a process of achieving the aims of a project more efficiently, effectively or cheaply, and ‘participation as ends’ – i.e., a process of giving some degree of control of a development agenda to a community or a group. In an ideal participatory planning process, participation can be considered as an end. In practise, however, it is generally seen as a means to achieve certain prescribed outcomes. While Arnstein’s model is widely critised, it continues to be used widely notably by International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) ‘spectrum of public participation’ (Figure 1). The arrow indicates the increasing level of power the public has in each process.

Figure 1 Arnstein’s ladder of participation and IAP2 spectrum of participation (see online version for colours)

Source: Arnstein (1969, p.217) and IAP 2 (2007)

Participation of stakeholders in the urban planning and urban development became a central tenet of the communicative planning theories that emerged in the late 1980s and 1990s. Drawing on Habermas’ (1987) theory of communicative action, prominent writers in this field were Healey (2004, 2005) and Forester (1989) who attempted to interpret and apply communicative action theory to planning decision-making focusing on ways to account for the language of practical conversation and communication. Forester (1993) analysed the effects of political and social influence on social action and showed how planners can modify the exertion of political power in planning and development processes. He argued that planners can use ‘information’ as a source of power and by proper use of it, they also can empower citizens through democratic planning processes (Forester, 1989). In a similar way Sager (1994) used Habermas’ critical theory of communicative action to examine how mainstream planning theories are related to the concept of power and conflict. Healey (1999) further refined communicative planning theory in relation to societal and institutional capacity where she defined institutional capacity as a combination of social, intellectual and political capital. Healey (1999) believed that as this capital grows and spreads through collaboration and networks, the ‘civic capacity’ of a society will grow and participants will be more confident with ability and competencies to solve their problems.

306 The proponents of active participation of stakeholders in urban planning and development argue that sharing information and interaction among participants creates new ideas, leads to more creative solutions, builds social capital and reduces racial tensions and social conflicts (Ananda and Herath, 2003; Baum, 1999; Margerum, 2002). Innes (1996) advances the concept of consensus building within the process of collaborative decision-making. However, this position has been criticised on the ground that equal participation of various stakeholders with different interests and levels of power and authority is misleading (Hillier, 2003). Flyvbjerg (2002) argues how even within collaborative processes, power inevitably shapes the rationality used in decision-making processes leading to the conclusion that power is knowledge as opposed to the commonly held belief that knowledge is power. Although there is little consensus on the principles and practical aspects of participation, effective community participation is essentially a process by which communities share decision-making power to be able to offer valuable knowledge and skills into the policies (Nelson and Wright, 1995). There is a growing body of literature showing that when community participation is effective, it can promote sustainable urban planning and development by bringing together information, knowledge and skills from communities in a way that will improve the outcomes (Margerum,2002), achieve mutual learning and the personal growth of participants (Sager, 1994; Healey, 1999), create a sense of ownership over outcomes (Healey, 2005), and generate agreement over solutions and increase support for implementation (ibid). The participation of stakeholders can also be considered as a vehicle to bring about increased democratisation of the decision making process (Sager 1994; Healey, 2004; Dressler et al., 2010) and a beacon of hope to solve planning and development problems (Jenkins, 2001).Community participation is said to be effective when the process brings out the representation of the cross-section of the communities (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999), there is sufficient, accessible and authentic information (Forester, 1989), the processes engage community groups at the beginning of the process (Durum and Brown, 1999), involves a deliberative face to face dialogue (Friedmann, 1973) and provides a carefully facilitated meeting and group process (Healey, 2004; Lowry et al., 1997). Engaging community groups in an interactive and parallel process of information collection, analysis, sorting, choosing or monitoring throughout the planning process leads to a more effective participation of communities (Healey, 2005). The central issue here is about the effectiveness of community participation which determines the quality and quantity of community knowledge to inform policies about KBUD. The above synthesis highlights the beneficial outcomes and process related issues of effective participation. However, there is a noticeable gap in the literature in relation to the opportunities required for communities to be able to participate in the first place. Given the mostly rule-based democratic societies in which we live today, the opportunity is generally created (or constrained) by the government institutions. However, government does not have explicit policies or resources issues – to include their input into KBUD. Thus plans are produced without local input which is cruel to local realities (Forsyth, 2003). The government policies continue to be informed solely by the orthodox science and dominated by powerful politicians and senior bureaucrats with the principal focus on pre-determined standards, targets, time-frames and economic imperatives. The participation of community groups is usually submerged in the culture of powerful political structures and institutions where community inputs can all too often amount to little more than tokenism where decisions are made through an established culture of power and control (Mahjabeen et al., 2009). There are increasing calls for the government to create diverse and resource-backed opportunities to bring forward the knowledge and skills from the cross-section of the communities (Cernea, 1993; Gray et al., 2001; Mahjabeen et al., 2009). Inspired by these imperatives the current study investigates the opportunity for community participation with a case study of SMS.

