Planning and the Complexity Conundrum

Implementing at the cost of Planning

A characteristic feature of large urban development schemes in India is that they are heavily implementation oriented. In a way, they seem to have overcome the "the-plan-was-good-but-the-implementation-was-bad" impasse in Indian urban planning.

To be sure, this lacuna of planning has been overcomeby abandoning planning itself and opting for large, sectoral schemes implemented by specific line departments of the government.  For what else are these large urban development schemes in India if not projects of specific infrastructure verticals undertaken in mega-scale?

It is not difficult to resolve the difficulties of planning, if urban planning itself -- the science and art of forecasting future development scenarios in a city or region and preparing for it by integrating the activities of multiple components of the urban system i.e. land, housing, economy, infrastructure -- is abandoned.

Urban systems are complex by their very nature. The discipline of urban planning, therefore, by its very nature, is tasked with anticipating the behaviour of this highly complex and dynamic system in a scientific manner and preparing for it. 

Planning and Complexity

Rather than talking in vague and general terms (as is increasingly common these days), it is perhaps better to use the concept of "variety", which is used in the field of cybernetics as a measure of complexity.

W. Ross Ashby, one of the pioneers in the field of cybernetics, described "variety" as the number of possible states that a system can take. As systems become larger in size, the amount of "variety", and therefore complexity, increases exponentially.

Looking at urban systems, examples of this could be found everywhere. For a very small town a single, small commercial area with a small cluster of shops of various kinds may suffice. But a larger city would inevitable give rise to a whole range of commercial areas of various sizes and types, having different areas of coverage and located in various parts of the city.

I sometimes gave the example of a footpath to my planning students, which, in a sweet little Scandinavian town would be just a footpath, but in a city of even moderate size in India could turn into a space for shopping, hawking, begging, sleeping, living, storing, parking...and, if possible, a space for pedestrians for walking. 

In the former case the footpath would have a variety of 1 and in the latter a variety of n...and counting !

In his book "Designing Freedom", Stafford Beer showed the calculation to estimate variety -

If there are n people in a system, and each of them has variety x (each can adopt x number of possible states), then the variety of the total system thus defined will be xⁿ.

So if there are only 40 people (n=40), each of whom has only two possible states (x=2), there are still 2⁴⁰ possible states of the system.

2⁴⁰ =  1,099,511,627,776

      ('Designing Freedom', Stafford Beer, p - 11)                 

 

This is complexity quantified.

Better to not even attempt to calculate the total possible states that our second footpath can take ! 

Now that we have developed a healthy respect for the mind-numbing salvo of variety (therefore complexity) that urban systems can hurl at the planning profession, it is perhaps possible to at least understand (if not entirely forgive) why the profession often fails to successfully execute the task that it has taken on.

The planning paradox and the world of probabilities

Any serious discussion on a topic as complex as the planning of urban systems in the 21st century, has to begin by acknowledging that it is a near impossible task. And yet, it has to be done.

Therefore, the discipline has to be approached like any complex system has to be approached - not with the demands of certainty...but with the estimation of probability.

As the geopolitical expert Andrei Martyanov said in a recent talk -

"The world of prognostication and serious analysis is the world of probabilities."

In the context of planning, this was discussed wonderfully by Poulicos Prastacos in one of his papers on the Projective Optimization Land Use Information System (POLIS) land-use transportation model. He wrote that one of the problems of the first generation of land use-transportation models, developed by planners in the US during 1960-75, was that their goals were too ambitious. 

Prastacos wrote the following lines way back in 1985, which I find extremely relevant given the planning challenges we face today -

"Critics of urban modelling were correct in pin-pointing the limitations of the early models, but failed to notice that most of these arose from either the overambitious expectations about the role of models in planning or the general lack of knowledge about the state of the art and the capability to implement successfully complex mathematical equations. They did not provide an alternative methodology that could address some of the more modest goals and potential applications of large-scale models (consistent set of forecasts, evaluation of alternative transportation improvements)."

Instead of an abandonment of the models, the empirical criticism should have instead allowed for the calibration of the goals and ambitions - applying them to more modest problems and building them up based on the results.  

