IDENTIFICATION OF TRAINING NEEDS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RESPONSIBILITIES1

ABSTRACT: The research project reported here surveyed planners in Coastal Zone Management and “208” programs in New England to determine the nature of their educational and experiential preparation for carrying out public participation functions, and to identify the planners’ own perceptions of the relative importance of those functions and their adequacy for performing them. Criteria for effective programming were developed and used as a standard for comparing various backgrounds with capability for performing necessary tasks. The research indicates that prior planning experience is more directly related to perceived adequacy than either academic or other experiential backgrounds. The survey also revealed a predominant emphasis on activities involving direct public conduct, e.g., organizing citizen advisory groups and conducting public meetings. The results of the analysis were used to make recommendations for curriculum topics that should be incorporated into the training of professional planners so that they will be better prepared to undertake public participation responsibilities. Those recommendations stress preparation for direct public contact, but also for training in other means of public involvement, such as media contact, that are not now being carried out with comparable emphasis or effectiveness.     

PLANNERS AS A PUBLIC IN WATER RESOURCES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS1

This paper suggests a number of benefits in identifying urban and regional planners as a public in public participation programs of water resources planning studies. A perspective on public participation is presented. Recent trends and developing concepts are identified: emphasis on the need to coordinate urban and regional planning activities with water resources planning, increasing system complexity, the goals and objectives orientation of planning, planning for multi-objectives, the evaluation of a broader range of alternatives, and the consideration of water alternatives as only one set of measures to further society's aspirations. One way to assist in capitalizing on these trends is to seek out participation of those in other planning efforts who are involved in planning but on a different level. Because of their intimate knowledge of an areas history, growth and development, political climate, local perceptions of needs and desires, and major problems and issues they are able to contribute a great deal of insight in making the water resources planning effort more responsive at the local level. The paper describes one of the first major efforts at working-level public-planner contact which was carried out as part of the Susquehanna River Basin Study. A regional survey team comprised of an engineer and an economist from a federal agency and a state water resources planner met informally with planners, city managers, and local planning commissions to discuss issues related to water resources and the growth and development of local areas. This effort while only part of the overall public participation program yielded a number of benefits and if expanded and refined would be a very useful experience in other studies.     

Picking up speed: public participation and local sustainability plan implementation

Although planning scholars often argue that public participation improves implementation outcomes, this relationship is rarely empirically tested. This study investigates how public engagement, during planning and after plan adoption, impacts on the speed of local government sustainability plan implementation. It includes a correlation analysis of quantized in-depth interviews with sustainability planners in 36 American cities. The study finds that individual characteristics of public engagement, both during planning and after plan adoption, had statistically significant relationships to implementation speed, but in some cases this relationship was negative. The correlations imply that sustainability planners can make strategic choices to improve implementation speed through public participation in plan creation and after plan adoption. Alternatively, planners also make choices during participatory planning that slow implementation, a problematic outcome when the ultimate goal of a planning process is on-the-ground change.     

ANALYSIS OF NEW TECHNIQUES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN WATER PLANNING1

ABSTRACT: The growing demands by the public for a more active role in planning have recently generated considerable interest among researchers and planners in the subject of public involvement techniques. Numerous surveys have found that standard public participation techniques (e.g., public hearings) by themselves are considered inadequate. Several techniques that have potential for overcoming some of the limitations of standard public involvement techniques have recently been developed. This paper describes several of these new techniques and analyzes each of them in terms of their potential utility in water resources planning.     

Organizational Factors of Environmental Sustainability Implementation: An Empirical Analysis of US Cities and Counties

Environmental sustainability goals are increasingly embedded in local planning, but implementation proves difficult. Using a survey of 217 planners working in a random sample of 146 small to mid-sized American cities and counties, we identify the organizational factors that support and hinder the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices. The analysis is based on a conceptual framework that encompasses organizational capacity, culture, structure, participatory decision-making, the framing of sustainability and contextual factors. We find that environmental sustainability implementation is lagging (although cities are generally ahead compared to counties) and that outcome evaluation is rare, precluding adaptive learning. The major barrier to implementation is that sustainability is low on political and managerial agendas. As expected, local public support, innovation-supportive organizational culture and the prioritization and framing of environmental sustainability support implementation. Surprisingly, innovation diffusion does not occur across neighbouring localities, local capacity and public participation are irrelevant for implementation and hierarchical rather than integrated institutional structures support implementation.     