3 Research method

307 The research employs an in-depth case study analysis as a methodological strategy. The focus of the research is on the policy analysis and the opportunity for community participation in the development of SMS. NSW has experienced a significant level of planning reform since 2004. SMS can be seen as one of several comprehensive KBUD strategies intended to guide the future development of Australia’s largest city over the next 25years (2005–2030). A fundamental element in SMS and in the planning reform process is that government planning and decision-making must have effective participation of communities to achieve sustainable urban development. The study of opportunities for communities to participate in SMS is particularly important given that Sydney is one of the most socio-economically and culturally diverse cities in Australia. This research is based on critical analysis of relevant literature and policy documents, 21 semi-structured interviews (SSI) and 167 returned mailed-out questionnaire (out of the 630 sent = 26%). Data were collected from the internet, census materials, records and publications by individuals and organisations. The data were analysed according to the category and themes using SPSS and NVivio. The research employed a triangulation method to establish the validity and veracity of the data sources in order to enhance the value and accuracy of the study.

3.1 SMS: a case study

SMS titled ‘City of Cities’ was launched by the Department of Planning on 22 April 2004. It was introduced in 2005 by the NSW government to secure Sydney’s place in the global economy by promoting and managing growth. It is a strategic document and covers a geographic area of about 10,000 square kilometres which includes 43 local municipalities (see Figure 2). A principal objective is to bring state government, local government and the broader community together to discuss, review and make decisions to guide the future of Sydney’s future development. Community groups’ participation in the preparation of the SMS is identified as a key element in the implementation and governance section of the Sub-regional planning and strategy review and updates. Currently, ten Sub-regional Strategies have been prepared by the Department of Planning in consultation with local government, community groups and other stakeholders. These Sub-regional Strategies were put on public exhibition throughout 2007 and 2008. The intention is to implement the SMS through these Sub-regional Strategies which in turn give effect to the blueprint of the Metropolitan Strategy in the local level planning instruments and action statements (Department of Planning, 2005). The Sub-regional plans have been adopted on the basis of target sets in SMS. Local environmental plans (LEPs) at the municipal level must be consistent with the sub-regional Strategies and the Metropolitan Strategy. In December 2010, the NSW Government released its Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036. This document supersedes the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031, which was released in December 2005. This Metropolitan Plan claims to have incorporated public feedback through the first five-yearly review of the Metropolitan Strategy to form a single, integrated Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (NSW Department of Planning, 2010).

308 Figure 2 Geographical area covered by ‘city of cities’ (see online version for colours)

Source: http: / / ww w. m etros t rateg y. n s w. g o v . a u (accessed on 23 November 2010)

4 Result

4.1 Opportunities for community participation in NSW

State governments in Australia have the primary responsibility of urban policy and land development decisions in their respective States. As such, there is no over-arching Australian federal policy that directly influences urban planning and development practise in NSW (and other States). Under the Section 51 of the Constitution, however, the ‘external affair power’ allows the Australian Government to influence the environmental policy of Australia by participating in international treaties, conventions and agreements. These international agreements have some implications to urban planning and development such as the World Heritage Convention and UN Convention on Climate change and Agenda 21. The single most significant international agreement, in which Australia is a signatory, is the UN’s Agenda 21, which directly affects community participation in planning and development (Gurran, 2007). Local government is not specifically mentioned in the Australian Constitution. It belongs to the State government and it is to derive authority from a State Government Act. In NSW the Local Government Act (1993) provides the scope and nature of authorities and responsibilities for local government across the State. So long as local governments act within the provisions of the Local Government Act, the State Government would be unlikely to interfere (Harding, 1998). Local governments are given a range of duties and authorities by the State including the role for town planning at the local levels. However, all the States and Territories in Australia now have principal legislation for land use planning and development. In NSW, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act 1979) outlines provisions for the local, state and regional level of land use planning in NSW.