If 'certainty' is impossible, then it is pointless to keep it as the only measure of success. There is no methodology that exists which can forecast the future population of a city with certainty. However, there are many splendid methods by which the future population can be estimated, depending on the assumptions used. 

Abandoning probability based scientific methods (just because they "fail" to offer the certainty demanded by decision-makers) relegates planning to a position where its only hopes are various kinds of purely qualitative discursive practices; the tribal knowledge of long established planning offices and the individual genius of this or that planning officer, engineer or administrator etc.

That's no way to handle a system, let alone a complex and dynamic one such as the urban system. 

This dooms the profession to be eternally engaged with last minute fire-fighting with ad hocism as its primary tool.

Compared to this visible form of acting and responding to various urban challenges, the voluminous master plans (where they exist) with all their guidelines, development controls,  land-use plans seem unrealistic and farcical like the detailed diet-chart of a person who is gobbling junk food everyday because he never gets enough time to cook and eat healthy food.

This is also what strengthen the arguments in favour of ditching planning altogether, or effectively bypassing it by directly implementing the separate infrastructure components without requiring an overall plan to guide the process. 

Thus a mission like the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Transformation  (AMRUT) would cover a range of infrastructure veticals such as water supply, sewerage and septage management, storm water drainage to reduce flooding, green spaces and parks and non-motorised transport. Similarly, Swachh Bharat Mission would focus on construction of toilets, solid waste management etc. 

As the implementation of these verticals can be measured in the form of easily quantifiable metrics - number of toilets constructed; kilometers of drains laid; number of parks made etc - they, naturally, become favourites of politicians and bureaucrats alike.

But this can lead to serious problems.

Duplication dilemma

A distinct benefit of planning, even when it totally fails to predict or influence the course of urban development, is its ability to get some sense - however limited - of how the different components of the urban system interact with each other. Being obliged to operate over a specific geographical territory it can at least figure out how the various sectoral components are located with respect to each other. Operating purely within the sectoral domains eliminates this advantage. In fact, this is not very different from the arguments offered in favour of economic planning - the ability to monitor the activities of individual firms and attempt to coordinate them for the fulfillment of overall plan targets - as opposed to a purely market driven approach where each firm strives to maximise its profits irrespective of the consequences that may have for the overall economy and the environment.  

The eagerness to maximise the implementation of individual sectoral schemes leads to a tendency to overlook how different sectors interact with each other in an urban system.

Just take a look at the image below. It shows the location of a slum in the northern part of the city of Bhubaneswar. Right next to it, one can see the affordable housing units being constructed to house the residents of the slum shown in the image and also the residents of other neighbouring slums. 

The affordable housing units were being constructed under a public private partnership model and overseen by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority and the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (a process which had been in the works almost since 2017). In the meantime, Jaga Mission - the flagship slum land-titling and upgrading programme of the Government of Odisha - was launched and was overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Jaga Mission selected the same slum in its pilot phase of slum upgrading in 2020-2021 and did a very fine job of upgrading it in consultation with the residents of the slum.

However, a successful of upgrading of this slum means that there really is no need for these families to move into the nearby affordable housing site. Not only would the families have no need of moving there, the units of the housing site may now need to be filled by families of slums which are located further away - hence increasing the probability of reluctance of the residents of even those slums to move in here. 

Each scheme aimed at maximising their individual benefits, without considering that they may just end up duplicating the benefits churned out by another scheme.

A more planned and coordinated approach would probably have been to choose other slums for the pilot upgrading phase and let the present slum be catered to by the affordable units - since they were already under construction. 

This is just one example. In a situation where such lack of coordination and a continuous maximisation of implementation of individual sector verticals is the norm, such examples are innumerable and constantly proliferating. 

Yet, there are ways to turn this situation around by making intelligent use of the tools and techniques that are available to us - that we either tend to forget or abandon.

As Prastacos pointed out - we don't need to throw away our tools...we may only need to make the goals more modest and realistic.

More on that in future blogs...