Public Participation Planning

Public Participation thinkThe purpose of this Literature Review is to establish a theoretical textile for my investigate proposal, specific altogethery the theoretical aspects associated with earthly concern booking and collaborative supply. It aims to analyse and assess the non-homogeneous articles books and journals published and researched to date, while everyplacely discerning potential gaps in the research, which could be addressed by my research proposal. The lit review allow for dramatize the form of an assessment of the releasence of public interlocking, the several(a) types of exponentiation and finale fashioning run lows, followed by an analysis of the merits of collaborative readying as a tool for facilitating public participation inwardly a teaching plan crop.2.2What is meant by participation?Although the merits of public participation encounter completely begun to gain credence in young times, the root word itself has been around for sort o f a while and literature on the subject gouge be found spanning back a effect of decades. Public Participation has been be as citizen troth in do service delivery and instruction decisions (Langton, 1978). More recently it has been specify as the exploit by dint of which stakeholders find protrude and make do control over priority setting, policy- qualification, resource allocations and access to public goods and services (K cane-Robb, 2005). Sanoff argues that it is advocated to reduce citizen cynicism toward government, build stakeholder consensus in government and enhance administrative decision-making. on that point remains a strong sense that the proper intent of participation is to ensure the transformation of existing festering practice, and more radically, the social relations, institutional practices and contentedness gaps which baffle social elimination. This was central to many of the appeales to participation over the years including the participatio n maturation approach from the 1940s to mid-sixties political participation in the 1960s and 1970s utility(a) tuition from the 1970s to the 1990s social capital from the mid 1990s to the indue and democratic governing body and citizen participation from the late 1990s to the present twenty-four hours (Hickey Mohan, 2004). Other traditional participation mechanisms hold public hearings, citizen forums, community or neighbourhood meetings, citizen advisory groups, respective(prenominal) citizen representation and focus groups (Wang, 2001).The focus on increasing public participation and citizen involvement in policy making has only begun to have a visible effect in recent times. It has been stated that direct, active citizen involvement in policy making has non al ways been a goal of civilised societies (Putnam, 1995). The reason is, to more or less consequence a result of the en queen-sizedd role in society compete by government bureaucracies (Davidoff, 1965). Habermas how perpetually states that individuals should be able to freely sh be their views with one a nonher in a abut, which closely resembles true participatory democracy. He states that the public sphere is a discursive argonna that is hearthstone to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement and action (Habermas, 1981). By allowing every person the alike(p) probability to figure in discourse, Habermas hopes to eradicate the prejudices which limit marginalized groups from fully attaining their rights in a democratic society.The difficulty with recent sit arounds of participation is that citizens atomic number 18 more frequently re acting to plans rather than proposing what they see as appropriate goals for future action. This is certainly the matter in Ireland, where participation is almost always reactive in temper. However, in the last decade this has begun to change and public participation is becoming an effected part of plan and policy decision-making practice (Cameron Gr ant-Smith, 2005). Participation Versus Consultation counterbalance though the term participation is used to describe public involvement in policy and decision making, it essential be recognised that in that location are various levels at which a person may participate and in many cases what is referred to as public participation is not in fact participation at all. In the late 1960s, Sherry Arnstein developed an 8 rung test of Citizen Participation with each rung corresponding to the purpose of the citizens indicator in influencing a final out condescend (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein developed this Ladder while relate in create plowes for citizen participation in readiness and renewal childbeds in America (see figure 1). At the bottom of the turn tail are rungs 1 (Manipulation)and 2 (Therapy). Both are non participative and the aim is to curative or check the participants. The proposed plan is deemed best and the job of participation is to chance upon public support by pu blic relations. Rungs 3 (Informing), 4 (Consultation) and 5 (Placation) demonstrate slightly higher levels of tokenistic participation, only too frequently the tenseness is on a one-way flow of information with no lineage for feedback. Rung 6 (Partnership) can be described as important participation, as power is in fact redistri scarcelyed with negotiation between citizens and power holders. preparation and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. finished juncture committees. It is at this union level that the collaborative prep mold aims to operate. Rungs 7 (Delegated Power) and 8 (Citizen Control) affords have-not citizens the majority of decision making seats or full power and is the holy grail in terms of citizen participation. encipher 1If participation is to be substantive and in force(p) thither must be colloquy between the different stakeholders and between those who have power (those at the top of the ladder) and between those who have inadequate or n o power (those at the bottom of the ladder). There must be a two way flow of information between the parties involved. However on that point is no dialogue in reference point which is what has traditionally been considered participation in a growth plan mathematical operation in Ireland. The cooking permit consults the public normally aft(prenominal) a plan has been prepared by