309 Institutionalisation of town planning and development in NSW started in mid 19th century. It was first introduced through the establishment of ‘Town and Country Planning Advisory Committee’ under Local Government (Town County and Planning) Amendment Act, 1945 (Toon and Falk, 2003). Public participation was not the requirement. In the neo-liberal era of 1980s government was under pressure to control economic market, private development and land use. In this backdrop, in 1979 EP&A Act 1979 was developed and a special appeal court ‘The Land and Environmental Court’ was created (Gleeson and Low, 2000). Some form of community participation was first formally required under this legislation. Although the Act brought a significant advancement in redistribution of power between State and Local governments, there was a range of discontents in terms of its lack of transparency and mechanism to achieve a meaningful participation of communities (Toon and Falk, 2003). Another criticism of NSW planning system was its provision of insufficient opportunities for genuine community participation in planning. In response to these, since 1990s NSW planning system has undergone a substantial change called ‘Planning Reform’. One of the principal goals of the reform was to ensure sustainable economic investment by removing red-tapes and to provide genuine opportunities for communities to contribute knowledge and skills to government policies and to deliver positive social, economic and environmental change (Department of Planning, 2005; Gurran, 2007). As part of the reform, SMS 2005 (and now the Metropolitan Plan 2036), was adopted by the Department of Planning to ensure Sydney’s sustainable growth. Currently, the Government is undertaking a review of the planning system and is expected to announce the changes in the next 12 to 18 months.

4.1.1 NSW EP&A Act 1979

Community participation has been identified as one of the main objectives of the EP&A Act 1979 under Section 5 (Department of Planning, 2011a, 2011b). The Act has highlighted the need for an increased opportunity for public participation. This is a major shift from traditional policy provisions. In order to implement this policy intention, three main planning instruments are put in place:

a State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

b LEPs

c Development Control Plans (DCPs) under the Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.1.1.1 State environmental planning policies A provision for community consultation is required under SEPPs. However, the consultation is required only after the preparation of a draft by the Department of Planning, not during the process of drafting. Moreover, community consultation is conducted only in the form of exhibition and submission by invitation. No other opportunity is available. The purpose of consultation is only for Minister’s consideration who can include (or exclude) the community inputs. There is no provision for feedback to communities. The opportunities are not intended to share power with communities and obtain knowledge from the cross section of the communities. The purpose of participation, as Nelson and Wright (1995) succinctly argued, is seen as a means to obtain support from communities to implement government decisions.

4.1.1.2 Local environmental plans

310 LEPs are the main planning instrument at the local government level. The Minister retains the authority to consider whether to proceed with the proposed LEPs and determines the type of community consultation in ‘gateway determination’. In addition to this, the Minister has the authority to overrule local councils (s53 EP&A Act 1979). Community consultation is required for the creation of LEPs as identified in the Act. Consultation happens in the form of written submission determined by ‘Gateway Determination’ and public hearing if relevant authorities consider it to be necessary. It is not clear on what basis community consultation is determined by a ‘gateway determination’. The opportunities for communities to participate are only through submissions. A report on submissions is publicly available only if it is specified in the submission. There is no minimum plan exhibition period specified and therefore the timing for submission is unclear. There is no option for face-to-face meeting or public hearing, nor is there a provision for providing feedback to communities. The opportunity for community input in LEPs is very limited and controlled by Minister, bureaucrats and professionals.

