Local-scale projects require input from locals. People who live in a context know that context best. In this commentary of democracy, representation and decision-making I argue that consultation must be deliberative process involving all stakeholders, especially those community members who will be affected by change. Ultimately, however, policy-makers must make decisions and have the conviction to stick to them.

The most durable and organic means to practice sustainability is to plan holistically. This is true, whether planning is done in a Third World or First World context. This has become clear throughout my studies of urban change and transport systems in Perth, Western Australia and wider research.

All too often, too few interest groups are represented in the decision-making process. Moreover, these groups tend to focus on a limited range of issues (normally short-term economics and political accountability). Such an approach to planning is not organic and is does not lead to sustainable outcomes. In Perth, myopic planning has contributed to great issues of sprawl and car dependence.

Instead, effective planning requires involvement from a wide range of persons with different sets of values. Using my example, effective urban and transport planning requires input from land use planners, transport planners, health professionals, urban social geographers, reputable architects and the public. Each contributor needs to be very aware of the mandate and the desired outcomes. Social, economic, environmental and public health issues need to be given careful consideration when desirable outcomes are identified.

Participation from all interest groups, especially a cross-section of public representatives is vital, as this involvement can ensure the overall strategy can better `fit´ expectations. Preferences and expectations can be expressed, thereby serving to dispel any doubt for decision makers as to how difficult the sustainability agenda may be to `sell´. Such a participatory procedure necessitates, before anything else, that all interested parties are educated of the problems facing the community and what needs to change. Dissemination of information is therefore very important.

This represents the important first step of deliberative democracy. Of course, the process will be tailored to the project, whether it is urban (re)development in Perth or distribution of funds for schools in Bangladesh. The second step, which is just as important, is decisions must be made. No dialogue can be open-ended. Nevertheless, making the decisions is not easy, when there are contesting points of view. However, economics cannot simply dictate outcomes.

Ryan Falconer, PhD Candidate, IYPF Implementations Team (Internal
Communications), Perth, Western Australia