5 Beza2016

Planning Theory & Practice
ISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20
The role of deliberative planning in translating

best practice into good practice: from placeless-
ness to placemaking
Beau B. Beza
To cite this article: Beau B. Beza (2016): The role of deliberative planning in translating best
practice into good practice: from placeless-ness to placemaking, Planning Theory & Practice
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1156730
Published online: 06 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rptp20
Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 07 April 2016, At: 07:32
Knowledge transfer in Australia and Nepal, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1156730
The role of deliberative planning in translating best practice into

good practice: from placeless-ness to placemaking
Beau B. Beza
Planning and Landscape Architecture Programs, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Science
Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 07:32 07 April 2016
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Best practice encompasses a transfer of expert knowledge developed in one Received 22 May 2014
setting to address a particular issue and, through achieving some recognised Accepted 17 February 2016
benchmark, that technique, model and/or policy is applied in another setting to KEYWORDS
achieve the same desired improvement. Best practice can sometimes bring with it Best practice; coproduction;
an inherent structure and assumed knowledge that may largely be absent in the deliberative planning;
new setting to which it is being applied. This type of “best practice” approach may placemaking; urban
come to represent the placeless-ness of externally derived and applied planning planning; Sir Edmund Hillary
knowledge; removing itself from deliberative planning, placemaking and
coproduction efforts where a collective and jointly aspired-to outcome is desired.
The objectives of this paper are twofold: 1) to examine the implementation
of a transfer of planning ideas across distances and in planning practice by
investigating two very different “best practice” case studies (one in Australia and
one in Nepal); and 2) to develop an adaptive “good practice” approach that can
be used to structure deliberative planning efforts in placemaking. Central to
this paper is the theoretical perspective of the diversity, interdependence and
authentic dialogue (DIAD) theory of collaborative rationality and its emphasis
on deliberation, collaboration and use of different knowledge types to aid with
decision-making. The theoretical ideas of the paper are then worked through
the two case studies to also illustrate that the DIAD may be applied to site-
specific (design/planning) projects, thereby adding a new layer of good practice
applicability to the theory.
Introduction
Best practice is the application of an approach that transfers a highly regarded knowledge product
developed in one setting to address a particular issue, and implements that product’s components in
another to achieve a similar desired outcome. The use of best practice, however, can sometimes bring
with it an inherent structure and knowledge base that may be absent in the new setting to which it
is being applied. In this sense, best practice may then be argued to remove itself from deliberative
planning, placemaking and coproduction efforts where a collective and jointly aspired-to outcome
is desired. The objectives of this paper are to examine the implementation of a transfer of planning
ideas across distances and in planning practice by investigating two very different design project “best
CONTACT Beau B. Beza beau.beza@deakin.edu.au

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. B. Beza
practice” case studies (one in Australia and one in Nepal). Data from these investigations is then used to
reposition the application of best practice, as framed in this paper, to develop an adaptive “good prac-
tice” approach (i.e. Plan OK) that can be used to structure deliberative planning efforts in placemaking.
To achieve these objectives the paper commences by briefly presenting the two case studies, used
throughout this research, to illustrate their relevance to the research content in this work. Central to
the paper and the meeting of its objectives is the incorporation of the theoretical perspective of the
diversity, interdependence and authentic dialogue (DIAD) theory of collaborative rationality (Innes &
Booher, 2010) and its focus on deliberation, collaboration and use of different knowledge types to aid
with decision-making. Importantly, the theoretical ideas of the paper are related to the DIAD to illus-
trate that the theory and its components may be applied to site-specific (design/planning) projects.
This adds another layer of applicability to the DIAD theory.
Following a description of this theory is a critique of best practice where good practice is put forward
as an alternative to the currency of expert knowledge generated in one setting and applied in another
to achieve the same outcome. The concept of placemaking is then related to the theoretical perspective
discussed at the paper’s start, to highlight the site-specific and community focus embedded within
both the concept and perspective. A discussion using a “Plan A” (i.e. expert knowledge) to “Plan OK”
(i.e. applied collective knowledge) progression illustrates an evolution of best practice to good practice
outcomes. That is, an experience-based adaptive response to deliberative planning in placemaking
is illustrated. Following this Plan A/OK illustration is a presentation of the research approach used to
achieve the paper’s objectives. The paper concludes by bringing together the various discussions in
this piece to provide comment on the best practice query and the DIAD theory.
Case studies
Two case studies of sites in Falls Creek, Victoria, Australia and Pangkarma, Nepal demonstrate how an
expert mindset can lead to the development and application of an inappropriate transfer of planning
of ideas, while alternatively a community based approach can lead to a more appropriate model of
knowledge exchange. These two approaches are discussed in a Plan A and Plan OK framework to
provide respectively an expert- and community-based example of placemaking. The two case study
examples are drawn together through a discussion of placemaking and how this concept might be
used to inform “good practice”. The case studies also provide data to address the applicability (or
not) of site-specific collaborative approaches to the DIAD theory (Innes & Booher, 2010); which is
discussed below. They are two very different planning case study examples and are applied in this
research using the reductio ad absurdum principle “in which an extraordinary or ridiculous case study
… offer[s] some profound insight into the problem at hand” (Dodson, 2014, p. 32). Furthermore, they
are used because they provide considerably different pathways leading to a common discussion of
adaptive response that can be used to structure deliberative planning and coproduction efforts. The
Australian case study example presents an application of knowledge exchange which highlights that
problems can exist when applying planning ideas generated from the country’s metropolitan set-
tings to the country’s mountain townships (Beza, 2014). That is, an inappropriate transfer of planning
ideas from one developed site setting to another. In Nepal, the case study exemplifies a community
engagement process developed through villager interaction in a positive application of deliberative
planning between stakeholders.
Knowledge transfer in Australia and Nepal 3
Theoretical perspective
The theoretical perspective used to structure this paper and position its contribution to knowledge
revolves around the diversity, interdependence and authentic dialogue theory of collaborative rational-
ity (Innes & Booher, 2010). The DIAD theory at its most basic level centres on “the [face to face] process
of deliberation” (p. 6) by using the rationalist model as a building block to incorporate “collaborative
decision making” (p. 18) and different knowledge types to make decisions. Innes and Booher’s (2010)
model has resonance with the placemaking focus of this study because their work starts with getting
to know everyday life and people, and uses intersubjectivity as a key feature. The DIAD theory itself
also promotes the use of engagement with wisdom and knowledge, rather than “using tools to make
something” (p. 22), through collaborative dialogues where parties (e.g. experts, community members,
government representatives) listen to one another and legitimately acknowledge and act upon one
another’s views “in joint learning” (p. 22). The applied face-to-face nature of the DIAD theory links with
Albrechts’ (2012) “real project” coproduction approach in that both use deliberation between the citi-
zenry and state to blur the boundaries normally separating producers and receivers in the realisation
of outcomes. Albrechts’ (2012) approach, however, diverges from the DIAD theory by purposely using
project plans as a means to “provoke or to manage change and implementation” (p. 53) of agreed
outcomes. In this sense, the reference to plans relates to and directs a site-specific agenda. It is this
focused application of Albrechts’ (2012) work that is useful in this paper as it allows for a bridge to be
created, linking Innes and Booher’s (2010) state, regional and local level decision-making model with
that of site-specific decision-making (i.e. the second objective of this paper).
The DIAD theory is based on Habermas’ (1981a [1984]) theory of communicative action and ration-
ality; which Innes and Booher (2010) make accessible to a literate public. However, to develop a deep
understanding of the work they base their theory upon one must at least be familiar with Habermas
(see 1981a [1984], 1981b [1987]). Of importance to the DIAD theory is its reference to philosophical
building blocks where scholars such as Habermas (among others) “have had their thinking signifi-
cantly shaped by an earlier generation of philosophers” and, that in fields like planning, the work of
these philosophers is undergoing revival for their idea “that learning and knowledge proceed through
communities of inquiry” (Innes & Booher, 2010, p. 26). Particularly, one of the early philosophers built
into Innes and Booher’s (2010) work is John Dewey. I embrace their use of Dewey and I would like to
incorporate another aspect of his philosophy into this paper to attach a design-based aesthetic ele-
ment to the DIAD theory, focusing on Dewey’s (1934) reference to architecture. Adding this element
will assist the reader when, in the following sections of this paper, there is discussion on the design
expert and the consideration of their aesthetic visioning and creation(s).
McDermott (1981) suggests that when one begins to understand Dewey’s aesthetic deliberations
“it becomes apparent that [his] philosophy from very early on was characterised by deep recognition
of aesthetic transactions in human living” (p. 525). And in referencing John Dewey’s Art as Experience
McDermott (1981) draws from Dewey’s (1934) development of an argument that reflects upon art and
its detachment from human experience. For example, at the start of Dewey’s (1934) work on this topic
he makes the point that art comes from human experience; however, the artist in the production of
their piece knowingly separates the two (i.e. separates art from human experience). A consequence
of this separation is that “the result is not favourable to understanding” (p. 3), and as a piece begins to
be regarded as a benchmark (i.e. attains classic status); it is viewed in isolation and removed from the
(local) context from which it emerged. In this sense, design experts produced from the contemporary
architecture schools in Australia welcome and support this type of detachment (Beza, 2014) in the
hope of their work becoming a benchmark in design for others to emulate. Unfortunately, designers
4 B. B. Beza
such as these forget or choose to ignore Dewey’s (1934) premise that one’s work “reflect[s] the emo-
tions and ideas that are associated with the chief institutions of social life” (p. 7). The chief institutions
of social life reflect a continuously evolving relationship influenced by the government, the citizenry,
private stakeholders/organisations and the third sector (Albrechts, 2012; Dempsey & Smith, 2014). The
inference being made with the addition of Dewey (1934) into the DIAD theory is that an architectural
outcome (e.g. the realisation of a project) should be regarded as a coproduced piece, deriving from
the designer along with the above-mentioned groups, and needs to be treated as such to remain
attached to the human experience.
The work of the above-mentioned authors helps provide a lens through which to view the findings
generated from the investigation of the two case studies in this paper. This lens includes experience
and collaborative-based insights that critically reflect upon the interaction (or not) of parties when
developing a project outcome. In addition to this lens, Robinson’s (2011) query into “experiences to be
packaged as best practice” (p. 28) also feeds into this paper, allowing for discussion on the “process of”
a transfer of ideas in both a national and international context. Overall, these works help contribute to
comment made on the DIAD theory by addressing the extent to which the experiences of collaborative
efforts, in realising projects at the site-specific scale, apply (or not) to the utility of Innes and Booher’s
(2010) established decision-making model. That is, the extent to which experiences can be packaged
as practice at the site-specific scale. The following discussion frames the collaborative and adaptive
response to coproducing site-specific outcomes, referred to above, through the research themes of
best practice, a transfer of planning ideas and placemaking.
Concerns with a transfer of ideas

