15301 Planning Theory and Decision Making

Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.

Subject handbook information prior to 2024 is available in the Archives.

UTS: Design, Architecture and Building: School of the Built Environment
Credit points: 6 cp

Subject level:

Postgraduate

Result type: Grade and marks

Requisite(s): 15145c Development Negotiation and Community Engagement
The lower case 'c' after the subject code indicates that the subject is a corequisite. See definitions for details.
These requisites may not apply to students in certain courses.
There are course requisites for this subject. See access conditions.

Description

This subject studies and analyses contemporary planning theory (including the notions of democracy, power, governance and neo-liberalism) and advanced planning practice. It allows students to observe, perform and reflect on advanced techniques in the broad themes of ecologically sustainable development, community participation and economic development. Lectures explore the application of planning theory and contemporary planning approaches to: urban economic development, including the establishment of state–private sector partnerships and the fostering of industry clusters; collaborative planning, including efforts to empower people from minority cultures such as Indigenous Australians; planning as part of the overall urban management for environmentally and culturally sustainable development, and the operation of institutional frameworks; and planning for urban regeneration and urban consolidation.

Subject learning objectives (SLOs)

On successful completion of this subject, students should be able to:

1.	Develop team work skills
2.	Develop effective communication strategies
3.	Design participatory processes to address sources of conflict
4.	Critically analyse power relations in the urban environment
5.	Develop a reflexive critical understanding of one’s own perspective
6.	Interpret and evaluate the ethical dilemmas that planners face
7.	Identify the theoretical approaches to inequality and inclusiveness, and be able to apply this to professional practice
8.	Explain the historical development of theories and practice of planning
9.	Present solid evidence in support of an evaluation of theory and practice

Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs)

This subject also contributes to the following Course Intended Learning Outcomes:

Enable reflective practice on one's personal views and values and interpret how they might affect one's professional judgement (A.1)
Demonstrate ethical responsibilities of professional planners and critically evaluate the ethical implications of complex problems (A.2)
Evaluate the history of disadvantage and inequality in societies (in an Australian context this would apply in particular to Indigenous Peoples) and formulate a reasoned argument for how planners should address significant social inequalities (A.3)
Work effectively in teams of people with diverse professional and personal backgrounds (C.1)
Communicate with people with a wide variety of cultural, social, economic, and political perspectives using verbal, written, and visual media (C.2)
Determine sources of conflict and apply conflict negotiation strategies appropriately (C.3)
Articulate how and why the role of planning has evolved in response to new social, cultural, economic, and political forces (P.2)
Develop coherent and logically structured arguments that use evidence appropriately (R.5)

Contribution to the development of graduate attributes

The term CAPRI is used for the five Design, Architecture and Building faculty graduate attribute categories where:

C = communication and groupwork

A = attitudes and values

P = practical and professional

R = research and critique

I = innovation and creativity.

Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs) are linked to these categories using codes (e.g. C-1, A-3, P-4, etc.).

Teaching and learning strategies

This subject is timetabled over two block sessions. Classes will incorporate a range of teaching and learning strategies including pre-recorded and standard lectures delivered by the lecturer and guest speakers, discussion boards, group discussions and assignments. These will be complemented by self-directed student learning via subject readings guided by discussion points / questions.

The students are required to read the required texts before both teaching blocks, to incorporate their lessons in collaborative small group in-class discussions and in the development of the assignments. Additionally, during the first teaching block students collaborate in small groups in the development of an in-class assessment that involves the critical analysis and discussion of a real-world case study. During the second teaching block, students engage in a critical debate regarding an assigned topic and a case study. These different activities also involve the provision of formative feedback from the lecturers and the students.

Content (topics)

This subject analyses:

Key contemporary planning theories and approaches to planning practice.
Urban history and theories of urban politics are introduced to set a context for consideration of planning as being a political activity.
Key topics relating to theories and conceptualisations of planning practice are covered, including instrumental rationality and post-positivist planning, communicative rationality and planning, planning discourse and doctrines, and property rights and planning.
The challenges of ecologically and culturally sustainable planning practice are discussed.
Key contemporary ideas in economic development planning, the role of place-making and planning with minority and vulnerable groups are critically examined.
Best practice case studies of international city planning are presented to show how contemporary planning ideas can be implemented in global contexts.

