AUSTRALIAN PLANNER SEPTEMBER 1998

Planning is an inherently political activity. It is valueladen. However, as Campbell (1996) noted, there is nothing inherent in the discipline that steers planners either toward environmental protection, economic development or social equity. Where do the values reside? They are embodied in roads and dwellings, grounded in plans and policies, living in institutional and corporate cultures, but first and foremost, they reside in planners. One important value that has received increased attention in recent years has been sustainability (Jones & Brennan 1997; Gollner 1996; Fowke & Prasad 1996; Jacobs 1995). Sustainability is a contested concept (McManus 1996). It is contested in definition, emphasis, desired outcome and the means to achieve a desired outcome. For some authors it is the synthesis of environmental, economic and social issues. However, these three terms are themselves constructed and open to contest. For example, Wackernagel and Rees (1996) critique one of the favoured terms of planners, ‘environment’, because of its implicit assumption that nature exists outside of humans as our surroundings. This current article is needed because debates in Australia on important issues such as sustainability, planning and urban form have been restricted due to a limited framework for the debate (i.e. urban consolidation), the misrepresentation of other authors’ positions and the absence of information about these authors (Troy 1996). In response, this paper compares and contrasts the work of four leading theorists of sustainability, urban form and planning. The aim is to present a discussion and framework that clearly represents the important similarities and differences among these authors with regard to sustainability, urban form and planning, thus enabling readers to enter urban debates with awareness of the positions of key authors. My value judgements are that sustainability is an important issue in encouraging wider participation, especially from younger readers and community members, and is crucial for both moving towards sustainability and for improving planning processes. The authors chosen for this paper are Pat Troy, Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, Ted Trainer and Bill Rees. While others could have been chosen, these four authors have contributed significantly over many years to debates about the nature of planning, sustainability, urban form, and processes to achieve their desired vision in these areas. However, these earlier debates were framed in an uncooperative way so that the nuances of each author’s work were lost in the stereotyping. The structure of these debates limited the ability of other readers to clearly identify important differences within the debates. This article rectifies problems from previous debates by using a writing process that attempts to achieve fair representation of each author’s viewpoint. The aim of this paper is not to sit in judgement upon this work, although judgements are inherent in any writing process. This paper provides a framework, analysis and a fair overview of each author’s work, rather than a detailed critique on individual points. Any useful debate should encourage wider participation and should be built upon fair representations of each author’s viewpoint. This paper has been prepared through a collaborative process with the above named authors. In November 1997 these authors were invited to comment on a draft version of this paper to ensure their viewpoints were represented as fairly and honestly as possible. It was also intended that this process would highlight changes in viewpoints over time. Replies were received from Peter Newman, Bill Rees and Ted Trainer. Writing this paper was intended as an educational experience for all people involved in the process. In hindsight, the writing process, reliant upon the cooperation of the above mentioned authors, has produced a more nuanced and contemporary paper that opens possibilities for further understanding and wider debate. The article begins with an overview of the main ideas, writing and history of the four authors. These Australian Planner Vol. 49, No. 4, December 2012, 293 302