seeking feedback through public meetings and public comment. Participation in Ireland essentially consists of proposal and response the readiness authority proposes a plan for a community and members of the public respond through making a obligingness. This submission is frequently make without any direct contact with officials in the think authority so in effect at that place is no dialogue of any form, thereby illustrating that what is refered to as participation in a development plan shape in Ireland is in fact consultation.However, with public participation now becoming central to Nationa l, European and International policy, as fountainhead as being an important aspect of the sustainable development discourse, such tokenistic participation is no longer adequate. The introduction of the Planning and Development behave 2000 has resulted in a fate on grooming authorities to bring up their statutory plans through a treat that involves greater public comment at the earlier stages. They are now required to develop a close to more participatory approach to mean than was previously the case. The Aarhus Convention, which took ordain in 1998, and the 2003 Public Participation Directive which followed on from the convention, withal extend members of the public with opportunities for early and effective participation on plans or programmes relating to the environment. The step-up in emphasis on public participation has meant that alternative precedents of planning expect to emerge to facilitate and respond to this increase and the collaborative planning present is one such response.2.4Participation in Physical Planning finis MakingThere has been much debate somewhat the most effective methods of facilitating citizen involvement in policy formulation and decision-making. A useful approach that provides a basis for analysing influencees of decision-making in planning is that developed by Innes and Booher (2000) and this give be discussed starting line, followed by an analysis of other participatory models of decision making that have emerged in recent times.The Innes and Booher approach identifies four different models of decision making skilful/bureaucratic, political influence, social movement and the collaborative model as well as identifying when and where each model works best, which finally depends on the levels of smorgasbord and mutualness present (see diagram).Source (Innes and Booher, 2000)The skillful/bureaucratic model works best where there is neither diversity nor interdependency among delights. A bureaucratic syst em is set up to implement know policy and the technical analyst is associated with rationality and bureaucracy. Technicians and bureaucracies essentially respond to a integrity set of goals and decision maker, and the typical practice is one where analyses are not focussed on interdependencies. Within this model, the focus of planning is on the set about throughment of the most efficient mechanism for stretch easily defined and identified inevitably. The political influence model works best where there is a high diversity of interests, however there is normally a low mutuality of interests, as each individual is focussed on their maximising their own interest only. In this model there tends to be a political bargaining approach that seeks to get an adequate round of interests to agree to a particular course of action in club for it to work. The social movement model recognises the importance of high levels of interdependence among a coalition of interests and individuals, b ut which does not deal with the full diversity of interests. coaction accordingly is seen as the model that deals best with both diversity and interdependence but is typically the least-used and least-institutionalised of the four models (Innes and Booher, 2000).Both the technical/bureaucratic model and the political influence models of planning and decision making, as proposed by Innes and Booher, muse the lower levels of participation as identified by Arnstein, with the convincing nature of the technical/bureaucratic model comparing significantly with need to educate and cure participants on Arnsteins tokenism rungs. The technocratic approach to planning which was the dominant planning model for much of the twentieth century has been severely criticised for its failure to adequately curb the values and interests of stakeholders into the decision making process. This criticism of technocratic planning was fuelled by the maturation protests of stakeholders over expert-formulate d plans in areas such as natural resource worry, environmental regulation, transportation, and urban renewal, that were clearly contrary to the interests of large segments of society (Gunton and Day 2003). Planning theory responded to the criticism and limitations of the technocratic approach by acknowledging the role of goals and objectives identified through democratic political processes (political influence model) to set the poser in which plans were prepared (Davidoff 1965). Planners, previously experts under the technocratic umbrella were relegated to determining optimal authority to achieve politically set goals within this new participatory environment. The un closed doubtfulness in this new goals-based planning theory was how the goals should be determined. The initial and somewhat vague response was that goals should be determined by citizen participation in the planning process, however it was not clear how this was to be achieved (Gunton and Day 2003). catjang pea su ggested that pluralism was another vehicle that would allow individual citizens to have their concerns voiced in government, a concept developed by Davidoff in the 1960s interlinked with the idea of the contriver as an advocate for the under-represented (Dahl, 1989). Unlike the advocacy planning that Davidoff proposes (different planners acting as advocates for different interests), most city and town planning is performed by a single planning authority which develops plans, which it feels will best work on the welfare of the whole community, not of individual interest groups (LeGates and Stout, 2000). Davidoff argues that different groups in society have different interests, which would result in fundamentally different plans if such interests were incorporated into these plans. The articulate, wealthy