Assessment

Assessment task 1: Evaluation of a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

Intent:

Based on the insights gained during the first teaching block, students are asked to critically examine a stakeholder engagement strategy of a real-world case study. Students should research the case study, analyse the strategy and present their assessment in the form of a short report

Students are also required to critically reflect on the implications of both rational and democratic approaches in the planning process when applied to real-world scenarios. For this, students must reflect on the lessons of the first teaching block and refer to the readings provided.

Objective(s):

This task addresses the following subject learning objectives:

2, 4, 7 and 9

This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.):

A.3, C.2, C.3 and R.5

Type:

Report

Groupwork:

Individual

Weight:

40%

Length:

2000 words (+/- 10%)

Criteria linkages:

Criteria	Weight (%)	SLOs	CILOs
Depth and relevance of research	20	4	C.3
Clarity and thoughtfulness of arguments	25	2	C.2
Thoughtfulness of assessment of case study	20	9	A.3
Professional quality of written presentation	15	2	C.2
Effective use of required and recommended readings	20	7	R.5

SLOs: subject learning objectives
CILOs: course intended learning outcomes

Assessment task 2: Recommendations to existing strategy

Intent:

Based on the insights gained during the first teaching block and the analysis developed in assessment task 1, students should collaborate in small groups to discuss the analysis made, develop recommendations on how the strategy assessed in Assignment 1 can be improved and present those recommendations in class.

Objective(s):

This task addresses the following subject learning objectives:

1, 3, 4 and 9

This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.):

A.3, C.1, C.3 and R.5

Type:

Presentation

Groupwork:

Group, group assessed

Weight:

20%

Length:

Group work.

Please submit an electronic copy of the presentation slides on 07 November via Canvas.

Criteria:

Criteria linkages:

Criteria	Weight (%)	SLOs	CILOs
Clarity and depth of understanding of stakeholders, their interests, and their input in the project	25	4	A.3
Appropriateness of techniques and strategies recommended	25	3	C.3
Clarity and thoughtfulness of arguments	25	9	R.5
Professional quality of presentation (verbal and visual)	25	1	C.1

SLOs: subject learning objectives
CILOs: course intended learning outcomes

Assessment task 3: Planning Theory and Decision Making Essay

Intent:

Students are asked to develop a critical essay on the relationship between planning theory and practices, and the future impact they may have on each other.

Objective(s):

This task addresses the following subject learning objectives:

2, 5, 6 and 8

This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.):

A.1, A.2, C.2 and P.2

Type:

Essay

Groupwork:

Individual

Weight:

40%

Length:

Your answer should be in the form of an essay of maximum 1,500 words. You are expected to refer to the appropriate subject readings, as well to other official and academic resources found on the UTS library, Google Scholar and official organisations’ websites. Readings used should be listed under “References” at the end of the essay (not included in word count). Appropriate referencing styles can be found on the UTS Library website.

Assignments that significantly exceed the word limit (by more than 10%) will be penalised.

Criteria linkages:

Criteria	Weight (%)	SLOs	CILOs
Whether the essay answers / addresses the questions posed	30	5	A.1
Coherence and clarity of argument	20	2	C.2
Use of relevant planning theory and decision making readings to support argument	30	8	P.2
Appropriateness of personal insight, and examples or evidence used to support argument	20	6	A.2

SLOs: subject learning objectives
CILOs: course intended learning outcomes

Minimum requirements

Students must obtain a total mark of at least 50 per cent to pass the subject, and attend at least 80 percent of timetabled hours.

The DAB attendance policy requires students to attend no less than 80% of formal teaching sessions (lectures and tutorials) for each class they are enrolled in to remain eligible for assessment.

Required texts

All required readings for this subject are available on the reading list on Canvas

Recommended texts

Susan S. Fainstein and Scott Campbell. 2001. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Peter Hall. 2002. Cities of Tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell

Stephen Hamnett and Robert Freestone. 2000. The Australian Metropolis: a planning history. Allen and Unwin

Other required or recommended resources may be notified via Canvas during the semester.

References

Please check the required readings indicated throughout the modules on Canvas.