4.1.1.3 Development control plans

Sometimes LEPs are supported by secondary documents and DCPs which provide more prescriptive and further details on development controls relating to specific development types. However they do not constitute a statutory planning instrument. There are some opportunities for community to participate by responding to the plan during the period of exhibition. Sometimes, invitation of submissions is also sent to selected community members under the provisions of Environmental Planning Assessment Regulation 2000. The summary of the opportunities available to communities to participate is outlined in Table 1.

4.2 Sydney Metropolitan Strategy

311 As mentioned above, community participation is considered to be fundamental in the development of SMS. Community consultation was conducted with experts, local government, business representatives and community groups. The submissions were also invited through e-mail, postal mail or fax. A detailed information about SMS was not readily available unless communities would access information from the SMS website. A telephone number was provided to communities to contact the Planning Department. The submissions were open for two months. Community Forums were the only avenues where communities had direct opportunity to participate. Around 1000 people were selected in a random basis and are reported to have taken part in a series of community forums in late 2004 (Department of Planning, 2005, p.16).On the other hand, the submission was the only opportunity for communities to provide inputs into the Sub- regional strategies. In any case, there is no published report about the forum or the summary of the submissions to check if these submissions and community forums have made any difference to the final plan. This highlights the issue of control, transparency and accountability of policy makers.

After five years of implementation of SMS, a scheduled review was completed in 2010. Stakeholders were consulted on this review process in two meetings attended mainly by a selected group of people from the Commonwealth, State and local government, non- government organisations, planning profession and the development industry. It is worthy to note here that the attendance in these meetings was only by invitation. A formal submission was invited from the communities through website, postal mail and e-mail. These arrangements indicate that the consultation process was driven by the bureaucrats to obtain input only from people who are better informed about SMS activities, ignoring the value of input from the general public. Community participation opportunities in SMS are summarised in Table 2. The above policy analysis indicates that there are some opportunities for communities to participate in SMS, but the design and process of consultation was driven by the Department of Planning staff. The purpose and delivery of consultation was not to share power with communities, or to obtain knowledge from the cross-section of the communities. Policy makers and professionals do not seem to value the community inputs.

Figure 3a Educational background of respondents (left) [and Sydney population (right)] (see online version for colours)

312 Source: Authors’ Questionnaire Survey in 2010 and ABS (2007)

Figure 3b Income distribution of respondents (left) [and Sydney population (right)] (see online version for colours)

Source: Authors’ Questionnaire Survey in 2010 and ABS (2007)

Figure 3c Ancestry of participants (left) [and Sydney population (right)] (see online version for colours)

Source: Authors’ Questionnaire Survey in 2010 and ABS (2007)

4.3 Evidence from field research

Findings from research reveal that community groups who participated in SMS are interested to provide inputs into the future development of Sydney. However, a closer look of the composition of participants reveals that they represent only the educated [Figure 3(b)], high-income earner groups [Figure 3(c)] and powerful groups [Figure 3(a)]2. Clearly this failed to represent the cross-section of Sydney’s population3. The process excluded many people to contribute input into SMS. Then, an important question is why so many people were left out, as one respondent said:

“… The timeline was very, very tight and the resources were quite limited. So in terms of the process, there probably wasn’t a very strong focus on making sure that whoever came to the forum was seen as a generally representative cross sample of that local community.” (A planning expert, 2009)

Figure 4 Reasons for respondents to participate in community forums (see online version for colours)

313 Source: Author’s interview in 2010 Investigation on why government created the opportunity and why community groups utilised the opportunity reveals a number of issues which differ within two groups. For the government, opportunities for community participation were to confirm assumption, inform people, obtain feedback and increase awareness, whereas for communities, the main reasons are to protect the environment and provide knowledge (Figure 4). Respondents who participated in the process expressed their views in the Community Forums, but they were not satisfied with the decision making process because the majority of respondents did not feel to have made meaningful impacts into the final decision [do not know – (32%), very poor (19%) or poor (11%) (Figure 5)].