Best practice revolves around knowledge products that have achieved some benchmark and/or widely
accepted recognition by authorities (Tomlinson, 2013) and “has become ccommon parlance in urban
planning practice” (Montero, 2014, p. 7). In the planning and design fields, best practice evolves out
of efforts to improve urban and natural settings for the benefit of people and/or the environment.
Additionally, in a planning and design sense, best practice encompasses a transfer of expert knowledge
developed in one setting to address particular issues which, through recognition and interest, is then
applied in another setting to achieve the same desired improvement.
Context and social appropriateness when applying best practice in the new setting, however, are
areas of concern (see Harris & Moore, 2013) and may largely be overlooked by the designer acting as
prime transfer agent (Thornley, 2013). These agents may also be more focused on aesthetic outcomes
and preserving their power base (De Jang & Edelenbos, 2007; Lees, 2012) as experts in the field. In
this sense, the use of expert knowledge, or as Legacy (2014) suggests, imposing one’s agenda may
serve to undermine deliberative planning where alternatives to the “best practice” might otherwise
result. Alternatives, in this strategic planning example, are squashed in Australia by “allowing decision
makers to concentrate citizen participation into select and heavily staged-managed “events”, hence
reducing the depth and breadth of public deliberation” (p. 75). The point Legacy (2014) then makes,
regarding her quoted statement here, is that if this is current practice in Australia what form should
urban governance take to be truly deliberative?
If best practice in the design and planning fields includes the above faults then potentially best
practice should be repositioned to what Zairi and Whymark (2000) refer to as “good practice”. Good
practice as an inference to alternative approaches may then start to distance itself from the expert and
initiate a process of coproduction where outcomes are achieved through deliberative planning with
actors and come to signify adaptive change.
To commence a deliberative process, storytelling may be a positive approach to align the goals and
aspirations of social actors to effect positive change (Innes & Booher, 2010; Sørensen & Torfing, 2009),
and an important element in this story telling is one’s understanding and knowledge of the setting in
which the practice is being applied.
Deliberative planning and ideas of Plan A/Plan OK