Leadership in sustainability planning: propagating visions through empathic communication

Despite their lack of decision-making power, planners frequently prevail in advancing strong sustainability agendas. A review of leadership and planning literature suggests that they employ collaborative practice. Using an ethnographic methodology that draws from the stories and actions of six planners with sustainability mandates, supplemented with a survey of their staff and colleagues, this research examines how they do it. Findings suggest that despite variety in their organisational contexts, the planners relied on strong visions and on forging and maintaining relationships to set and implement sustainability mandates. The planners deployed participative and collaborative values selectively in support of their mandates.     

Who Plans Whose Sustainability? Alternative Roles for Planners

The paper examines alternative roles for planners in planning for sustainable development. First, it outlines the particular context of the task focusing on operational questions, critical issues and sustainable development planning principles. It then explores roles for planners in this context distinguishing broadly among technician, politician and hybrid planners. It evaluates broadly each role's effectiveness and challenges, in particular decision making and political contexts. Finally, it discusses, first, the implications of these roles for planning education and identifies the main groups of skills planning schools should offer. Second, it analyses briefly the implications of these roles for planning practice in terms of the spatial/organizational level of planning, time horizon, functional planning areas, political/decision making system and planning's position in this system.     

Planning in collaborative wildlife management: A critical perspective

Wildlife managers are increasingly faced with planning and implementing wildlife management programs in collaboration with local governments, user groups, businesses and citizens. The planning process is inherently political as each group attempts to advance its interests. Current scholarship on the theory and practice of planning for wildlife management falls short of accounting for the politics of these processes. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to a theory of planning that both addresses the actual practices of wildlife planners and serves as a guide for future action. To this end, the dominant conceptualization of wildlife planning will be outlined and the study will draw on empirical and theoretical advances in the fields of adult education, organizational analysis and regional planning to construct a more politically-informed theoretical framework for understanding wildlife planning. This framework asserts that planning involves two types of negotiation of power and interests: (1) substantive negotiations which address procedural aspects of planning and (2) meta-negotiations which address political dynamics of planning. An earlier study will then be re-analyzed to illustrate how substantive and meta-negotiations occurred in a case of suburban deer management in the Northeast United States. It is concluded that accounting for issues of power and interests in wildlife planning theory provides a more complete representation of what wildlife managers actually do when planning programs and provides a guide for future wildlife planning practice. Future analyses of planning processes in wildlife management, or natural resources management more broadly, may reveal new insights if the concepts used to guide the analysis reported here provide an understanding of the politics involved.     

Public engagement and climate adaptation: insights from three local governments in Australia

Public participation in decision making is a central component of the planning process; however, implementing effective engagement initiatives to resolve complex planning and policy problems, such as climate change, is challenging for planners. These challenges are particularly acute in coastal communities throughout Australia, where many settlements are at risk of future climate perturbations. Using the International Association for Public Participation framework for public participation, we analyse three local government led public participation initiatives in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, Australia. Our analysis suggests there are three critical factors that can influence the level of public participation in the context of climate change adaptation: the technocratic approach to decision making; absent high order government support; and the lack of evaluation mechanisms for public participation.     

The acceptability of wind farms: the impact of public participation

The planning process for wind farm projects appears to be a complicated matter in many cases. Despite the positive attitude towards wind power in general, local wind farm projects often face strong opposition. The aim of this study is to shed more light on residents’ perceptions of participation in the planning process of wind farms. This study is based on interview data (N?=?22) and survey data (N?=?291) collected from residents living near two Finnish large-scale onshore wind farms built about 1.5 years before the data were collected. The results indicate that residents’ participation in the planning process was rather passive and the vast majority of the respondents perceived that they did not have an opportunity to participate. Quite interestingly, perceived participation in the planning process resulted in a decrease in acceptability in terms of perceived well-being. Furthermore, the results indicate that the need for participation does not expire after the planning process for a wind farm has concluded. Thus, project developers should be prepared to continue communication with residents after the planning phase.     

Integration of biodiversity in urban planning instruments in developing countries: the case of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly,Ghana

There is a growing concern about integrating biodiversity into urban planning, yet, discussions are concentrated on science-informed planning in general. Few have explored the integration of biodiversity in specific planning instruments, especially in African cities. This paper examines how and what components of biodiversity are integrated into master plans, medium-term plans, building codes, zoning codes and permits in Kumasi City, Ghana. There is limited integration of biodiversity in most planning instruments as they were mostly designed on the basis of health, safety and economy. Allied to lack of funding and public participation, biodiversity in Kumasi is under significant threat from rapid urban development. Creating an opportunity for popular participation and decentralizing the planning system could set the preconditions for local integration and revision of instruments. Simplifying the definition of biodiversity could increase local planners’ appreciation, understanding and their ability to make use of biodiversity data.     

Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: an application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites

Spatial planning typically involves multiple stakeholders. To any specific planning problem, stakeholders often bring different levels of knowledge about the components of the problem and make assumptions, reflecting their individual experiences, that yield conflicting views about desirable planning outcomes. Consequently, stakeholders need to learn about the likely outcomes that result from their stated preferences; this learning can be supported through enhanced access to information, increased public participation in spatial decision-making and support for distributed collaboration amongst planners, stakeholders and the public. This paper presents a conceptual system framework for web-based GIS that supports public participation in collaborative planning. The framework combines an information area, a Multi-Criteria Spatial Decision Support System (MC-SDSS) and an argumentation map to support distributed and asynchronous collaboration in spatial planning. After analysing the novel aspects of this framework, the paper describes its implementation, as a proof of concept, in a system for Web-based Participatory Wind Energy Planning (WePWEP). Details are provided on the specific implementation of each of WePWEP's four tiers, including technical and structural aspects. Throughout the paper, particular emphasis is placed on the need to support user learning throughout the planning process.     

Joint Working within Local Government: air quality as a case-study

Air quality management (AQM) is a process of environmental control that must be embedded within a wide range of policy areas, from local-scale initiatives to international treaties, if it is to be successful. Because of the integrative aspects of AQM, it is imperative that joint working is undertaken within local authorities and other involved parties. Environmental health departments have taken the lead role in AQM as they have traditionally had responsibilities for some other aspects of pollution control. However, AQM requires input from a variety of professionals such as transport planners, land-use planners, economic development officers and Local Agenda 21 (LA21) officers, as well as environmental health professionals. This paper examines the involvement of these professions within the AQM process. Results are presented from a widespread questionnaire survey of urban local authorities in England. In the case of air quality, it is concluded that co-operation between the necessary professions is still at an early stage. Transport planners are more fully engaged with the process than are land-use planners or economic development officers. In order that the joint working process develops appropriately, it is suggested that LA21 officers have an important role in facilitating inter-professional working to support the AQM process.     

RIVER BASIN WATER PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE 60's1

ABSTRACT: The 15 federal-state interagency river basin studies (designated as Type 2 or Level B in the planning program of the Water Resources Council) of the 1960's brought together in each of the study regions, in many cases for the fist time, state and federal water resources agencies, and afforded an opportunity for coordination. Examination of the studies, however, reveals that many organizational problems remain to be solved in preparing truly comprehensive plans that effectively integrate and balance the diverse values held by study participants and concerned citizens. Burgeoning changes in state and federal laws, in planning concepts, and in public attitudes influenced the studies. Increased interest in the environment and greater emphasis on a multiple objective approach to planning for example, had significant effect. The type of organization used for carrying out these studies was a coordinating committee with one of the agencies - in most cases, the Corps of Engineers, - serving as lead agency. Some of the observed weaknesses of this arrangement were the lack of an effective mechanism for screening individual agency project proposals; unbalanced participation of agencies - for example, construction vs. non-construction, state vs. federal; agency representatives without sufficient delegated authority; insufficient control of the planning organization over individual agency participation and punctuality; and lack of emphasis on plan formulation and public participation. Suggested improvements, some of which are already being implemented in more recent studies include centralized planning staff and funding, formalized work agreements, a dynamic and continuous planning process with mechanisms for monitoring technological and social changes and evaluating planning effectiveness, planning guidelines and evaluative criteria, and a formalized training program for planners.     

Why Won’t They Come? Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by Participation Level

Collaboration has taken root in national forest planning, providing expanded opportunities for stakeholder participation in decision-making, but are these processes considered meaningful by key stakeholders? Do the processes result in increased participation by key stakeholders? We present results of a study of stakeholder perspectives of a collaborative planning process on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests in Western Colorado, U.S.A. The stakeholders were stratified by participation levels in order to explore a possible relationship between participation and perceptions of the collaborative process. We used a Q-methodology approach to compare and contrast perspectives across participant levels in the North Fork Valley Landscape Working Group process. The results demonstrate four distinct perspectives on the collaborative process: 1) The collaborative process is valued by the Forest Service and will directly influence planning decisions; 2) The Forest Service, the collaborative process, and other stakeholders are not to be trusted; 3) The collaborative process is most effective when emphasizing place-specific dialogue that primarily involves stakeholders educating the Forest Service about issues; and 4) Forest planning involves issues requiring the application of scientific knowledge and expertise rather than collaboration. These perspectives were not strongly associated with participation levels, with time constraint being the primary mediating factor affecting participation. There are several possible actions policymakers and planners can take to enhance participation and overcome high rates of nonparticipation.     