Figure 5 Respondents’ views about the impact of their participation to the final decision (see online version for colours)

Source: Authors’ Questionnaire Survey in 2010 When asked about the purpose and process of community consultation employed by the government, a common theme emerged from the study was that the government agencies do not really want to understand the needs and expectations of a wide range of communities. Instead the agencies implement the consultation in such a way that helps them to talk to people they think they are useful for them, as one respondent said:

“…the government payslip service to communities. Consultation is not really a process wanting to understand what the broader community wants. Instead the staff targets a select group of individuals to get responses they want.” (A local government employee, 2009)

The reasons behind the targeted approach to select individuals from the community were related to time and resources of the agencies, but the key reason was the capacity of respondents to provide useful knowledge to the agencies staff. One respondent said:

“I’d have to say that not all community members are equally useful in the decision-making process. It is not to say that all community members ar not important, but it is only few individuals who can provide useful scientific knowledge to policy issues.” (A State government staff member, 2009)

The selected approach to gather community knowledge made respondents who participated in the SMS process to become very unhappy. Even the staff members of government who participated in community forums were unhappy due to the ignorance and the top-down approach of the planning professionals. One respondent said:

314 “Sometimes I get the impression that they’re just ignoring what we say to them really, and that they say they want to work collaboratively, but then their actions don’t prove that.” (Senior manager of a local council, 2009)

The lack of accountability among decision makers and professionals was one of the major themes emerged from SSIs and questionnaire survey. As one respondent said: “I remember the processes, sort of sitting around having the workshops, but I haven’t really seen any of the materialsor the outcomes of it. So to me, it was sort of very much a sort of one-off.” (CEO of a research organisation, 2009)

Policy makers and professionals were seen to be bias towards certain sections of the community, as one respondent said:

“… As I said the government seems to be more focused on listening to what the development sector says. So it needs to be more balance so that the community can see that their issues are being addressed. They just need more from local to state government and the Department of Planning, more feedback and they need to give us their reasons why they make their decisions.” (Staff from a local government, 2009)

Despite all the issues, the majority of respondents are still interested to participate in the future processes (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Respondents’ intention for future participation (see online version for colours)

Source: Authors’ Questionnaire Survey in 2010

5 Discussion

The analysis of above findings indicates that NSW planning policies for urban development have created a very limited opportunity for communities to participate in the planning and development process. These opportunities are universal, implemented in haste and have ignored the diversity of communities. These limited opportunities were mainly to seek comments after the draft is prepared (not for the draft preparation), and are often contingent upon the consideration of the Minister and experts. Community groups, who participated in the forums, were from elite groups of the society. Many respondents were not satisfied with the process because they found it to be driven by bureaucrats, who do not value the communities. There was no feedback given to communities. Clearly, the existing opportunities are not sufficient and suitable to bring about an effective participation of communities as contributors and users of knowledge about policy issues as envisaged by Lewenstein (2004).

315 An important question then to emerge is why the opportunity was so limited. Reasons for limited opportunities may be due to resources constraints, time, interest, capacity, skills and expertise with communities and professionals. However, one key reason why the opportunity for participation was limited was because the bureaucrats and experts were the driver of the process. The findings indicated that the Department of Planning controlled the nature, frequency and process of the community consultation. There are three key reasons for such control. First, it was a pragmatic necessity for the Department, which is required to apply uniform legislative guidelines. Second, the professional staff may have controlled the process to achieve required target within time limits and resources constraints. Third, the control may be rooted in the culture and structure of the planning bureaucracy because despite the change in policy intentions, there were no significant changes in the conventionally trained planning staff and upwardly accountable and target-oriented bureaucracy with a priority on formal science-focussed decision- making process. Then, it was the matter of necessity and legislative and institutional requirements that made the Department of Planning’s control over the design and delivery of the limited opportunity for community participation. The underlying issue here is essentially about the custodial culture and scientific tradition of the planning bureaucracy that captures the policy and legislation, rather than the problems of the creating opportunities for effective community participation. The limited opportunity for community participation implies that valuable community knowledge is not obtained for the urban policy which can promote inclusive KBUD. Clearly the benefit from civic science as outlined by Backstrand (2003) is not realised. At least three implications can be drawn from this. Firstly, the planning bureaucracy still lacks respect and confidence about the capacity of communities to provide meaningful inputs into the policy. With the existing bureaucratic structure and tradition, it is unable or unwilling to receive knowledge and information from local communities. Secondly, the institutional structures of agencies, their visions and working styles, are not compatible to, and sympathetic with, community structures and knowledge base. However, the community knowledge may be more suited to local conditions than scientific knowledge. Soussan et al (1995) viewed the lack of attempt to respect and recognise the community knowledge as a lost opportunity. The knowledge base for planning must integrate both community and scientific knowledge, which enhance each other as stakeholders seek to understand complex problems and to find effective solutions. Thirdly, the agencies often make wrong assumptions about the nature of the community from which the knowledge is obtained. They aim to obtain from, and transferring knowledge to communities having a common interest and that community will passively take up whatever is supplied. Unlike the conventional wisdom of planned intervention, communities are not the passive recipients of development (Long and Long, 1992). The interests of the community may be diverse and it is therefore wrong to assume that there is a presence of a clear community of interest. Given the above analysis, one question emerges; should we aim for creating opportunities for communities to participate in the urban policy and development process? Findings indicate strong interest of communities to participate in the policy and development process. The underlying rationale behind such interest is the fact that the community groups have something to offer and gain from the development. Efforts from the community groups are feasible to achieve, and is important for improving and informing policies that can promote KBUD. However, communities are persistently frustrated by top-down and unaccountable bureaucrats. Communities may be inclined to disregard legislation set in place by the State, even though the consequences of being penalised are substantial. Not recognising the valuable knowledge and efforts of the communities may induce policy failure and affect the stability and sustainability of the policy and development process. There are some of the important practical and ethical reasons to create more opportunities for community participation.

