Preparing for disruptions: A diagnostic strategic planning intervention for sustainable development
Introduction
Almost three decades after the rise of sustainable development as a grand vision, we are facing an implementation deficit in practice (Holden et al., 2014, Newton, 2012).Worldwide, in critical sectors such as water, energy and transport, investments in conventional infrastructure predominate, and the adoption of sustainable alternatives often remains too slow (Negro et al., 2012, Rijke et al., 2013, Walsh et al., 2015).
Scholars agree that the shift in infrastructure delivery in today's cities toward sustainable solutions would be a radical change (Pickett et al., 2013, Truffer et al., 2010), requiring cumulative capacities built into strategic planning processes. Currently, a range of impediments across different sectoral and geographic contexts tend to delay, divert or stop the desired transformation (Brown and Farrelly, 2009, Negro et al., 2012). Strategic planning literature often refer to those impediments as barriers (e.g. Ferguson et al., 2013a, Hunt and Rogers, 2005). Innovation literature refer to them as systemic problems (e.g. Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012) or systemic failures (e.g. Klein Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, & Gilsing, 2005). They include a range of political, economic, social, institutional and technological issues, such as: lack of political will, insufficient capital resources, limited community engagement, fragmented institutional frameworks and technological failures (Brown and Farrelly, 2009, Klein Woolthuis et al., 2005).
While there have been some academic attempts to categorize the impediments to the adoption and successful implementation of sustainable infrastructure solutions, not much has been said about how to identify them systematically in a practical context (Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012). More importantly, it is not well understood how strategic planning methodologies can incorporate an explicit consideration of those impediments, and assist planners and decision makers in designing the required resolution strategies.
To address the implementation deficit of sustainable development, however, such an understanding is crucial. As Voß and his colleagues argue, in steering for sustainable development universal solutions may not work; instead, we need to be able to identify and deal with particular problems within their concrete empirical contexts (Voß, Newig, Kastens, Monstadt, & Nölting, 2007). Similarly, other scholars warn against generalized solutions or blueprint approaches and emphasize the need for diagnostic analyses in dealing with complex problems (Edquist, 2011, Moser and Ekstrom, 2010, Ostrom, 2007). Malekpour and colleagues highlight this with specific reference to planning, and call for the development of diagnostic approaches that help with the systemic and empirical identification of problems and barriers as part of the strategic planning process (Malekpour, Brown, & de Haan, 2015).
Against this backdrop, this paper puts forward a model for a planning intervention to assist the systemic diagnosis of impediments to sustainable infrastructure delivery within their practical contexts. Broadly speaking, strategic infrastructure planning in the context of sustainable development starts with developing a vision, followed by designing strategic pathways/options to achieve the vision (Ferguson, Frantzeskaki, & Brown, 2013). Our diagnostic intervention targets those strategic planning and decision-making processes that have already envisioned and intended sustainability, to be achieved through innovative infrastructure options. The intervention would then assist planners and decision makers to explicitly and reflexively identify a range of challenges and barriers to realizing the vision and strategic options as part of the strategic planning process. It also helps with drafting coping strategies, in order to remove, circumvent or ameliorate the identified impediments.
The diagnostic intervention we propose may be considered as a member of a broader family of approaches that deal with high uncertainties in long-term planning and aim at increasing the robustness of planning decisions in the face of future challenges. Examples include Assumption-Based Planning (Dewar, Builder, Hix, & Levin, 1993), Robust Decision Making (Lempert, Popper, & Bankes, 2003) and Adaptive Policymaking (Walker, Rahman, & Cave, 2001). However, what we propose is not a grand planning framework or methodology. It is indeed an intervention that aims at capacity building within the ongoing processes of strategic planning for more robust outcomes toward realizing sustainable development.
The paper also reports on the trial application of the proposed intervention in water infrastructure planning for one of the world's largest urban renewal areas (approx. 500 ha) located in Melbourne, Australia. This empirical application provides insights into the details of the implementation challenge, as well as a potential roadmap, for delivering a Water Sensitive City—a vision that encapsulates sustainable, liveable and resilient urban water systems. The methodological approach and the insights derived from the trial application are relevant and potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners who aim to achieve sustainable development in infrastructure sectors.