The use of setting, above, begins a departure from much of the adaptive policy-based literature and crit-
icism of best practice, to now focus in this paper on discussing the concept of placemaking. Placemaking
is a process revolving around people and a dialogue between parties where an agreed desired “out-
come” is planned to be realised through a number of independent but inter-related “measures” (see
Beza, Munoz-Villers, & Garza, 2013). In this paper, placemaking is framed as “capitaliz[ing] on a local
community’s assets, inspiration, and potential” (Placemaking Chicago, 2011, p. 5) where, through col-
laboration, community matters can come to light; they can be addressed and a tailor-made process
developed, creating a trajectory to a desired outcome. This description also has links with Innes and
Booher’s (2010) DIAD theory (along with Albrechts’ (2012) approach), as all work towards outcomes
drawn from different knowledge areas and a collaborative and deliberative process involving a range of
agents (e.g. private and public stakeholders/organisations). A relatively new dimension, also common
to placemaking and the DIAD theory, is the revisiting of the agents’ dialogue and resulting outcome(s).
This revisiting is done to safeguard and amend, where and when needed, the longevity of agreements,
and/or realised outcomes (Dempsey, Burton, & Smith, 2014). A limitation to these approaches is that
they rely on agents acting sincerely, meeting face to face, being willing to listen to and understand
what is being said, and agreeable to work towards an outcome that supports all parties.
In itself, placemaking can be divided into two clear applications that influence the realisation
of potential works. The first is where it operates within an existing regulatory planning framework,
in places like Australia, the USA and the UK, to produce outcomes. In this instance community
participation is included as part of the statutory process (Jenkins, Smith & Kirk, 2004). A word of
caution: it is necessary for the community (member) to have the opportunity to participate fully in the
decision-making process (see Friedmann, 2010; Mitlin, 2008) rather than be included in a token
manner (see Arnstein, 1969; Legacy, 2014). Participation, also as an element of collaborative planning,
can enable the community to express views on proposed initiatives, overcome perceptions of perceived
influences from “behind the scenes” people or groups (e.g. corporations) and to develop a collective
vision for the common or public good (Healey, 1997).
If communities in some locations do not have the opportunity to participate (or as shown in
best practice expert opinion may undermine deliberative planning), how can using the process of
placemaking be inclusive or align with the wishes of local people or the qualities of a local environment?
To address this query (i.e. an element of objective 2) we briefly need to return to the item of “learnt
best practice” mentioned earlier in this piece. Instructors at educational institutions and their teaching
practices may argue that “place” (a special quality of a given location) comes from the unique qualities
and “self-expressed priorities of the local population” (Abramson, 2010, p. 296). But in a design educa-
tion setting the student (who eventually becomes the expert) is taught to look at past examples or to
reference established approaches in the development of their work. The conflict with this reflective
approach is that it mostly looks at the physical outcome for inspiration and employs the artefact as a
6 B. B. Beza
seductive tool to entice a desired outcome (Montero, 2014). Fundamentally, referring to past examples
is at odds with placemaking and its ultimate goal: the creation of a desired outcome (i.e. place). The
conflict occurs because the creation of “place” through placemaking evolves from the collaboration
of the designer, the local community and the unique setting in which the people live. The creation
of place does not come from one’s application of the latest best practice, approach or model one is
taught about; which Roy (2011) suggests embodies one’s expertise.
Roy (2011) explains that a repositioning of the expert’s mindset, for example “seeing from the South”
(p. 411), is a contemporary view that promotes a transfer of knowledge from developing countries to
developed nations. Importantly, this “view” implies that (planning) ideas should be developed and real-
ised from the perspective of the local resident and setting. Accepting that this repositioning is impor-
tant, what then is essential to understanding a place and the process of placemaking? Healey (2010)
and Hamdi (2010) provide a conceptual framework that enables a desired outcome to be achieved in
partnership with a community. They highlight that understanding the people/culture one is working
with is of utmost importance. This is because there are specific nuances and structures within people/
cultures that the expert may not be aware of when applying a planning idea in a setting different from
where the idea was originally generated. They also highlight that in-depth knowledge is required of
the differences (and how to address them) between one’s self, the locals one may have contact with,
and any others in the setting. Conversely, naive attempts at understanding the “essence” of the culture
(Wright, 2002) may be inadequate.
In this sense, place identity is a concept that has been around since the late 1990s and presented
in terms of the “plurality” of a community, which revolves around the consideration that communities
or societies are comprised of different groups and their respective interests (Healey, 1997; Rydin, 2007;
Zanoni & Janssens, 2009). To gain an understanding of these groups and their interests, revolving
around an aspiration and/or a desired community outcome, deliberative planning allows for the val-
ues and visions of the group to emerge (e.g. Barry & Porter, 2011; Forester, 2009). The development
of place identity can be related back to the early discussion on best practice through describing an
expert-based or bottom-up model. Importantly, the models describe a transferring of ideas that can
flow from wealthy nations to less wealthy countries and from less wealthy countries to wealthy nations.
The above best and good practice approaches have been used singularly and/or in combination
throughout the world. But herein lies the problem: a mindset exists amongst many of the experts (and/
or organisations) creating, learning about and applying these approaches that something derived
from wealthier nations (e.g. Australia) is appropriate for use in less well-off settings (Söderström &
Geertman, 2013). In this “wealthy/less wealthy” illustration, what is happening is that a Plan A is cre-
ated through an application of a mindset and series of steps where any variation from this plan will
not achieve a desired outcome. This Plan A thinking is unfortunate, for after decades of city visioning
best practice examples, little in the use of these examples may actually be relevant for application
elsewhere (Robinson, 2011). The best-laid or intentioned Plan A approaches, models, steps and so on
rarely materialise in their original form when applied in the field and much amendment is normally
needed. This is because of the many inherent variables and assumed structures that accompany the
mobility of an idea (Söderström & Geertman, 2013). In the transferring of knowledge or planning
ideas, a Plan A way of thinking can come to be regarded, as previously highlighted, as preferencing
expert knowledge over local community wisdom in the development and construction of facilities
and/or programmes. Critiques of this type of approach (e.g. Healey, 2010, 2011) illustrate that Plan A
can change (and the mindset associated with it) when inclusive engagement with a local community
commences. Plan A can evolve into a “Plan OK” through a range of deliberative mechanisms in city
visioning (Robinson, 2011).
Plan OK comes to represent a desired outcome, and the steps achieving that aspiration are created
through dialogue and local interaction. While “OK” is often seen as a “so, so” or “that will do” acceptance
of an idea, the development of Plan OK suggests a process or framework potentially resulting in an
outcome that is community inclusive and is not regarded as an imposition on the local people. Plan OK
also departs from the rigid application of planning ideas created at a distance for the local community
setting where they are being applied. Here the “expert” comes to understand that authority does not
rest with him/her when working with the local community and that an exchange of knowledge and
adaption to ideas is the best way forward (Robinson, 2011).
An example that illustrates this point well is the development work conducted in Nepal by the
mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary. His approach was to wait to be invited to work with a community,
and his engagement and dialogue with their ideas allowed him and/or the foundations he inspired to
realise the construction of some thirty schools, two airstrips, two hospitals and eleven village clinics as
well as a reforestation programme in Sagarmatha National Park (Hillary Medal, 2013). His strategy for
“development” also flipped on its head the economic/market driven approach commonly used at the
time by first engaging with a local community and through dialogue creating a project trajectory lead-
ing to community-desired outcomes. These outcomes, when he began his early 1960s philanthropic
work, were the building of schools, installing a potable water system for the villages of Khumjung and
Khunde, and establishing a medical clinic. He then would go out and find the economic and human
capital needed to realise the agreed outcome.
Emerging from the above Plan OK discussion is a suggestion that Plan A may reflect the
placeless-ness of externally derived and applied knowledge, whereas incorporating local knowledge
in the development of an idea allows the idea to be based in a setting and infers a process (i.e. good
practice).
Research approach
The case study approach is used in this paper to study “real-life phenomena in depth” (Yin, 2009,
p. 18), within contextual conditions. The important characteristic of the case study is that it allows
one to investigate a range of material and interview different people within the research context. The
purpose of conducting the Australian case study was to investigate a designer’s lack of use and lack
of collaboration with other experts and local people in regard to the use of the Australian Planning
Regulatory Framework (APRF) to generate ideas for application in the Australian mountains. Please
note that in itself the APRF is organised under a thematic schema (Beza, 2014) that revolves around a
designer and/or developer achieving, through one’s realisation of works, environmental requirements,
urban (alpine) planning obligations, and implementation standards. Despite the suggestion that the
framework primarily acts to identify various avenues of government responsibility and authority (Beza,
2014), all of its detailed requirements, obligations and standards must be addressed (e.g. Environment
and Planning Act, 1987) by the designer/developer. The purpose of the second case study, reflecting
on work in Nepal, is to investigate a deliberative planning approach to identify a method of collabo-
ration that could be used to contrast the Australian expert-based method of engagement to develop
an applied adaptive approach to structure placemaking efforts. In doing this, the applied approach
packages experiences to allow for comment on Robinson’s (2011) best practice query and provides
data that allows for comment to be made in relation to the DIAD theory. These case studies are not
direct comparisons, nor are they intended to be. Rather, each focuses on the degree to which external
8 B. B. Beza
expert knowledge may or may not be appropriately incorporated into a project. Their use here is also
similar to Innes and Booher’s (2010) explanation of their use of six varied case studies which were
used to construct a narrative of what was observed. The Australian example reflects a misapplication
of deliberative planning through the expert. The Nepali illustration reflects the marriage of expert and
local knowledge.
In the Australian example, “inappropriate” design outcomes are examined that revolve around the
use of a design-based problem-solving approach in the country’s mountains. The investigation explores
a transfer of planning ideas between urbanised city and mountain township site-specific settings in
Australia. In this section material related to the APRF and problem-solving approach was sought. Web-
based searches of responsible authorities’ sites, semi-structured interviews with key referral authority