316 Aiming for better opportunities for effective participation of communities necessitates changes to the institutions, planning and development system if they are not to de-value the knowledge of the communities. In part, these changes might emerge from within the planning and development bureaucracy. If the assumption is that a version of the planning system and development practise will and should remain intact, how might it be reshaped to capture the knowledge of diverse communities in society? In principle, the idea would be to create a set of synergies such that communities gain from a broader system of KBUD. For this, there is a need for mechanisms to improve the capacity and attitude of professionals and communities. It is important to note that even if knowledge is obtained from communities and is internalised into decisions, there is a problem in the nature of existing knowledge and the issues of power involved in it. Most efforts in planning and development have treated the problems too much as a matter of knowledge, while real barriers to more fundamental progress in knowledge-based development are power and control issues. Clearly, the excessive focus on knowledge alone is not sufficient to address diverse problems of development. Issues of power are more often central than the issue of knowledge.

6 Conclusions

The shift of planning policies in NSW shows that policy makers and scientists continue to control the decisions. Such decisions are informed by the knowledge produced by professionals and scientists. Knowledge with communities and civic science is ignored. While the current policy attempts to provide some opportunity for community to participate and contribute knowledge into planning policies and development practise, the actual practise fails to do so. This failure highlights the need to look at the issues of power as central to decision making about policy and development issues. Clearly the restricted thinking embedded within the bureaucratic culture and scientific tradition continues to inform policies about KBUD, ignoring the relevance of civic science. The restricted thinking is linked to the orthodox science which provides knowledge and skills to facilitate narrow understanding of planning and development problems and solutions. The policy makers failed to appreciate wider social, economic and political relevance of community knowledge, problems and solutions. The conventional power relations remain unchanged, as the traditional bureaucratic policy making style maintains status quo. Therefore, there is an urgent need for reframing the relationship between citizens, scientists and policy makers to promote knowledge-based urban planning practise. While we do not assert that improved policies may be devised and KBUD is promoted if community knowledge is obtained, a useful way to improve policy and development outcomes would be to realise that the community knowledge is important to complement the scientific knowledge. The reframing should aim at improving the policy and development practises by providing a suitable and sufficient opportunity for community participation to occur. The restricted thinking of a narrow focus on the scientists and professionals should be modified so that social goals such as participation are paramount and that knowledge from the orthodox science is used to promote such social goals. This may however be controversial because it challenges the structures of power and privilege of the scientists, experts and planning professionals. Further, it may be upsetting for the traditional planning and development agencies as it challenges long- held bureaucratic practises and processes. Nevertheless, an analysis of planning history and current development practises suggest that it is overdue to question policy assumptions and to set agendas, with which the NSW planning policy and development practise can be advanced. We offer following specific recommendations based on this study:

a planning policies about urban development do not only need to clearly reflecting the intent of the overarching policies, they need to provide (with resources) specific guidelines to implement them in practise

b there is a need for a broad range of opportunities to be created/implemented and that in order to bring about the representation of diverse communities, a targeted approach needs to be implemented