and powerful groups have the skills and resources to influence plans to take account of their own interests while the poor and powerless do not. advocacy Planning introduces the i dea of planners acting as advocates, articulating the needs of the poor and powerless, the kindred way as a lawyer represents a client (Davidoff, 1965). The hassle with advocacy planning, however, is that it did not provide a framework for resolving disputes among competing interest groups and therefore cannot be seen as an adequate method for dealing with the various conflicts that are emerging in modern day planning.Dahl sees pluralism as a situation where individuals join interests groups that represent their needs and wants. These interests groups then come together to debate their competing viewpoints and create a collective public policy that should reflect the special K good. The more interest groups that exist, the greater the conflict, and the greater the likeliness that decision making will reflect that common good (Dahl, 1989). However, Lowi on the other hand argues that pluralism often fails to represent the collective good, and instead represents the needs and wants of special interest groups (Lowi, 1979). Davidoffs idea of pluralism is slightly different from Dahls, in that citizens or interest groups should go one step further and produce an alternative plan to what he sees as the unitary plan prepared by the planning authority, and the advocate planner can be central to the process by representing certain interest groups.A final model, often referred to as alternative dispute resolution, withal emerged as a way of good-natured stakeholders in the development of plans by allowing stakeholders to negotiate a consensus agreement to resolve the dispute (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). However the alternative dispute resolution does not push through to provide a satisfactory model either, as it is reactive in responding to disputes that have already arisen instead of proactive. In essence, this limits its effectiveness as a planning tool. It is evident therefore that to date, the existing models of decision making have had limited success with regard to facilitating public participation. However as our societies and communities are now becoming more diverse and less homogenous than ever before it would seem an alternative model is required to facilitate and allow in these changes.2.5The Collaborative Planning ModelInnes and Booher (2000) note that in situations where there is a clear interdependence between stakeholders interests and there exists a high diversity of such interests that a different model of planning and policy making is needed. This model is known as collaborative planning. It emerged as a discrete planning paradigm in the 1990s and is a logical auxiliary of alternative dispute resolution (Gunton and Day 2003).The collaborative model is closely stakeholders co-evolving to a common understanding, direction and set of heuristics. It is only the collaborative model that deals both with diversity and interdependence because it tries to be inclusive and to explore interdependence in the search for solutions . It does not ignore or override interests, but seeks solutions that satisfy multiple interests. For complex and controversial issues in rapidly ever-changing and uncertain contexts issues that there is public pressure to address collaboration among stakeholders is believably to be the best approach indeed the only approach that can produce a satisfactory result. (Innes and Booher, 2000, p21)This model is a new framework for planning which proposes that spatial planning activity move from the traditional narrow, technical and procedural focus towards a communicative and collaborative model for achieving common purposes in the shared spaces of our societies (Healy, 1997). For Healy, collaborative planning seems not to be an end in itself, but a path to co-existence in shared spaces. want Innes and Booher, Healy too believes that a collaborative approach can be happy only where there is a variety of stakeholders interests, because if all the interests are the same then no dial ogue is required. Healys version of collaborative planning emerged after she analysed the shortcomings of conventional forms of governance and styles of planning, drawly economic planning, physical development, public brass instrument and policy analysis, advocacy planning, neo liberalism and utilitarianism.The conceptual base for collaborative planning as Healy sees it, consists of two theoretical strands, an institutionalist sociology and communicative dialogue. The institutionalist theory states that spatial planning processes need to be judged by the quality of the process, i.e. the way the decision is made is in effect(p) as important as the actual decision. It as well seeks to identify and analyze forms and relations of power between nation, beyond that of class and categories. The communicative approach offers a way forward in the design of governance processes for a shared world and takes an ethical commitment to enabling all stakeholders have a voice. It deals with the design of governance systems and practices, focusing on ways of fostering collaborative, consensus building processes.This approach outlines a result of necessary components for a collaborative model to be successful.Consensus building practices are important, as they tending to ensure that no stakeholder finds a particular outcome intolerable. It is important that an individuals mental attitude at the top of the ladder is not maximized at the expense of the individual at the bottom there should be equality. It recognizes three forms of reasoning implemental/technical (the mechanisms for public decision making), object lesson and emotive/aesthetic. It argues that there has been a predominance of the first, at the expense of the other two. Within the public sphere, moral and emotive reasoning must be afforded an equivalent status, to achieve balance. There is also a need for recognition of the growing cultural differences that there now is. She also points out that polices and processes need to be designed to come to to the experience of globalization and multi-cultural societies, as older planning practices do not take these into account. Leadership is