Other important readings are:

First teaching block:

Robert Freestone. 2000. From city improvement to the city beautiful. Chapter 2 in The Australian Metropolis: a planning history, edited by Stephen Hamnett and Robert Freestone. Australia: Allen and Unwin

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25860/

Peter Hall. 2002. The City of the tarnished Belle Epoque. Chapter 12 in Cities of Tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/26117/

Charles E. Lindblom. 1959. The science of “muddling through” (Chapter 10 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 196-209) Public Administration Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1959), pp. 79-88

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/7391/

Paul Davidoff. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning (Chapter 11 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 210-223) Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 31, Issue 4 November 1965 , pages 331 - 338

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25827/

Patsy Healey. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. (Chapter 13 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 237-255)

Environment and Planning B, vol. 23: 217-234

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25828/

Bent Flyvbjerg. 1996. Rationality and Power. (Chapter 17 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 318-329)

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25829/

Allmendiger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37, 89-103.

Planning Institute of Australia. 2002. Code of Professional Conduct. Available at:

http://www.planning.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=254

Second teaching block:

Scott Campbell. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainability. (Chapter 24 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 435-458)

Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 62, Issue 3 September 1996 , pages 296 - 312

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25830/

Susan S. Fainstein. 2000. New directions in planning theory. (Chapter 9 in Fainstein and Campbell, Readings in Planning Theory (pp. 173-195)

Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, 451-478

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25831/

Planning Institute of Australia Indigenous Planning Working Group. 2010. Improving Planners’ understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and recommendations for reforming planning education criteria for PIA Accreditation. Discussion Paper 21 October.

Libby Porter. 2006. Planning in (Post) Colonial settings: challenges for theory and practice. Planning Theory and Practice 7, 4: 383-396

Marcus B. Lane and Michael Hibbard. 2005. Doing it for themselves: transformative planning by Indigenous peoples. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25, 2: 172-184

Michael J. Dear. 1986. Postmodernism and planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 4, 3: 367-384

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/26943/

Daniel Kubler. 2007. Metropolitan governance in Sydney: a case of “joint decision-making.” Australian Journal of Political Science. 42, 4: 631-647

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25833/

C. Michael Hall. 1999. The politics of decision making and top-down planning: Darling Harbour, Sydney. Victoria University of Wellington.

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25840/

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Four Corners. 2006. Interview with Tony Harris on Public Private Partnerships. Edited transcript 20 February. Available at:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1573798.htm

Graeme A. Hodge. 2004. The risky business of public-private partnerships. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63, 4: 37-49

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25832/

The Allen Consulting Group. 2007. Performance of PPPs and traditional procurement in Australia. Report to Infrastructure Partnerships Australia.

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25839/

Other resources

Sydney Streets (video)

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/history/sydneystreets/

History of indigenous people in Sydney

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/barani/themes/theme1.htm

Shirley Fitzgerald. 2008. Chippendale. Sydney Journal vol. 1, no. 3 (December): 118-122.

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/sydney_journal/index

Grace Karskens. 2009. The Rocks. Sydney Journal vol. 2, no. 1 (June): 117-123

http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/sydney_journal/index

Leonie Sandercock. 2000. When strangers become neighbours: managing cities of difference. Planning Theory and Practice 1, 1: 13-30

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25835/

Vanessa Watson. 2003. Conflicting rationalities: implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory and Practice 4, 4: 395-407

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25837/

Robert Freestone. 1993. Heritage, urban planning and the post-modern city. Australian Geographer 24, 1: 17-24

http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/26944/

P. Allmendiger. 2002. Toward a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory 1: 77-99

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/22839/

Elizabeth Howe. 1992. Professional roles and the public interest in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 6: 230-248.

URL: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/26391/

Marcus B. Lane. 2003. Participation, decentralization, and civil society: indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, 4: 360-373

URL:http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/drr/25834/

Holly Park. 2010. NSW Planning Framework: history of reforms. NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/NSWPlanningFramework:HistoryofReforms/$File/NSW+Planning+Framework+History+of+Reforms+e+brief10+2010.pdf

Planning Institute of Australia. 2010. A new planning act for NSW.

http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/1845