317 c clearly, there is a top-down approach in decision-making with little accountability to communities. Participants must be given feedback on what happened with their inputs

d communities and professionals need to be re-educated so that their attitude, capacity and interests for participation are increased.

References Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. (1999) ‘Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation’, World Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.629–649. Ananda, J. and Herath, G. (2003) ‘The use of analytic hierarchy process into regional forest planning’, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.13–26. Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, in Stein, J. (1995) (Ed.): Classic Reading in Urban Planning: An Introduction, pp.357–375, McGraw-Hill, New York. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2007) ‘Community Profile Series’ No. 2001.0–2006, available at h ttp//www.censusdata.a b s.gov .au (accessed on 24 May 2011). Backstrand, B. (2003) ‘Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.24–41. Baum, H. (1999) ‘Community organizations recruiting community participation: predicament in planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.187–199. Carrillo, F. (2004) ‘Capital cities: a taxonomy of capital accounts of knowledge cities’, Journal of Knowledge Development, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.28–46. Carrillo, F. (Ed.) (2006) Knowledge Cities, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York. Castells, M. (2000) ‘Urban sustainability in the information age’, Cities, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.118–122. Cernea, M. (1993) ‘The sociologist’s approach to sustainable development’, Finance and Development, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.11–13. Clark, F. and Illman, D.L. (2001) ‘Dimensions of civic science: introductory essay’, Science Communication, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.5–27. Clarke, T. (2001) ‘The knowledge economy’, Education and Training, Vol. 43, Nos. 4–5, pp.189–196. Department of Planning (2005) City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future, Department of Planning, NSW, Sydney. Department of Planning (2010) Metropolitan Plan for 2036, Sydney, NSW Department of Planning, Sydney. Department of Planning (2011a) ‘Environmental planning assessment Act 1979, No. 2003’, available at h ttp://www.au s tlii.e d u.au/au/legis/n s w/ (accessed on 30 August 2011). Department of Planning (2011b) ‘Environmental planning assessment regulation Act 2000, available at h ttp://www.legislati o n.nsw.gov.a u / (accessed on 30 August 2011). Dressler, W., Buscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C., McCarthy, J. and Shrestha, K.K. (2010) ‘From hope to crisis and back again? A critical genealogy of the global CBNRM narrative’, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.5–15. Durum, L.A. and Brown, K.G. (1999) ‘Insights and applications assessing public participation in U.S. watershed planning initiatives’, Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.455–467. Ergazakis, K., Ergazakis, E., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2007) ‘Knowledge cities: the future of cities in the knowledge-based economy’, Conference on Innovation in Information Technology, 18–20 November, pp.238–242, Dubai. Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts and the Environment, The Politics of Local Knowledge, Duke University Press, Durham and London. Florida, R. (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class, Harper Collins, London. Flyvbjerg, B. (2002) ‘Bringing power to planning research: one researcher’s praxis story’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.353–366. Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice, State University of New York, Albany. Forsyth, T. (2003) Critical Political Ecology, Routledge, London. Friedmann, J. (1973) Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning, Doubleday, New York. Gambarotto, F., Bolisani, E. and Scarso, E. (2011) ‘Mapping knowledge territories for development policies’, International Journal of Knowledge-based Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.16–33. Gleeson, B. and Low, N. (Eds.) (2000) Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas, Allen and Unwin, Melbourne.