managers and on-site field investigations in Falls Creek, Victoria led to the identification of material
used in this investigation.
The APRF was used as a mechanism to review an application of expert design knowledge to projects
in the mountains of Australia. Knowledge, it is argued (Beza, 2014) – in relation to the APRF, derives from
the country’s major urban centres (where most design education is taught) and is transferred to the
mountain environment in realising projects in the Australian Alps. The on-site investigations gave rise
to the opportunity to relate the outcomes desired by these designers to the items highlighted under
the APRF and by the referral authority managers in this mountain setting. What was being investigated
here is the response designers had realised in the mountain setting; which related specifically to built
outcomes and the designers’ response (or not) to a specific mountain setting and its environment. The
problem-solving approach provided the conceptual framework to suggest where and how expert-
based knowledge may be either appropriately or inappropriately applied when realising projects in
the country’s mountains.
In Nepal, a description of a positive example of deliberative planning was achieved by investigating
perceptions of garbage and investigating the realisation of a waste management technique in the
Mount Everest landscape. These investigations revolved around in-country observations and inter-
views with Pangkarma village community members. Literature on waste in the Mount Everest region
of Nepal was also sought and read for the researcher to develop an understanding of how villagers’
“view” waste. A category of waste: garbage is the “spent and valueless material left after some act of
production and consumption” (Lynch, 1990, p. 146). While there is no official definition in the Mount
Everest region of Nepal, except for its categorisation by the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee
(SPCC)(2008), garbage in this research is framed as discarded items found along the Mount Everest Trek
as waste by humans (excluding excrement) which visually blights the landscape and affects perceptions
of this environment (Lewis, Loewenthal, & Tuan, 1973; Loewenthal, 1963; Noe, Hammitt, & Bixler, 1997).
Developing an understanding of perceptions of garbage revolved around a review of literature spe-
cific to waste/rubbish/garbage/litter and its observation in the Mount Everest landscape (Beza, 2010).
On-site construction and evaluation of the waste management technique(s) described here utilised
a participant-as-observer approach (Bryman, 2004). I actively engaged with the local population of
Pangkarma village who understood this dynamic. Through Ang Tshering Sherpa, a local resident of
this village, I was introduced to members of the Pangkarma community. Together, Sherpa and I have
worked in partnership on waste management projects from 2003 to the present. During this period
other communities in the Junbesi Valley of Nepal also participated in the development of waste man-
agement techniques for their respective villages. The Junbesi Valley includes the village of Pangkarma
and is an area located in the Solu-Khumbu district of Nepal, which is a combination of two districts
that encompass the Nepali side of Mount Everest and the world heritage listed Sagarmatha National
Park. The deliberative planning and coproduction work with Pangkarma villagers revolved around
a series of meetings where an open dialogue about village issues/aspirations was conducted over a
two-week period. During the meetings villagers verbally and graphically expressed their observations.
Results
Australian Alps
In Australia I have worked on a variety of design (i.e. architecture, landscape architecture, urban plan-
ning and/or urban design) and education related projects in the country’s mountains, specifically in
the area of Falls Creek, Victoria – a small ski resort located five hours by car, north-east of Melbourne.
During the realisation of this work I have become increasingly concerned with criticism of design and
planning ideas applied in the country’s mountain townships. These ideas are frequently generated from
its major urban centres (e.g. Melbourne, Sydney). Criticism has come from senior managers in the Alpine
Planning Unit of the Department of Transport, Planning & Local Infrastructure, the Environmental Assets
Group, Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI), and the (Alpine) Building Surveyor
for Falls Creek, Victoria. These organisations, and particularly the people within them, are the review
authorities charged with overseeing (re)development in settings like Falls Creek (see Beza, 2014). They
are also authorities who put forward the argument that a designer needs to be better educated in the
thematic areas of the APRF and should then implement its various recommendations when working
on a project in order to produce appropriately responsive designs in Victoria’s mountain setting.
The argument made by these referral authorities revolves around the review of project (permit)
applications submitted by designers to realise respective works in the ski resort areas of Victoria. The
issue highlighted by these authorities is that inappropriate planning and (re)development ideas stem
from a lack of a designer’s and/or developer’s understanding of the APRF: which acts both as a resource
of information and calls attention to the considerations and obligations a designer, developer, commu-
nity member and local official must respond to when realising works in the Victoria mountain areas of
the Australian Alps (i.e. the Victorian Alps). Although the APRF has been “packaged” (Beza, 2014) and is
regarded as technocratic, its framework, as mentioned previously, consists of a number of independent
but related documents, managed by different bodies (e.g. the Department of Planning and Community
Development) located in Melbourne and the respective mountain resort areas in the state.
From the in-field observations and from discussions with review authorities, to produce appropriate
designs in this mountain setting designers require knowledge in four planning areas related to realising
projects in the Victorian Alps. These knowledge areas once again relate to urban (alpine) planning, the
(respective local) environment, implementation (these three are elements of the APRF), and a design-
ers’ education (the latter is discussed following the three APRF elements). The area of urban (alpine)
planning draws attention to the legislation under which (alpine) planning occurs, the planning review
and approval process, and the various alpine resort planning schemes that direct development in a
particular mountain setting (e.g. ARPS, 2016). The environmental knowledge area draws attention
to Victoria’s Native Vegetative Framework which sets out policies and practices to help reverse the
effects of long-term native vegetation removal (DNRE, 2002). This knowledge area also identifies the
legislative requirements that trigger consideration of the various environmental and safety-related
planning overlays. Lastly, it highlights that a response to the considerations must be approved by the
respective authority (e.g. Department of Environment and Primary Industry, Country Fire Authority)
before works can proceed.
10 B. B. Beza
Knowledge in the area of implementation revolves around the technical provisions for realising
design and construction projects in the various site settings encountered in Australia (NCC, 2012). This
area also draws specific attention to construction in the mountains and building in bushfire-prone
areas (see NCC, 2012, G05). Importantly, this knowledge area provides information on specific resort
policies that cover the leasing of public land within a mountain resort zone. It also calls attention to and
directs the development and implementation of cultural management plans to protect the Indigenous
(archaeological) heritage present in these mountain zones.
The last knowledge area is not specific to alpine planning, but is important as it influences how one
proceeds with the (re)development. This area refers to knowledge gained through formal education
and later experience that provides the means or justification to be titled as “expert”. In Australia, and
specifically in terms of a design education, this knowledge area is heavily focused on the creation and
expression of the aesthetic (as suggested in the introduction and best practice sections of this paper).
This aesthetic agenda reflects a “highly specialised city-focused design methodology and philosophy”
(Beza, 2014, p. 344). For example, in this city-focused scenario designers may not learn about or develop
an understanding of how to accommodate snow and/or the freeze/thaw (i.e. expansion/contraction)
principles of water on built features in the Victorian Alps. The reason why they do not obtain this
experience is because snow or the freeze/thaw scenario is rarely, if ever, experienced in the country’s
major urban centres (Beza, 2008, 2014).
When responding to a design brief, the “experts” usually follow a problem-solving approach that is
encouraged, but does not always include an understanding of the site, developing concept designs,
refining these through design development, documenting a preferred design development option,
and realising the work. A limitation with this approach is that it is extremely linear, with the designer
normally acting as expert throughout each stage of project works. Additionally, engagement with
the community may or may not occur in the first three stages of this approach as most of this work is
also usually conducted by consultants in their offices, generally in metropolitan environments, such
as Melbourne, far removed from the mountain project site. Establishing a dialogue with people in the
mountain township during the “design” can account for the varied concerns of communities and allow
for their local knowledge of a site to be exchanged with the expert. In effect, the “rules” governing the
established expert approach can be repositioned to guard against the dominance of a group, entity
and/or person (e.g. the designer) over another (see Healey, 1974). Engagement with a community at the
site-specific scale allows the designer to potentially gain insight into a setting or the site’s environmental
conditions through a deliberative approach to planning. Unfortunately, Legacy (2014) highlights that
an approach such as this does not frequently occur on planning projects.
Although the intention of this educational approach is sound, its application or utilisation can lead to
problems. These issues sometimes come about through the designer’s inflexibility or unwillingness to
compromise on their aesthetic vision for the works and/or a “Plan A” mindset that may reflect ignorance
of the mountain setting (e.g. its weather conditions – snow characteristics). The Building Surveyor for
Falls Creek, as well as for the other mountain township locations, reported that some practitioners are
simply not aware of (the APRF) material that can help with decision-making (e.g. local design guide-
lines); they are inexperienced about the topic and not aware of the need to search out topic-specific
information (e.g. snow loads, cultural specific practices); and/or may “ignore or disregard material”
related to a site (Beza, 2014, p. 351).
This disconnection from the material related to the (re)development site (i.e. local knowledge) can
occur in two ways: a physical separation and/or cognitive separation. The latter refers to a lack of design-
ers’ knowledge of the APRF, which can lead to one’s use of planning ideas that can be inappropriate
for sites in the Victorian Alps. This form of flawed design thinking (e.g. ignorance) is important to a
(re)development’s review by planning authorities, its applicability to the local environment and its
economic costs. These in turn can influence the success or otherwise of the (re)development (see
Hand, 2002; Skertchly & Skertchly, 2000).
In the generation of planning ideas for use in Victoria’s mountain townships, design-based expert
knowledge can be derived through the above learnt problem-solving approach. In this approach the
application of the APRF normally comes at the back end of the project realisation process (e.g. through
the submission of a design for planning review) and after design decisions by the experts have been
made. When the review takes place, the referral authorities may question the experts’ design response
to any number of items under the APRF. Required changes at a late stage of the (re)development works
can be costly, lead to delays and be at the expense of the environment (e.g. the budget for planting is
reallocated to cover the costs of the required amendments). What can result is a “Plan must do” which
incorporates various compromises to complete the project.