not about bringing stakeholders around to a particular planning content but in getting people to agree and ensuring that, whatever the position of the participants within the socio-economic hierarchy, no groups interests will leave out (Healy, 1997)Another approach to collaborative planning is that which emerges from the work of John Forester, an American planning theorist, who focuses on the communicative role of the planning analyst. His view is that planners within organizations do not work instrumentally towards the achievement of clearly distinguishable ends. kind of he sees the role of the planner to work instead toward the correction of complimentary distortions, some systematic and some not, which disable, mystify, distract and mislead others to work towards a political democratization of daily communications. (Forester, 1989, p.21) Forester also states thatproblems will be solved not only by technical experts, but also by pooling expertise and non-professional contributions too not just by semi-formal procedure but by informal consultation and involvement not mainly through formally rational management procedures, but through internal and external politics and the development of a working consensus not by solving an engineering equation but by complimenting technical performance with political sophistication, support building, and liaison work (p. 152)Forester therefore recognizes the communication and negotiating elements of planning, as well as its technical elements. He also recognizes the political nature of planning and the finis to which the planner is engaged in value laden political action.2.6Strengths and Weaknesses of Collaborative PlanningAdvocates of collaborative planning cite many advantages of the collaborative model relative to other models of planning. Firstly, the chances of reaching a decision on a plan are a lot higher, because stakeholders are incorporated in the process from the outset to do reach a solution, rather than remaining as critics outside the process (Gunton and Day 2003, Susskind et al. 2000). Secondly the dynamic interaction of the stakeholders is likely to produce a plan that is in the public interest as more alternatives are generated and the consensus decision rule ensures that the mutual interests of all parties are at least partially catered for in the plan (Frame et al, 2004). Thirdly, the plan produced at the end of the process has a greater chance of being implemented, because stakeholders who might otherwise guarantee to block the implementation have developed the plan and will military service implement it because they have a stake in the outcome. Finally, collaborative planning helps to create social capital among the stakeholders, improving their skills, knowledge and stakeholder relationships whi ch last beyond the process of creating a plan (Gunton and Day, 2003).However, the collaborative planning model also has its critics and a number of weaknesses and challenges to the approach have been identified. Firstly, collaborative planning is founded on the principle of stakeholders negotiating with one another to agree on an outcome. In some cases, more influential and powerful stakeholders will avoid or profane the process by using delaying tactics, or pursuing alternative means to achieve their objectives if they do not like the outcome of collaboration (Frame et al, 2003). Secondly, the need to achieve consensus may encourage stakeholders to seek second best or vague solutions when they cannot reach the best possible agreement (Gunton and Day, 2003). Cooper and Mckenna (2006) and Fainstein (2000) also state that the need to achieve consensus has meant that participatory exercises often concentrate on issues where agreement is more likely to be achieved and avoids those whic h are likely to cause difficulties. Thirdly, the time and resources required to organise a process around large group of diverse stakeholders is quite substantial. This is compounded by the potential want of support or interest from planning officials who are unwilling to destine the decision-making responsibilities to outside stakeholders (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000, Fainstein, 2000). Also, established statutory fora comprising of local elective representatives are relatively neglected, while project staff must spend huge amounts of time, push and money organising and servicing local public meetings, stakeholder meetings, public surveys and follow up consultation exercises. This often leads to a situation where projects become characterised by consultation paralysis, a condition where nothing can be done because hitherto someone else must be consulted or re-consulted (Cooper and McKenna, 2006). Finally, relying on stakeholders that have little or no specialised training may lead to the exclusion of important scientific information in the decision making process, therefrom resulting in poor decisions being made.Fainstein (2000) also cites what she sees as a number of other weaknesses with the collaborative planning approach includingAction/implementation is often a problem, because parties in the process are not honest about their intentions and purposesIt ignores the role of the powerful and their capacity to impede the implementation of agreed actionsThe process is usually too drawn out and resource hungryIf the planner/expert acts as facilitator only, new and creative thinking can be stifled and only those that are incrementalist in nature will emergeThere is evidence that experts acting on their own often come up with better solutions than stakeholders operating in a collaborative processIt is evident from the above that collaborative planning approaches have many strengths and weaknesses, however it would appear that the potential benefits to the community from using such an approach outstrip potential negatives. COLLABORATIVE PLANNING IN IRELANDIn the past number of years, there have been many judges to develop models for community development and planning that aim to achieve higher levels of participation than previous models. Such models include the ADOPT model, the Bantry Bay Charter and structured cranial orbit Planning (IAP) to name but a few, while the Village Design Statement (VDS) could also be considered as an attempt at achieving higher levels of participation