318 Gonzalez, M., Alvardo, J. and Martinez, S. (2005) ‘A compilation of resources on knowledge cities and knowledge-based development’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp.107–127. Gray, G., Enzer, M. and Kusel, J. (2001) ‘Understanding community-based forest management: an editorial synthesis’, in Gray, G., Enzer, M. and Kusel, J. (Eds.): Understanding Community-Based Forest Ecosystem Management, pp.1–23, Hawarth Press, New York. Gurran, N. (2007) Australian Urban Land Use planning: Introducing Statutory Planning Practice in New South Wales, Sydney University Press, Sydney. Habermas, J. (1987 [1981]) (trans.) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System, Beacon Press, Boston. Harding, R. (Ed.) (1998) Environmental Decision-Making, The Federation Press, Sydney. Healey, P. (1999) ‘Institutional analysis, communicative planning and shaping places’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.111–121. Healey, P. (2004) ‘Institutional analysis, communicative planning and shaping places’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 19, No. 2., pp.111–121. Healey, P. (2005) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Hillier, J. (2003) ‘Agonizing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals can not be ‘real’’, Planning Theory, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.37–59. Innes, J. (1996) ‘Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal’, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp.460–472. International Association for Public Participation (IAP 2) Australia (2007) ‘IAP2 public participation spectrum’, available at htt p ://www.iap2.org.a u / (accessed on 13 August 2010). Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Routledge, London and New York. Jenkins, P. (2001) ‘Relationships between the state and civil society and their importance for sustainable development’, in Carley, M., Jenkins, P. and Smith, H. (Eds.): Urban Development and Civil Society: The Role of Communities in Sustainable Cities, pp.175–191, Earthscan Publications, London. Lane, M. and McDonald, G. (2005) ‘Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.709–731. Lever, W. (2002) ‘Correlating the knowledge-base of cities with economic growth’, Urban Studies’, Vol. 39, Nos. 5–6, pp.859–870. Lewenstein, B. (2004) ‘What does citizen science accomplish?’, 8 June, CNRS Colloquium, Paris. Long, N. and Long, A. (Eds.) (1992) Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, Routledge, London. Lowry, K., Adler, P. and Milner, N. (1997) ‘Participating the public: group process, politics and planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 16, No. 16, pp.177–187. Mahjabeen, Z., Shrestha, K. and Dee, J. (2009) ‘Rethinking community participation in urban planning: the role of disadvantaged groups in Sydney Metropolitan Strategy’, Australasian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.45–64. Margerum, R. (2002) ‘Collaborative planning: overcoming obstacles during consensus building’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.237–253. McManus, P. (2004) Vortex Cities to Sustainable Cities: Australia’s Urban Challenge, UNSW Press, Sydney. Mort, G. and Roan, A. (2003) ‘Smart state: Queensland in the knowledge economy’, Queensland Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.11–28. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995) ‘Participation and power’, in Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (Eds.): Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice, pp.1–18, Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Redcliff, M. (1995) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, Routledge, London and New York. Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory, Avebury, England. Shrestha, K. and McManus, P. (2008) ‘The politics of community participation in natural resource management: lessons from community forestry in Nepal’, Australian Forestry, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp.135–146. Soussan, J., Shrestha, B. and Uprety, L. (1995) The Social Dynamics of Deforestation: A Case Study from Nepal, available at htt p ://w w w.panasi a .or g .s g /nep a lne t /forest r y/ d e fores t .htm (accessed on 24 April 2010). Toon, J. and Falk, J. (Eds.) (2003) Sydney: Planning for Politics Town Planning for Sydney Regions Since 1945, Planning Research Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney. United Nations Commissions on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, UNCED, Brazil. WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Zed Books, London. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds.) (2008) Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

319 Notes 1 Power is described “as how people stand in relation to each other in the system” [Nelson and Wright, (1995), pp.7–8]. 2 Please note that survey questionnaire was sent to the same 1000 people who participated in the making of the SMS. The Department of Planning sent the questionnaire directly to the participants. We acknowledge and thank the help of the Department and the generosity of the 167 respondents who returned the questionnaire. The respondents for SSIs were purposefully selected from the group of people who were involved in the process. 3 Please note that survey questionnaire was sent to the same 1000 people who participated in the making of the SMS. The Department of Planning sent the questionnaire directly to the participants. We acknowledge and thank the help of the Department and the generosity of the 167 respondents who returned the questionnaire. The respondents for SSIs were purposefully selected from the group of people who were involved in the process.

320