Valorar, de forma crítica y fundamentada, los cambios que Internet está provocando en la sociedad y mostrar, mediante exposiciones y debates, los problemas relacionados con los delitos informáticos, la huella digital o el rastro que dejamos en Internet y la consiguiente pérdida

The question of justice is inherent in and inseparable from a plan. In the words of Soja, (2010:xvi-ii) “any plan by any public authority, whether for public transit or health policy or for location of schools and fire stations, should be subjected to a ‘justice test’ to determine whether the distributional pattern proposed was fair and equitable for all areas and communities affected, with fairness based on the different needs of the rich and the poor as well as majority and minority populations. Similar legal tests could be applied to tax policies, electoral districting, hospital closures, school building programs, the health effects of air and water pollution, the siting of toxic facilities, practically every planning and policy decision influencing urban life”.

It should be noted that in many cities in developing countries, economic growth has not necessarily been poor-friendly; rather it has further widened the rich-poor divide (BOND, 2006). Therefore, "along with economic and environmental sustainability, achieving social sustainability is equally important in the case of developing countries" (Dave, 2009:190). “Especially in an urban context, disadvantaged individuals and groups frequently experience social exclusion centrally because they do not have access in the same way as other groups within urban space … [T]he lack of accessibility can be identified and studied in the presence of mechanisms developed specifically to control the access of people to certain places and areas. Among them the land and property market appears as a key actor” (Ureta, 2008:272). This would then, as Harvey (2006) suggested, create uneven geographical and social development by having different perceptions of gains and losses among society.

94

But, there is no universal formula for planners to plan, develop and manage cities; rather it requires a detailed understanding of local issues, regional strategies and urban history (Marcotullio, 2004; Sorensen et al., 2004). Moreover, since the end of the last century urban transport, land use and infrastructure planning and management programmes in the global south and Asia have focused on public participation, more active role of local government and sustainability (Neumann, 1999; Barret & Usui, 2002). But it is "hard to escape the conclusion" that cities are not meeting sustainability goals, nor the verbatim application of sustainability agenda in all cities in developed and developing countries will be effective (Sorensen et al., 2004:4). Plus, most authors discussing planning procedures and sustainability do not clarify what they consider to be the substantive content of sustainable spatial planning (Næss, 2001:503).

Berke and Conroy (2000:30) state that the explicit inclusion of the sustainability concept has no effect on how well plans actually promote sustainability principles. Their statement supports the frequent criticism that despite generating widespread appeal the sustainable development concept is superficial, lacks political commitment, and cannot serve as an influential basis for policy development.

Moreover, Berke and Conroy (2000) raise questions regarding the credibility of the roles played by planners. In fact, planners have a mixed image. On one hand they are seen as defenders of the poor, socio-economic equity (Harvey, 1985), proponents of holistic and harmonised growth (Marcuse, 1976), enthusiasts to value natural environment (Campbell, 1996). But planners' involvement in downtown redevelopment, planning of free way and other investment intensive infrastructure and land uses at the cost of natural destruction (Campbell 1996), belie their 'self-image' (Harvey, 1985). So, Berke and Conroy (2000) urge planners to play a critical role in promoting the dialogue between sustainability and public policy solutions to promote community sustainability. In reality planners have to serve the narrower interests of their clients, including authorities and bureaucrats (Marcuse, 1976), yet they have to make efforts to work outside those limitations (Hoffman, 1989).

95

In many cases, therefore, they have to work inside a dilemma: "grow the economy, distribute this growth fairly and in the process not degrade the ecosystem" (Campbell 1996:297). For example, transport planning for regional rail lines (which would encourage the suburban middle class to switch to mass transit from car) in Cleveland versus local bus line (helping the inner city poor by reducing travel and waiting time); planning for reducing pollution versus accessible transport (Krumholz, 1982; Davidoff, 1982; Susskind, 1982; Kaufman, 1982).

Campbell (1996) summarises the planners’ dilemma through a triangle (Figure 3.1) of economy, environment and equity: property conflict between economic growth and equity generates competing claims of and uses of space; resource conflict' arises on the question of prioritising the use of resources for business versus community, the regulation for preservation for current versus future demands; finally, most elusive development conflict results from the tension between social equity and environmental preservation. Now, the most challenging conundrum for sustainable development is how to increase social equity and protect the environment simultaneously, or how to ensure that those at the bottom of society find greater economic opportunity in the regime of environmental protection. "Planners define themselves, implicitly, by where they stand on the triangle. The elusive ideal of sustainable development leads one to the centre " (Campbell, 1996:298)

So far these conflicts are matters of distribution and process, and significantly involve planners along with other actors. But if another layer is added asking why one (group, sector, activity etc) is prioritised or considered over the other, the question of motivation of and politics in (planning and other) decisions comes in. It also makes the roles of others (political and strategic decision makers, users, beneficiaries) apart from planners subject to examination and also makes the question of justice not merely limited to matter of equitable (re)distribution, but also points towards procedural fairness - transparent, and unbiased (or positively discriminated). Thus in an age of sustainability based public policy (Berke & Conroy, 2000) and planning (Beatley & Manning, 1998) agenda and political vocabulary and administrative vocabulary (Næss,2001), planners have to consider justice as a defining agenda in their practice.

96

Figure 3.1: The triangle of conflicting goals for planning, and the three associated

conflicts.

Source: Campbell, 1996:298

In fact, Sorensen et al. (2004) observes that if "society's path to equity is perceived ... as ... progress from barbarism to justice" (ibid:303) and if sustainability is redefined from merely "evoking a misty-eyed vision of a peaceful eco-topia" (ibid:297), and incorporated into a broader understanding of political conflicts in modern society, it could become a powerful and useful organising principles for planning. Otherwise, the "powerful momentum of modern industrial and preindustrial society" will not only be ignored, but it might also carry an "anti-urban sentiment... [neglecting] the centrality and plight of megacities" (ibid:302). For this research, in the case of decisions regarding mobilities the same is true. There is an imperative to understand the issues of planning mobilities from the context of justice, and politics as well, along with the agendum of (environmental) sustainability.