The problem-solving approach that allows this to occur may relate to a lack of understanding in
the knowledge areas previously discussed. To overcome such ignorance, repositioning the point at
which the APRF is applied in this approach is appropriate. Unfortunately, the APRF poses a number
of significant limitations that reduce its recommended application. The first is that the framework is a
scholarly construct where its stated legislative requirements, environmental goals, design standards, for
example, are found, in reality, throughout the various government departments that oversee design,
construction and occupancy approvals in Victoria’s mountain setting(s). In other words, the APRF is
not one comprehensive “bound” document that designers/developers or the community can refer to.
Another two limitations are that the framework is voluntary and not widely publicised – designers/
developers may choose to ignore the framework or may not know of its existence. Additionally, the
corporate knowledge used by Beza (2014) to help construct the APRF and some of the people that
would commonly refer to the APRF, are now in other jobs and external to their government positions
originally held. Lastly, on face value the APRF presents itself as a linear model, however, its utility is
that it allows for the design expert to collaborate and deliberate (if one sincerely desires to do so)
with a range of parties, at any given time, to achieve positive site-specific outcomes. For example, the
Program Manager, Environmental Advice and Approvals of the DEPI, suggests that by developing an
understanding in and utilising the APRF at the “front end” of one’s work, the designer may be able to
establish site-related collaborative planning project principles. These principles can then be used to
guide the decision-making and may help to systematically address the review authorities’ concerns. A
repositioning of the APRF’s application may also encourage referral authorities to share locally derived
knowledge with the outside experts. A policy shift in utilising the APRF is not being argued here, but
rather that the experts do their “homework” on the setting where work is being conducted so that
one may develop an understanding of the environment and of the social variables when producing
outcomes.
Nepal
In and around Mount Everest garbage is considered by several authorities to be a serious problem
(ENRSN, 2007; Kunwar & Bajimaya, 2002; Manfredi et al., 2010; WHC, 2009) with nearly every conceiv-
able domestic and commercial type of rubbish found in this landscape (Beza, 2010). Oxygen bottles,
used syringes and dead bodies can also be found at higher elevations on Mount Everest and its sur-
rounding landscape. The more domestic types of garbage have been reported every 27.6 human steps
12 B. B. Beza
(~14 metres) along some sections of the Mount Everest Trek (Bhuju & Rana, 2000), and calculated as
a waste load of nearly two tonnes of garbage per kilometre of tourist trail in portions of the trek less
impacted by tourists (such as Lobuche/Djongle-Thangnag). This can rise to 12 tonnes per kilometre
along highly frequented tourist sections of the route (such as Jorsalle-Namche Bazaar) (Nepal, 2001)
during the tourist season. Fifty tonnes of rubbish have been estimated on the slopes of Mount Everest
(Rees, 2009) with eight tonnes of it later reported to have been removed (SMEP, 2011). In simple terms,
there is argued to be “a great deal of garbage” (Manfredi et al., 2010, p. 129) in this setting.
In western culture, the perception that Mount Everest is littered with garbage rose from Bishop’s
(1963) portrayal of the mountain’s South Col as the “world’s highest junkyard” followed by western-
instigated waste-removal schemes that began in the 1990s (see Anderson, 1993; McConnell, 1991)
and which persist today (Paris, 2015; SMEP, 2011). The concept of garbage found in this environment
may be regarded as pollution by westerners. Yet “pollution” as westerners perceive it is foreign to
many local residents of the Mount Everest landscape, whose own concept of pollution relates more to
spiritual impurity. The closest western interpretation of this latter concept is when someone with an
illness defiles a sacred environment, or when a lower-caste member comes into contact with what is
considered sacred, for example, to the Sherpa causing offence to lu spirits (Ortner, 1973) (i.e. the
environmental spirits). In the early 1990s, Ngawang Tenzing Jangpo, His Holiness Rimpoche of
Tengboche, made the first call in Khumbu to remove garbage from the mountain, which became a
catalyst for waste-management programmes in the Sagarmatha National Park (Kunwar & Bajimaya,
2002). One may, however, interpret His Holiness’ call as more of a reaction to the defilement of the
deity Chomolungma’s abode (i.e. the massif of Mount Everest), rather than to any western-derived
environmentalism.
Shortly after His Holiness’ call, in the late 1990s some commentators argued that at the higher
elevations of Mount Everest the garbage was not hurting anything except the aesthetic experiences
of the climbers (Kauder, 1999) because at elevations of ≥ 5000 m the refuse is suggested to be eco-
logically inert and remains in the same condition as when first deposited (Bishop & Naumann, 1996;
Firstbrook, 1999). The refuse can become a problem once it is brought down from the mountain and
works its way into the environment and/or waste stream. Garbage is an issue when it is left for locals
in the mountain’s surrounding villages to manage. Even if waste can be relocated to Kathmandu,
which is normally beyond the economic means of the average local mountain resident, it can remain
in designated spots (such as at intersections of streets or paths) for extended periods of time, only to
be collected and deposited “at the river banks and in open areas” (Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani
Limited, 2013, p. 35) of the Kathmandu metropolitan area. Additionally, transporting waste from one
location to another may be viewed as simply shifting the problem elsewhere. It may be suggested
that the media draws attention to the garbage problem primarily because of what it may represent
in wealthy western nations (e.g. Australia). And that in the Mount Everest area of Nepal and “with the
exception of specific sites (e.g. Everest Base Camp) the garbage issue has been greatly exaggerated”
(Ives, 2004, p. 150).
Regardless of one’s cultural background or perception of garbage, it is not expected to be seen
in this landscape. However, it is not expected to be seen for two very different reasons. Beza (2010)
explains that Australian tourists experiencing this setting have learned about this environment and
the Sherpa, who inhabit the area, from a distance. That is, they learn about this environment and the
people within it through popular forms of media, and their acquired perception(s) revolve around an
imagined landscape. Beza (2010) also suggests that, in contrast, the Sherpa perception of garbage is
based in the reality of the landscape where their daily-life needs and wants may or may not be realised.
The implication is that the Sherpa recognise that garbage observed in this environment detracts from
the tourists’ positive perception(s) of this landscape and may convey, to the westerner, a message of
mismanagement, environmental irresponsibility and/or what Dempsey, Burton, and Smith (2014) refer
to as a lack of place-keeping.
The above illustration highlights potential differences in the conceptual thinking and approaches
related to a dialogue between two different parties (i.e. people from the west and local residents of
an area), in this case a difference of ideas related to garbage and the perception(s) of it in the Mount
Everest landscape. The conceptual difference regarding garbage is fundamental to arguments about
knowledge transfer where, for example, an approach or mindset used in a wealthy nation is assumed to
be suitable for use in a less wealthy country (e.g. Nepal). In the following paragraphs details are set out
regarding the development and utilisation of a western-derived planning idea – a waste management
technique for potential use in the village of Pangkarma, Nepal (i.e. the second case study).
Since 2003, I have been fortunate to work in Nepal with local communities along the Mount Everest
Trek, primarily in the village of Pangkarma and the Junbesi Valley. Over the years the communities in this
valley area and I have engaged in a process that has realised eight rubbish pits to manage household
waste and, in partnership with World Expeditions – an Australian-based trekking organisation – and
students from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, realised three incinerators to manage
waste in monasteries in the area. The Junbesi community, the students and I also worked together to
realise a girls’ toilet facility for the Junbesi High School (a school built by Sir Edmund Hillary), a toilet/
shower facility for the dormitory of this institution, and recently in 2014 a potable water system for this
high school. These latter projects have been quite successful, leading to their extensive use by many
members of the community. In short, I have observed, developed and applied a number of externally
and conjointly produced planning ideas in this area of the world. Some of these planning ideas have
been well received and work according to the Plan OK scenario. Others have not been as successful.
These other projects have not been successful or are questionable because they lack involvement
and ownership by locals and rely on foreign expertise (or materials) to arrive at, deliver, and/or main-
tain the realised project outcome (see Sherpa, 2014). For example, some of the waste management
projects have not been managed well after their completion and have been disused, and some waste
pits have been inappropriately located in the natural environment (e.g. next to a water course). These
“issues” reflect a lack of what Dempsey and Smith (2014) refer to as the overlap of placemaking and
place-keeping. That is, ideally an interdependent relationship between the two should exist where
the realised outcomes, in this case the study example, influence their management, and the potential
management of those realised outcomes influence their design.
To minimise the generation of negative perceptions related to garbage and to promote a sense of
environmental stewardship, in 2003 I was invited by the community of Pangkarma to meet with their
village development committee (a committee of residents, with each having expertise in a specific
village area) to talk about issues that could arise from a planned increase in tourists to Junbesi Valley.
I was asked because the villagers had come to know and trust me through my initial 2002–3 PhD field
work in Nepal. After a series of extended meetings, led by Ang Tshering Sherpa, the committee decided
that waste management (excluding human excrement) was the most pressing issue that needed to
be addressed; because waste was becoming noticeable and perceived to be negatively impacting
tourist and local perceptions of the village. Already contemporary forms of plastic and tin packaging
were increasingly being disposed of by villagers in the adjacent forest and river. This garbage had first
been acquired in the nearby major village as products that became available through new levels of
affluence created by tourism and locals meeting the tourists’ consumer needs. An increase of tourist
numbers to the area would amplify the garbage issue.
14 B. B. Beza
A robust discussion then revolved around the potential development of a waste management
strategy that drew reference from the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (see Beza, 2010; SPCC,
2008), examples in the adjacent Khumbu district (see Manfredi et al., 2010), current disposal and man-
agement practices in the Junbesi Valley, and contemporary Australian waste management techniques.
Each of these references, examples and techniques had positives and negatives, reflecting varying
levels of sophistication. Eventually, the discussion of waste management in the village was reduced
to a desired outcome: a landscape (mostly) free of litter and/or what the villagers considered to be the
inappropriate disposal of garbage, along with a locally derived means to achieve this outcome. Note
that everything in this village and surrounding valley is reused until it can be used no longer. Food
waste is always given to the domestic animals.
The means to achieve this outcome were realised through another series of collaborative
discussions, translations and drawings. In the end, to service the dispersed development of the
village, it was decided to construct two rubbish pits, located on the north and south periphery of
the village. Through drawings and hand gestures (which were done at times because translations
proved difficult) the pits were designed to meet a benchmark of safety, waste containment and
ease of use, which was learned through the observation of inappropriately realised pits found
along the Mount Everest Trek. The pits’ physical construction required a local labour force to
produce the materials and to understand the pits’ assembly so locals could respond to maintenance
issues. Lastly an appropriate level of remuneration for the workforce was agreed upon, which was
in line with the local wages in Pangkarma at that time. Funding was confirmed later through a
donation from the Director of Design at the City of Melbourne. Through this engagement process
a project trajectory was determined, funding found and the rubbish pits built (Figure 1): Plan OK
was realised; which essentially was a coproduction approach that could be used for site-specific
project works.
Figure 1. Rubbish pit in village of Pangkarma, Nepal.

