Diana MacCallum

Planning the climate-just city

Issues of urban equity have long been linked to urban planning. Yet in practice the quest for the ‘just city’, defined in terms of democracy, diversity, difference and sustainability, has proven to be highly problematic. Drawing on examples from the Australian urban context, we argue that the imperative of climate change adds urgency to the longstanding equity agenda of planning in cities. In our normative quest for the climate-just city we offer a conceptual and analytical framework for integrating the principles of climate justice and equity into urban planning thinking and practice.

The changing discourse of city plans: Rationalities of planning in Perth, 1955-2010

1Plans are among the most durable products of planning, and as such offer a revealing window into the worlds of the planners of their time. In this paper we set out a methodology for viewing those worlds using critical discourse analysis (CDA). This method focuses on four key textual features of plans: construal of substance, construction of agency, generic structure, and presentation. Together they enable the investigator to go beyond thematic discourses and uncover the institutional, political and ideological role of planning during the time period in which plans are produced. We use this method to interrogate the changing rationalities governing planning in Western Australia (WA) since the Second World War by analysing the four major city plans for Perth, covering a period from 1955 to 2010. This longitudinal analysis suggests that planning in WA mirrors concurrent trends in international planning theory, and highlights the significance of “the plan” as an object of inquiry for revealing the changing nature of planning and planners over time.

General introduction: the return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research

In recent years, social innovation has become increasingly influential in both scholarship and policy. It is the conceptual foundation for communitybased trusts, think tanks, corporate management practices and government funding programs in every continent, leading to a wide range of projects and international networks which recognize past failures of conventional service delivery to tackle poverty and social exclusion, and seek to promote new ways of doing things, grounded in the social relations and experiences of those in need. It is the great inspiration for many social movements, associations, bottomup initiatives to claim improvements in their human conditions, their community life and their place in society. It has found a home in policy at the highest level, for example in the US Whitehouse’s office for Social Innovation and civic Participation, through the creation of the national Secretariat for Solidarity economy in brazil and in the european commission’s Innovation Policy programmes. It has become a lead term for corporate social responsibility, business ethics and the revisiting of the role of social enterprise and the social economy in socioeconomic development. The growing importance of the idea reflects wide and profound dissatisfaction with recent directions and outcomes of ‘innovation’ in technology, markets, policy and governance systems, and particularly a sense – to remain polite – that the benefits of such innovations have not been distributed as generally or as equitably as they should (see Jessop et al., chapter 8). This also holds for changes in sociopolitical regimes. Social innovation as a governance change with more bottomup participation, protection of the rights of ‘common’ citizens and collective decisionmaking systems has indeed increasingly become a mirror to reflect on the consequences of macroinstitutional changes such as the privatization of banks and social services, deregulation of markets at the expense of the satisfaction of collective needs, the heralding of elite consumerism as a value system, etc. In much policy and management discourse, social innovation refers broadly to innovation in meeting social needs of, or delivering social benefits to, communities – the creation of new products, services, organizational structures or activities that are ‘better’ or ‘more effective’ than traditional public sector, philanthropic or marketreliant approaches in responding to social exclusion. Particularly successful forms of social innovation in this sense, which to many people represent ‘iconic’ examples, include microfinance and popular education – gamechanging initiatives which have travelled well beyond their original geographical and social contexts to find permanent institutional homes in the public services of many countries (see for example ashta et al., chapter 6; dubeux, chapter 22; Fernandes et al., chapter 29). equally important, and part

Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and ‘becoming-world’ in planning theory:

Much planning theory has been undergirded by an ontological exceptionalism of humans. Yet, city planning does not sit outside of the eco-social realities co-producing the Anthropocene. Urban planners and scholars, therefore, need to think carefully and critically about who speaks for (and with) the nonhuman in place making. In this article, we identify two fruitful directions for planning theory to better engage with the imbricated nature of humans and nonhumans is recognised as characteristic of the Anthropocene – multispecies entanglements and becoming-world. Drawing on the more-than-human literature in urban and cultural geography and the environmental humanities, we consider how these terms offer new possibilities for productively rethinking the ontological exceptionalism of humans in planning theory. We critically explore how planning theory might develop inclusive, ethical relationships that can nurture possibilities for multispecies flourishing in diverse urban futures, the futures that are increasingly recognised as co-produced by nonhuman agents in the context of climate variability and change. This, we argue, is critical for developing climate-adaptive planning tools and narratives for the creation of socially and environmentally just multispecies cities.

Whither Justice? An Analysis of Local Climate Change Responses from South East Queensland, Australia

Climate change is a highly contested policy issue in Australia, generating fierce debate at every level of governance. In this paper we explore a crucial tension in both the policy and the public debate: a seeming lack of attention to social inclusion and broader equity implications. We pay special attention to the municipal scale, where concerns about social difference and democratic participation are often foregrounded in political discourse, using South East Queensland—a recognised climate change ‘hotspot’—as a case study. Mobilising critical discourse analysis techniques, we interrogate three local government climate change response strategies, and place these in the context of transscalar discourse networks which appear to sustain a technocratic, ‘ecological modernisation’ approach to the issue. Finally, we suggest a broad strategy for reimagining this approach to embed a notion of climate justice in our policy thinking about climate change.