Joint Working within Local Government: Air quality as a case-study

Air quality management (AQM) is a process of environmental control that must be embedded within a wide range of policy areas, from local-scale initiatives to international treaties, if it is to be successful. Because of the integrative aspects of AQM, it is imperative that joint working is undertaken within local authorities and other involved parties. Environmental health departments have taken the lead role in AQM as they have traditionally had responsibilities for some other aspects of pollution control. However, AQM requires input from a variety of professionals such as transport planners, land-use planners, economic development officers and Local Agenda 21 (LA21) officers, as well as environmental health professionals. This paper examines the involvement of these professions within the AQM process. Results are presented from a widespread questionnaire survey of urban local authorities in England. In the case of air quality, it is concluded that co-operation between the necessary professions is still at an early stage. Transport planners are more fully engaged with the process than are land-use planners or economic development officers. In order that the joint working process develops appropriately, it is suggested that LA21 officers have an important role in facilitating inter-professional working to support the AQM process.     

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST1

ABSTRACT. The water resources manager, concerned with providing for citizen needs for water in all its varied aspects, is obliged to consider the public interest in his decision making. But the public interest, although inferring the superiority of public over purely private interests, is more of a concept of political ethics than an operational objective. Recent attacks on water resources developments place in question just how responsive the water resources manager has been to the public at large during the planning process. The recent broadening of planning objectives beyond economic efficiency to include greater attention to social goals is an encouraging development. Efforts should be expanded toward greater citizen participation and more attention should be given to sampling surveys to determine citizen attitudes on water resources proposals. In the last analysis, the decision-making process must combine the expertise of the water resources manager and the participation of the people through the political process.     

Public Participation in Local Government Review of Development Proposals in Hazardous Locations: Does it Matter, and What Do Local Government Planners Have to Do with It?

Natural hazard investigators recommend that local governments adopt mitigation plans to help reduce hazard losses. However, such plans are unlikely to be effective unless a wide range of public stakeholders is involved in their creation. Previous research shows that stakeholder participation levels in hazard mitigation planning tend to be low, though there may be particular choices that local government planners can make to foster participation. We examine the importance of planners’ choices and role orientations (i.e., beliefs regarding appropriate behavior in the workplace) for participation levels in site plan review, wherein local governments review site plans for proposed development projects to ensure compliance between project design and applicable plans and policies. Using a national sample of 65 development projects located in areas subject to natural hazards, and bivariate and multivariate analyses, we examine whether participation levels during site plan review depend upon planners’ choices and role orientations, and whether participation levels are correlated with the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques into development projects. We find significant correlations between participation levels and planners’ choices, between participation levels and planner’s role orientations, and between participation levels and the incorporation of hazard mitigation techniques. We encourage local government planners to revisit their beliefs, choices, and behaviors regarding public participation in site plan review.     

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATER PLANNING: A CRITIQUE OF THEORY,DOCTRINE, AND PRACTICE1

ABSTRACT. Water development planning has virtually since its beginnings over one hundred fifty years ago utilized a variety of devices for involving segments of the public. But a new insistence for increased public participation, particularly at the Federal level, has stimulated re-examination of objectives and methods for relating water planning to citizen interests and preferences. Involved is partly a recommitment to democratic symbols, partly a recognition that segments of society have been overlooked, and partly a reaction to the pressures of confrontation and demonstration. The rhetoric and polemics of participation have often implied a kind of “town-meeting” process of decision, difficult at best in a nation of 200 million. In water planning more emphasis has been placed on listening to citizens, which has meant providing opportunities for influentials to express their views and preferences. A more adequate approach would seem to require identification of all who are significantly affected by plans and proposals (even though they may not perceive then-interest). But gaining greater participation does not make the planning job easier. It may increase tension and conflict; it may require difficult choices; and it can alter existing power relationships and generate changes with considerable consequences for the agency and its programs.     

A PROCESS FOR FEDERAL WATER PLANNING AT THE FIELD LEVEL1

ABSTRACT: A process for planning at the field offices of Federal water resources agencies is described. The process involve s both planners and publics in the following four planning activities: problem definition, formulation of alternatives, impact analysis and evaluation (or plan ranking). Evaluative factors are defied as the goals, concerns, constraints, etc. that affected publics and other decision makers consider in ranking alternative actions. These factors serve to drive the entire process and glue the four planning activities together. In contrast to other “models” of the planning process, the four activities are considered to be carried out simultaneously and continually from the beginning of the process. As the planning process proceeds, each activity is repeated a number of times at increasing levels of detail. Various aspects of the process are illustrated by means of an example involving water resources development in Carmel Valley, California.