Since 2003 when the two pits were constructed, they have not been replaced. The practice of burn-
ing the waste once it reached the base of the wall is a local practice that was not brought up during
discussions. An advantage of this practice is that waste is reduced through the act of its burning and
the pit fills more slowly. A disadvantage is that potentially toxic materials are released when the rub-
bish is burned and the ash from those materials can percolate into the ground when the contents of
the open pit are left exposed to the rain. Also, during discussions with other villagers who had since
built similar rubbish pits in the Junbesi Valley, using the Pangkarma pit design as a prototype, I found
that these communities added a drain to their waste facility. The villagers had found that the pits filled
with water during the monsoon (the first pits had been constructed during a relatively dry period)
and the rubbish could not then be burnt. It was confronting to me, later, that neither the villagers nor
I reflected upon the monsoon period as a potential factor in the applicability of the rubbish pit. These
practices and then discussions with Australian designers (including myself ) resulted in a rethink of
the original pit design, using planning ideas generated mainly in Melbourne, Australia. The design of
this “new pit”, however, evolved into a highly technical, costly and impractical solution – in essence,
it became removed from local human experience (Dewey, 1934), having lacked the collaborative and
deliberative elements articulated in the DIAD theory. It had to be scaled back (as an inappropriate Plan
A had been created) and the simple remedy of adding a removable roof to the original pit design was
incorporated. This addition could prevent a pit from filling with water and it would keep the rubbish
dry. The roof would also minimise drainage and percolation, from the rain into the soil, of potentially
harmful elements present in the ashes of the burned waste. The roof idea was achieved through col-
laborative dialogue with the villagers and project officers in the Australian Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) of Victoria.
Discussion
The two case studies present links with many of the base elements described in the DIAD theory.
Elements such as knowledge areas and degrees of collaboration, communication and deliberation are
present at the site-specific scale as well as what Innes and Booher (2010) describe in reference to the
applicability of their theory at the state, regional, and local levels. These case studies also demonstrate a
range of positive elements embedded within a coproduction approach, such as: 1) discussions between
parties can blur expert/citizenry boundaries, 2) deliberation between the expert/citizenry can lead to
site-specific outcomes that reflect good practice, and 3) engagement between parties is effective at
the varying stages of project planning and management, with particular emphasis at the beginning of
project works. The following discussion elaborates on the material generated from these case studies
by constructing a narrative on the utility of each, relative to the DIAD theory.
In Nepal a Plan OK resulted from dialogue between community members and an invited external
“expert” from Australia. However, as also shown in this example, a Plan A was mistakenly created when
planning ideas were generated through disengagement with the site setting and people. Plan OK did
return when the cultural (and technological) practices of villagers were conjoined with the thoughts
of the EPA. The Australian example described above illustrates (re)development work being performed
by expert designers based in Melbourne. In this instance a disconnection from the Australian mountain
township and the use of Plan A can result in an inappropriate application of externally derived planning
ideas within a wealthy country.
These two explanations of a Plan A versus the development of Plan OK suggest that “inappropriate”
planning ideas can be generated and applied in a developing setting (e.g. Nepal) as well as a developed
16 B. B. Beza
one (e.g. Australia). Common to both Plan A examples is that when site-related planning ideas are
generated from a “distance”, through a lack of engagement and input (i.e. deliberation) from the local
residents and/or engagement with material relating to a site setting (e.g. the APRF), inappropriate
outcomes can be forthcoming. Hence, learning about a place and producing outcomes for that set-
ting from a distance runs the risk of not supporting the development of appropriate planning ideas.
In the development of appropriate planning ideas for the mountain township in Victoria, under-
standing the complex and varied requirements of the APRF at the “front end” of project works is sug-
gested to lead to more appropriate outcomes. This front end approach is not dissimilar to the Nepali
example given above where, through engagement with the local community, one can learn about a
setting’s environment, a community’s construction, technological and maintenance capabilities, and
participate in their decision-making. The identification of these engagement elements is similar to the
suggested need for Australian designers to develop an understanding in the four knowledge areas
that make up and affect their use (or not) of the APRF: environment, legislative, implementation and
education. These four knowledge areas in fact revolve around a local setting (in this case the Victorian
Alps) and are applied in site-specific contexts.
Using this front end approach in the development of planning ideas also begins to link with the
concept of placemaking, place-keeping and adaptive planning which are in line with the coproduction
principles of Innes and Booher (2010), Albrechts (2012) and Dempsey, Smith, and Burton (2014). That is,
through engagement with the local community, at the beginning of project works, a Plan OK approach
can be developed. And in this scenario Plan OK draws from the qualities of a “place” and deliberation to
develop locally prepared and inspired ideas through a tailor-made process of engagement leading to a
desired outcome. Included within the Plan OK approach is the “expert”: being invited to work with the
local community, meeting and discussing “matters” with the community, collectively creating a desired
outcome that recognises the community’s construction, technological and maintenance capabilities,
reviewing of the outcome and amending it through collaborative communication, involving a local
labour force and remunerating them to realise the project outcome, securing funding, and maintaining
and analysing the realised outcome.
Conclusion
This paper investigated two design project “best practice” case studies (one in Nepal and one in
Australia) to develop a coproduction approach (i.e. Plan OK) that can be used to guide deliberative
planning efforts in placemaking. Data in the development of the Plan OK approach was gathered by
examining the transfer of ideas across distances (e.g. knowledge created in Melbourne, Australia and
applied in Nepal) and by examining the implementation of best practice in planning (i.e. project solu-
tions developed in Melbourne, Australia and applied in the country’s mountains).
Similar to the APRF, for Plan OK to be effectively applied, knowledge in specific areas needs to be
discussed and transferred between a community and designer. These knowledge areas revolve around
the local environment, planning/design requirements and obligations, project implementation and a
respective culture/community that are acted upon to effect positive outcomes in a site-specific setting.
Unfortunately, similar to the APRF, Plan OK also has limitations: 1) it is a recent construct and largely
unknown, 2) the approach is voluntary and may be avoided as it challenges existing power/govern-
ance relationships, and 3) it requires true commitment and participation of parties at Arnstein’s (1969)
“higher community engagement end” to be effective. Furthermore, the latter may be unattractive as at
present design budgets and project timelines would not account for such a coproduction commitment.
In a positive light, the Plan OK approach allows for an “expert” to become embedded within a local
setting and to learn from the community. Essentially, the approach merges concepts of deliberative
planning and placemaking to create an amalgamation of ideas between parties (i.e. good practice)
and is contrary to the “stage managed events” Legacy (2014) argues “reduc[e] the depth and breadth of
public deliberation” (p. 75) in Australia. The approach also works to minimise a linear flow of planning
ideas from an expert in a wealthy nation to a community in a less wealthy one. Plan OK does, however,
work in reverse to maximise deliberative planning efforts from a community in less wealthy nations to
an expert from a wealthier country.