through a more collaborative approach.The ADOPT model, which was pioneered by Ballyhoura Development Ltd, is aimed at providing local area-based communities with a framework for participation in community development at a local level. The model also aims to tackle the overleap of co-operation within the community sector, and weak research and planning by communities who are participating and contributing to local planning and development activities. It seeks to develop a strong community representative structure, an umbrella group that brings together representatives of the various bodies and groups within the community to ensure that activities are not being duplicated and that real needs are being addressed. This umbrella structure, along with the training and capacity building that the model promotes, supports communities and their representatives to play a meaningful role in partnership functions with Stage agencies and other bodies (Pobal, 2003).The Bantry Bay Charter was a project initiated by Cork County Council with the main objective being to develop a model and strategy for successful coastal zone management. By ontogenesis a stakeholders charter it was possible to develop an agreed approach to the management and development of the Bantry Bay area. In doing so, the process brought together the different stakeholders and interest groups of the area, as well as the agencies involved in regulating and maturation the area. The Charter is based on the understanding that the regulatory agencies need to work in partnership with the local community for the successful management and development of the area. It explored the use of consensus, where all those who are stakeholders work together, to develop a single agreed approach to its development.Similar to these models is a model of collaborative planning developed by Tipperary Institute (TI), a third level cultivation institution specialising in the area of Sustainable Rural Development called Integrated Area Planning. Integrated Area Planning is a concept that first emerged through the 1999 Urban Renewal Scheme, introduced by the Irish Government and which involved a more targeted approach to the award of urban renewal incentives. This model is multi-focused and is based on the premise that development of an area should emerge from a broadly based not take place in closing off but should emerge from a broadly based Integrated Area Plan (IAP), taking int o account the social, environmental, economic and cultural needs of a community. Integrated Area Planning has been defined by TI as an empowering, practical and participatory process to collect, analyse, and compile information while developing the skills and structures needed to prepare and implement an inclusive and multifaceted plan for a defined geographical area. The development of the IAP model was influenced to a great extent by planning theorist Patsy Healy and central to the model is the requirement for consensus to be reached on all issues before the process can be moved forward. The IAP model contains many key steps, which must be carried out includingContracting PhasePre-Development PhaseData Collection governance of a Steering GroupCapacity Building of the Steering GroupEstablishment of Visions and ObjectivesEstablishment of task groupsDrafting StageValidationApproval execution of instrumentUsing the IAP model, TI became involved in a number of community planning projec ts in Ireland including Crusheen Co. Clare, Kinvara and Eyercourt Co. Galway, Ferbane Co. Offaly, Hacketstown Co. Carlow and Kilmacthomas in Co. Waterford. In each of these cases, the communities, in partnership with the relevant authorities prepared plans for their areas. Two of the key stages in the process are establishing the steering group and task groups. The steering group is elected by the community and it is contains a representative from the various different stakeholders in the process. The steering group plays an important role in the whole IAP process as they are responsible for driving the process forward. The task groups on the other hand are smaller groups, which are made up of members from the community and statutory agencies. The task groups are responsible for carrying out research on particular topics, such as the environment, infrastructure etc and they then name back their findings to the steering group. The IAP process is quite resource demanding and generall y takes over 12 months to complete. CONCLUSIONIt is clear from the above that the issue of participation and the models, which attempt to facilitate it, are central to the planning and environmental fields in both Ireland and abroad. Some of the collaborative planning models that have been developed in Ireland have multiple aims, one of which is to impact on the statutory topical anaesthetic Area Plan process and outcomes, including those implemented in Kinvara, Ferbane, Hacketstown and Kilmacthomas. However having reviewed the literature it is evident that there has been a clear lack of research instruction on the assessment of such collaborative planning models in Ireland. In order to assess the extent to which the IAP model in Kinvara was successful, an examination of the wide process is required. To this end, the examination required will entail more than just the IAP process itself, but also its impact on the LAP process as well as an assessment of the level of implementatio n that has interpreted place to date.BibliographyArnstein, Sherry R., (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, ledger of the Institute of American Planners, Vol. 35 (4), pp 216-24.Connick, S., Innes J., (2001) Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy MakingApplying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation, works Paper 2001-08Dahl R, (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Conn. Yale University Press.Davidoff, P, (1965) Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, daybook of the American Institute of PlannersDeSario, J. Langton S, (1987)Fainstein, S.S. (2000). New directions in Planning theory, Urban personal business Review, Vol.35, Issue 4, March, pp.451-78Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. (2003). Resolving Environmental Disputes through Collaborative Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, an