Section snippets
Conceptual underpinnings of the planning intervention
Infrastructure planning in industrialized countries is often undertaken at multiple scales and levels across national, state and local governments; bureaucratic planning bodies; and water, energy, transport or communication utilities (Furlong, De Silva, Guthrie, & Considine, 2016). Infrastructure planning frameworks are often used to guide the process and provide the required steps for identifying infrastructure solutions. Most existing frameworks vary both within and across nations. However,
A diagnostic planning intervention model
In this section, we present a model for a diagnostic planning intervention which provides a process methodology for planners and decision makers to systematically reveal and prepare for short-term barriers and long-term disruptors to sustainable infrastructure strategies. The planning intervention, as its name suggests, does not aim to comprehensively transform or replace the ongoing strategic planning process. Rather, it is meant to be used as an add-on to the ongoing planning process, in
Trial application of the diagnostic planning intervention
A fundamental challenge faced by the planning research is the evaluation of new planning concepts, approaches or methods (Haasnoot, Kwakkel, Walker, & ter Maat, 2013). The suitability and effectiveness of a planning approach can neither be determined in the short term, nor from a single instance of a plan generated by that approach, unless there is a competing parallel plan (Dewar et al., 1993). In this regard, planning research often tends to provide controlled real-world applications of new
Impediments to the practical realization of a water sensitive Fishermans Bend
The impediments to the practical realization of a water sensitive development, as consolidated from the diagnostic planning intervention for Fishermans Bend, are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3.
Table 1 includes a range of disruptors to the water sensitive vision, as made explicit by workshop participants. The disruptors did not refer to any specific water sensitive technology or solution, but were rather about the vision as a whole. The overarching disruptors across political, economic,
Discussion
In this section, we discuss the implications of the trialed diagnostic process, as well as the produced results/contents, for sustainable infrastructure delivery. We then conclude by discussing broader implications of this research for policy and planning research in the context of sustainable development.
Conclusions
A great deal of sustainability scholars has warned against blueprint approaches or panaceas in dealing with systemic problems, and has instead called for diagnostic approaches (e.g. Edquist, 2011, Malekpour et al., 2015, Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). In this paper we put forward a diagnostic intervention, to be used as part of the evaluation of infrastructure options—or candidate strategies—in strategic planning processes. The proposed intervention assists planners, engineers, architects,
Acknowledgement
The workshops carried out in this study have been hosted by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities in Australia. The authors would like to thank Jamie Ewert and Chris Chesterfield for their support and facilitation during the workshops. Special thanks to Wikke Novalia for her generous assistance in running the workshops.
References (58)
- et al.
Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide
Futures
(2006) - et al.
Fostering water sensitive citizenship - Community profiles of engagement in water-related issues
Environmental Science & Policy
(2016) - et al.
Preparing for the future: Development of an “antifragile” methodology that complements scenario planning by omitting causation
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(2014) - et al.
Risk governance in the water sensitive city: Practitioner perspectives on ownership, management and trust
Environmental Science & Policy
(2016) - et al.
Coping with uncertainty in climate policy making: (Mis)understanding scenario studies
Futures
(2013) - et al.
Diagnosing transformative change in urban water systems: Theories and frameworks
Global Environmental Change
(2013) - et al.
A strategic program for transitioning to a Water Sensitive City
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2013) - et al.
The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory
Research Policy
(2014) - et al.
Developing a water infrastructure planning framework for the complex modern planning environment
Utilities Policy
(2016) - et al.
The limits of forecasting methods in anticipating rare events
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(2010)
A history of futures: A review of scenario use in water policy studies in the Netherlands
Environmental Science & Policy
Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world
Global Environmental Change
Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change
Global Environmental Change
Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited
Global Environmental Change
When public opposition defeats alternative water projects - The case of Toowoomba Australia
Water Research
A system failure framework for innovation policy design
Technovation
Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes
Journal of Environmental Management
The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases
Futures
Strategic planning of urban infrastructure for environmental sustainability: Understanding the past to intervene for the future
Cities
Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city
Cities
Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
Journal of Environmental Management
Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems
Environmental Science & Policy
The exploratory analysis of trade-offs in strategic planning: Lessons from regional infrastructure foresight
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making
European Journal of Operational Research
Are wildcard events on infrastructure systems opportunities for transformational change?
Futures
Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective
Planning Theory
After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown
Journal of the American Planning Association
Delivering sustainable urban water management: A review of the hurdles we face
Water Science and Technology
Cited by (29)
Knowledge co-production for decision-making in human-natural systems under uncertainty
2023, Global Environmental ChangeTowards regenerative neighbourhoods: An international survey on urban strategies promoting the production of ecosystem services
2022, Sustainable Cities and SocietyDesigning collaborative governance for nature-based solutions
2021, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningCitation Excerpt :As Australia’ largest urban renewal area, Fishermans Bend will house approximately 80,000 residents and provide employment for up to 80,000 people (CRCWSC, 2015). Located in one of the most liveable cities in the world, the scale and profile of the project provides unique opportunities to adopt innovative and sustainable infrastructure servicing approaches (Malekpour et al., 2017). Early collaborative efforts led by one of the water utilities, South East Water, can be traced back to 2009, focused on servicing one of the five precincts that currently make up the renewal area.
An analysis of adaptive planning capacity: The case of chilean water utilities
2020, Utilities Policy