Building from the above Plan OK discussion and drawing a link to Innes and Booher’s (2010) work,
the DIAD theory has strong applicability on the site-specific scale, along with international suitability,
when its model components (i.e. collaboration, deliberation and use of different knowledge types)
are engaged with and welcome site-specific conditions and relationships. These three foundation
stones of the theory can also operate largely unhampered when involved parties are sincere; they
meet face to face, listen to and understand what each other is saying, and work towards a collective
outcome. The Plan OK approach presented above is not intended to be inferred as an addition to the
DIAD theory when applied on a site-specific scale. In itself Plan OK should be regarded in the spirit of
Innes and Booher (2010). That is, as a contribution to knowledge helping to illustrate that Innes and
Booher’s model can be applied at a fine-grained coproduction level and is not another “tool to make
something” (i.e. it needs to be appropriate to its context). Importantly, the site-specific and coproduction
nature of Plan OK and the DIAD theory reposition the community member to enable one to become,
as Albrechts (2012) suggests, an active and empowered, rather than recipient and passive, participant
in “the process”. Coproduction approaches, such as these, as Albrechts (2012) explains, distinguish
themselves from community participation as they engage with the realities of a given site and work
to include one’s experience(s) in “planning and practice” (p. 57).
The Plan OK approach described above also refocuses an expert mindset to reposition thinking on
deliberative planning and placemaking rather than “(re)development”. Placemaking builds (and is built
by) a process that incorporates the local knowledge of a setting and application of that knowledge to
achieve a partnered outcome. In essence, good practice is realised through adaptive measures that
come about through deliberative planning.
Inspiration for this framework and its applicability at the site level came from an unlikely source: Sir
Edmund Hillary, whose highly regarded mountaineering achievements play little in this inspiration.
His approach of waiting to be invited to participate in a partnership with a local community to achieve
a desired outcome provides the impetus in the development of this good practice approach. Being
invited to participate in works is not a foreign concept to designers. In Australia invitations may come
by way of “preferred” client or council status – their “expert” knowledge and/or experience is desired.
Although the use of the “expert” in this paper has been argued against and an approach discussed to
minimise some of its effects, the notion of the expert does not break down. The local community, in
this sense, is also “expert” and their knowledge of a setting is merged with that of the external expert
(e.g. the designer). This conjoining of knowledge types creates new planning ideas and potential out-
comes applicable to the site setting. In this scenario of creating new planning ideas, which are always
established through dialogue, the respective experts’ knowledge resides alongside this dialogue and
is brought into play as necessary when creating Plan OK.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
18 B. B. Beza
Notes on contributor
Beau B. Beza is Course Director in Deakin University’s renowned Planning and Landscape Architecture programme
in the School of Architecture and Built Environment. He co-edited and contributed (co-authored) three chapters
to The Public City (Melbourne University Press, 2014). He uses a place making approach and an asset-based and
co-production model to realise “places” in urban and rural settings. Beza has worked on academic and consultancy
projects in Australia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, Nepal, Norway, Mexico, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
and the USA, where he completed his undergraduate university studies. Beza financially manages and is a team
member in a $AUD1.4m research project on improving the methods and impacts of agricultural extension in
conflict areas of Mindanao in the Philippines.
References
Abramson, D. B. (2010). A trans-Pacific planning education in reverse: reflections of an American with a Chinese
doctorate in urban planning and design. In P. Healey & R. Upton (Eds.), Crossing Borders: International Exchange
and Planning Practices (pp. 289–312). Abingdon: Routledge.
Albrechts, L. (2012). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory,
12, 46–63.
Anderson, J. W. (1993). Everest vista: traffic, trash; even corpses litter peak’s now worn trails. Retrieved November
27, 2005, from http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1993&m=6&p=21_2
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.
ARPS. (2016). Australian resorts planning scheme. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from http://planning-schemes.delwp.
vic.gov.au/schemes/alpineresorts
Barry, J., & Porter, L. (2011). Indigenous recognition in state-based planning systems: Understanding textual
mediation in the contact zone. Planning Theory, 11, 170–187.
Beza, B. B. (2008). Design considerations for the Australian Alps (DES 3). BEDP Environmental Design Guide (EDG
ISSUE), 1–8.
Beza, B. B. (2010). The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 97, 306–317.
Beza, B. B. (2014). Realising design projects in the mountains of Australia: A repositioned problem-solving approach
for application in the Australian Alp’. In A. Bento-Gonçalves & A. Vieira (Eds.), Mountains: Geology, Topography
and Environmental Concerns (pp. 341–356). New York, NY: Nova Publishing.
Beza, B. B., Munoz-Villers, J., & Garza, M. L. G. (2013). Finding common ground: creating successful places in the
redevelopment of Mexico City and Melbourne (paper presented at the meeting of the Conference on 6th
International Urban Design Conference, “UrbanAgiNation” urbanisation, agitation, imagination, Sydney, 9-11
September.
Bhuju, D. R., & Rana, P. (2000). An appraisal of human impact on vegetation in high altitudes (Khumbu region) of
Nepal. Nepal Journal of Science and Technology, 2, 101–106.
Bishop, B. (1963). August). How we climbed Everest. National Geographic, 477–507.
Bishop, B. C., & Naumann, C. (1996). Mount Everest: Reclamation of the world’s highest junk yard. Mountain Research
and Development, 16, 323–327.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Jang, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). An insider’s look into policy transfer in transnational expert networks. European
Planning Studies, 15(5), 687–706.
Dempsey, N., Burton, M., & Smith, H. (2014). From space to place: The importance of place-keeping, In N. Dempsey,
H. Smith & M. Burton (Eds.), Place-keeping: Open Space Management in Practice (pp. 1–12). New York, NY:
Routledge (eBook Collection).
Dempsey, N., & Smith, H. (2014). Understanding place-keeping of open space, In N. Dempsey, H. Smith, & M. Burton
(Eds.), Place-keeping: Open Space Management in Practice (pp. 13–29). New York, NY: Routledge (eBook Collection).
Dempsey, N., Smith, H., & Burton, M. (2014). Place-keeping: Open Space Management in Practice. New York: Routledge
(eBook Collection).
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Capricorn Books.
DNRE. (2002). Victoria’s native vegetation management: A framework for action. Melbourne: Department of Natural
Resources and Environment.
Dodson, J. (2014). Interrogating the public city. In B. Gleeson & B. B. Beza (Eds.), The Public City: Essays in Honour of
Paul Mees (pp. 27–40). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
ENRSN. (2007). Extraordinary new ramsar sites in Nepal: Nepal names four high altitude sites. Retrieved March 21,
2016, from http://www.ramsar.org/fr/node/37429
Environment and Planning Act. (1987). Environment and planning Act 1987. Melbourne, Australia: State of Victoria.
Firstbrook, P. (1999). Lost on everest: The search for Mallory & Irvine. London: BBC Worldwide.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with difference: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press (eBook Academic Collection).
Friedmann, J. (2010). Crossing boarders: Do planning ideas travel? In P. Healey & R. Upton (Eds.), Crossing Boarders:
International Exchange and Planning Practices (pp. 313–328). Abingdon: Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1981a [1984]). The theory of communicative action (vol. 1) reason and the rationalisation of society.
(T. McCarthy, Trans.). London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1981b [1987]). The theory of communicative action (vol. 2) lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist
reason. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hamdi, N. (2010). The placemakers guide to building community. London: Earthscan.