The Political Economy of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Resource Sector in Western Australia. A Case Study of the Proposed James Price Point LNG Precinct

Over the last few years, there has been increased emphasis placed on the “right way” of doing business involving transparent and ethical interactions with communities of interest. The global resource industry is regarded as the one of the primary champions and leaders of this corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement. Increasingly, however, its credibility within the industry is being challenged by the existence of conflict and confrontation and accusations of company misdemeanours that can surround resource development projects globally. For Western Australia’s resource sector, the liquefied natural gas precinct recently proposed at James Price Point in the Kimberley is a prime example. The aim of this chapter is to take a critical assessment of the relations and practices that define interactions between industry, government and community spheres, as a way to make sense of the conflict that surrounds this project. The analysis is informed by theories of governmentality and spatiality, which captures the ‘spaces of CSR’ framework discussed in this chapter. The argument is presented that resource development projects in Western Australia are shaped and defined by a series of historical, political, institutional, economic and social forces, prevailing values and assumptions and also relations of power. This is shown to play out in the contest surrounding the LNG precinct. As a consequence, the practice of CSR in the resource industry is shown to be more complex, problematic and dynamic than is suggested within broader CSR scholarship.

Corporate social responsibility: A governable space

The rise in the discourse and practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been significant over the last few years, driven largely by a dominant business case logic. The CSR concept though, as suggested here, is more complex, loaded and problematic than is acknowledged within mainstream CSR scholarship. In this chapter, we present the view that CSR should be re-conceptualised as being situated within a relational space, ever unfolding and constituted by a range of forces, be they political, institutional, economic or social. This allows governmentality and spatiality as analytical instruments to deconstruct CSR at the level of the political economy. In this way, it is possible to capture the construction, dissemination and the lived experience of CSR. We also indicate that the impact of global social forces such as the prevailing neoliberal mentalities and the global accumulation agenda are for example better understood when taking this perspective.

Australian environmental governance and environmental planning procedures

How do we connect the processes of collective public decision-making with complex biophysical systems? In Australia, the answer seems to be ‘not very well’. The full magnitude of human impact in post-colonial Australia is only just now beginning to be properly understood. In key areas such as land, water, energy and air we have embraced a pattern of development that is increasingly being recognised as ‘unsustainable’ (Low 2010). We have built our cities on flood plains, yet have cleared many water catchments of vegetation, so that in times of heavy rain there are few barriers stopping down-stream flooding (see chapter 7). We also consume vast amounts of water, yet we inhabit one of the driest continents on Earth. We have developed suburbs on prime agricultural land, but wonder why food security has become an issue. We mine for coal seam gas through fracking ancient rocks near precious aquifers with little understanding of the cumulative environmental risks involved. In short, we do not seem to have learned from the lessons offered by history or the experiences of other countries. Is there something wrong with our decision-making systems?Find the secret to improve the quality of life by reading this australian environmental planning challenges and future prospects. This is a kind of book that you need now. Besides, it can be your favorite book to read after having this book. Do you ask why? Well, this is a book that has different characteristic with others. You may not need to know who the author is, how well-known the work is. As wise word, never judge the words from who speaks, but make the words as your good value to your life.Australia is in the midst of an ongoing housing crisis. Swelling urban populations have seen a marked decline in housing affordability in recent decades. The traditional ‘housing solution’ has been to build cheap housing on the urban fringe. But rising infrastructure costs, automobile dependence, habitat and biodiversity loss, social alienation and health problems make that approach less viable. The alternative of accommodating populations at increasing housing densities in city centres has resulted in declining access to green space, fewer play-spaces for children, increasing noise, social polarisation, jobs/skills mismatches, plus questionable environmental performance. Densification has done little to redress the affordability crisis (see chapter 15). Global environmental problems such as climate change are demanding a rethink of housing design, to reduce resource use and make housing more resilient to environmental change. This chapter offers an environmental planning perspective on Australian housing crisis, in its historical and current form.At the heart of environmental planning is an ethic of care. This ethic challenges planners to nurture and sustain the biogeochemical systems on which all life depends, working to prevent harm to both human and non-human populations. Environmental planning in Australia has traditionally been concerned about making the lives of people better (see chapter 3). In its early days, this was achieved primarily by focusing on developing and implementing standards for housing, infrastructure and services, and separating polluting land uses from residential areas. Early environmental planning also included efforts to site urban development away from hazardous places, for example away from flood-prone land or areas susceptible to erosion. Since the late 1960s, Australian environmental planners have tended to focus on avoiding harm to natural environments rather than on specifically promoting human health and wellbeing. Yet these two tasks are inseparable. Human health depends upon ecologically robust ecosystems and the services they provide. Planners have recently begun to recognise this interdependence, especially in the field of healthy cities (see chapter 15).Defining appropriate boundaries for planning and management purposes has always been tricky. Regional boundaries are usually defined by the variables under study (e.g. vegetation, soils, transport) and sometimes by external factors, such as the availability of data or political jurisdictions, which may configure boundaries (Tiebout 1964). US planning scholar John Friedmann (1964) has shown how economic development transcends boundaries, and how different regional boundaries are necessary at different stages of development, to achieve efficient planning. When the region is ill-defined though, planning may not achieve its goals (Friedmann 1964; Simmonds 1997). Are there unique kinds of regional boundaries that environmental planners need to define and manage? How does this affect planning practice?In Australia, each state or territory has its own planning and development control legislation, although there are many similarities between the jurisdictions. Rather than attempt to compare and contrast the fine details of the law in each jurisdiction, this chapter draws on some of the underlying themes that pervade planning law throughout Australia. In particular, it examines how three traditional legal doctrines – the separation of powers; the rule of law; and the sanctity of private property rights – have influenced the development of planning law. A selection of case law from different states is used to illustrate how these traditional pillars of legal reasoning have influenced, and continue to influence, the day-to-day administration of planning and development control in Australia. Understanding role of law within Australian planning systems is essential for environmental planners to be able to implement their proposals for protecting and managing biogeochemical systems and processes.