Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.

Informal strategies of power in the local planning system

Existing studies that question the role of planning as a state institution, whose interests it serves together with those disputing the merits of collaborative planning are all essentially concerned with the broader issue of power in society. Although there have been various attempts to highlight the distorting effects of power, the research emphasis to date has been focused on the operation of power within the formal structures that constitute the planning system. As a result, relatively little attention has been attributed to the informal strategies or tactics that can be utilised by powerful actors to further their own interests. This article seeks to address this gap by identifying the informal strategies used by the holders of power to bypass the formal structures of the planning system and highlight how these procedures are to a large extent systematic and (almost) institutionalised in a shadow planning system. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. Empirical findings are offered that highlight the importance of economic power in the emergence of what essentially constitutes a shadow planning system. More broadly, the findings suggest that much more cognisance of the structural relations that govern how power is distributed in society is required and that ‘light touch’ approaches that focus exclusively on participation and deliberation need to be replaced with more radical solutions that look towards the redistribution of economic power between stakeholders.

A Two-Stage Online Approach for Collaborative Multi-Agent Planning under Uncertainty

In a team of multiple agents, the pursuance of a common goal is a defining characteristic. Since agents may have different capabilities, and effects of actions may be uncertain, a common goal can generally only be achieved through a careful cooperation between the different agents. In this work, we propose a novel two-stage planner that combines online planning at both team level and individual level through a subgoal delegation scheme. The proposal brings the advantages of online planning approaches to the multi-agent setting. A number of modifications are made to a classical UCT approximate algorithm to (i) adapt it to the application domains considered, (ii) reduce the branching factor in the underlying search process, and (iii) effectively manage uncertain information of action effects by using information fusion mechanisms. The proposed online multi-agent planner reduces the cost of planning and decreases the temporal cost of reaching a goal, while significantly increasing the chance of success of achieving the common goal. 

A Collaborative Multiagent Framework based on Online Risk-Aware Planning and Decision-Making

Planning is an essential process in teams of multiple agents pursuing a common goal. When the effects of actions undertaken by agents are uncertain, evaluating the potential risk of such actions alongside their utility might lead to more rational decisions upon planning. This challenge has been recently tackled for single agent settings, yet domains with multiple agents that present diverse viewpoints towards risk still necessitate comprehensive decision making mechanisms that balance the utility and risk of actions. In this work, we propose a novel collaborative multi-agent planning framework that integrates (i) a team-level online planner under uncertainty that extends the classical UCT approximate algorithm, and (ii) a preference modeling and multicriteria group decision making approach that allows agents to find accepted and rational solutions for planning problems, predicated on the attitude each agent adopts towards risk. When utilised in risk-pervaded scenarios, the proposed framework can reduce the cost of reaching the common goal sought and increase effectiveness, before making collective decisions by appropriately balancing risk and utility of actions.