Hand, D. (2002). Report of the inquest into the deaths arising from the Thredbo (Coroner’s report of the inquest into
the deaths arising from the Thredbo landslide). Sydney: State Coroner.
Harris, A., & Moore, S. (2013). Planning histories and practices of circulating urban knowledge. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 1499–1509.
Healey, P. (1974). Planning and change. Progress in Planning, 2, 143–237.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan Press.
Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Healey, P. (2011). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas
and practices. Planning Theory, 11, 188–207.
Hillary Medal. (2013). Sir Edmund Hillary Mountain Legacy Medal. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://
hillarymedal.org/background.html
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public
policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ives, J. D. (2004). Himalayan perceptions: Environmental change and the well-being of mountain peoples. London:
Routledge (Taylor and Francis Group).
Jenkins, P., Smith, H., & Kirk, K. (2004). Governance, citizenship, participation and urban planning: exploration of the
context for knowledge transfer between Europe and the South. Edinburgh: Centre for Environment & Human
Settlements, School of the Built Environment.
Kauder, C. (1999, Spring). Green team: Controversy over removing garbage from Everest. Himalaya News: The
Quarterly Newsletter of the Himalayan Explorers Club, 10, 2 & 8.
Kathmandu Upatyaka Khanepani Limited. (2013). Draft Initial Environmental Examination. NEP: Kathmandu Valley
Wastewater Management Project. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from Asian Development Bank http://www.adb.
org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/43524-014-nep-ieeab.pdf.
Kunwar, K. J., & Bajimaya, S. S. (2002). Periodic reporting exercise on the application of the world heritage convention
(Section II: State of conservation of specific world heritage properties). Kathmandu: Department of National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation.
Lees, L. (2012). The geography of gentrification: Thinking through comparative urbanism. Progress in Human
Geography, 36, 155–171.
Legacy, C. (2014). Public plan-making: A deliberative approach. In B. Gleeson & B. B. Beza (Eds.), The Public City:
Essays in Honour of Paul Mees (pp. 74–88). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Lewis, P. F., Loewenthal, D., & Tuan, Y. (Eds). (1973). Visual blight in America (Resource paper No. 23). Washington, DC:
Commission on Collage Geography, Association of American Geographers.
Loewenthal, D. (1963). Not every prospect pleases: What is our criterion for scenic beauty. Landscape, 12, 19–23.
Lynch, K. (1990). Wasting away - An exploration of waste: What it is, how it happens, why we fear it, how to do it well.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Manfredi, C. E., Flury, B., Viviana, G., Thakuri, S., Khanal, S. N., Jha, P. K., ... Salerno, F. (2010). Solid waste and water
quality management models for Sagarmatha national park and buffer zone, Nepal: Implementation of a
participatory modeling framework. Mountain Research and Development, 30(2), 127–142.
20 B. B. Beza
McConnell, R. M. (1991). Solving environmental problems caused by adventure travel in developing countries: The
Everest environmental expedition. Mountain Research and Development, 11, 359–366.
McDermott, J. J. (Ed.). (1981). The philosophy of John Dewey. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Mitlin, D. (2008). With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political influence, power and
transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment & Urbanisation, 20, 339–360.
Montero, S. (2014). Worlding Bogotá’s Ciclovía: From Urban experiment to international “best practice.” Unpublished
manuscript.
NCC. (2012). The national construction code. Canberra: Australian Building Codes Board.
Nepal, S. K. (2001). Managing mountain tourism and environment in the highest national park: solid waste
management in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal, a success story. Unpublished manuscript.
Noe, F. P., Hammitt, W. E., & Bixler, R. D. (1997). Park user perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied
situations in three national parks. Journal of Environmental Management, 49, 323–336.
Ortner, S. B. (1973). Sherpa purity. American Anthropologist, 75, 49–63.
Paris, N. (2015). Mount Everest to be cleaned up by Indian Army. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/nepal/articles/Mount-Everest-to-be-cleaned-up-by-
Indian-army/.
Placemaking Chicago. (2011). A guide to placemaking in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Metropolitan Planning Council.
Rees, E. (2009). Climb every mountain? Ecologist, 39(5), 32–35.
Robinson, J. (2011). The spaces of circulating knowledge: City strategies and global urban governmentality. In
E. McCann & K. Ward (Eds.), Mobile Urbanism: Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age (pp. 15–40). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Roy, A. (2011). Commentary: Placing planning in the world-transnationalism as practice and critique. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 31, 406–415.
Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6, 52–58.
Sherpa, P. (2014). Waste incinerator in namche bazar, sagarmatha national park. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from
http://namchebazar.info/news
Skertchly, A., & Skertchly, K. (2000). Thredbo disaster Coroner’s inquest. The Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, 16, 2–12.
SMEP. (2011). Saving mount everest project. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from http://www.savingmounteverest.
org/index.php?id=70
Söderström, O., & Geertman, S. (2013). Loose threads: The translocational making of public space policy in Hanoi.
Singapore Journal of traopical Geography, 34, 244–260.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance.
Public Administration, 87, 234–258.
SPCC. (2008). Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC): Annual Progress Report 2006/07-2007/08, Namche
Bazaar. Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee.
Thornley, A. (2013). Exporting the ‘barcelona model’ to London: The ‘shaping’ role of the architectural profession.
London School of Economics Political Science, Geography and Environment. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://
www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/pdf/ThornleyExportingBarcelona.pdf
Tomlinson, R. (2013). Dentists, politicians and policy professionals: the prescriptive character of best practice
‘knowledge products’ for slum upgrading. International Development Planning Review, 35, 353–369.
WHC. (2009). United Nations education, scientific and cultural organisation: Convention concerning the protection
of the world cultural and natural heritage. World Heritage Committee, Thirty-third session, Seville, Spain 22-30
June 2009 (WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add’), Paris, UNESCO.
Wright, G. (2002). Building global modernisms. Grey Room, 7, 124–134.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zairi, M., & Whymark, J. (2000). The transfer of best practices: How to build a culture of benchmarking and continuous
learning - part 1. Benchmarking: An International, 7, 62–78.
Zanoni, P., & Janssens, M. (2009). Sustainable divercities. In M. Janssens, D. Pinelli, D. C. Reymen, & S. Wallman
(Eds.), Sustainable cities: Diversity, economic growth and social cohesion (pp. 3–25). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

5 Beza2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Beza2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Theory & Practice

ISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20

The role of deliberative planning in translating

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1156730

Published online: 06 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The role of deliberative planning in translating best practice into

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Beau B. Beza beau.beza@deakin.edu.au

Concerns with a transfer of ideas

Deliberative planning and ideas of Plan A/Plan OK

incorporates various compromises to complete the project.

Figure 1. Rubbish pit in village of Pangkarma, Nepal.

Hamdi, N. (2010). The placemakers guide to building community. London: Earthscan.

You might also like