Citizen Participation in Planning

383 Pages·1977·17.637 MB·English

by  M. Fagence (Auth.)

PERGAMON INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY
of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social Studies
The 1000-volume original paperback library in aid of education,
industrial training and the enjoyment of leisure
Publisher: Robert Maxwell, MC.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
IN PLANNING
THE PERGAMON TEXTBOOK
INSPECTION COPY SERVICE
An inspection copy of any book published in the Pergamon International Library will
gladly be sent to academic staff without obligation for their consideration for course adop-
tion or recommendation. Copies may be retained for a period of 60 days from receipt
and returned if not suitable. When a particular title is adopted or recommended for adoption
for class use and the recommendation results in a sale of 12 or more copies, the inspection
copy may be retained with our compliments. The Publishers will be pleased to receive
suggestions for revised editions and new titles to be published in this important International
Library.
Pergamon Urban and Regional
Planning Advisory Committee
G. F. CHADWICK, PhD, MA, BScTech, FRTPI, FILA (Chairman),
Planning Consultant,
Sometime Professor of Town and Country Planning,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
D. R. DIAMOND, MA, MSc,
Reader in Regional Planning,
London School of Economics
A. K. F. FALUDI, Dipl-Ing, Dr techn,
Professor of Planning Theory,
Delft University of Technology
J. K. FRIEND, MA,
Institute for Operational Research
D. C. GILL, BA, MRTPI,
Director of Planning,
Humberside County Council
B. GOODEY, BA, MA,
Senior Lecturer in Urban Analysis and Perception,
Urban Design, Department of Town Planning,
Oxford Polytechnic
D. N. M. STARKIE, BSc(Econ), MSc(Econ),
Department of Geography,
University of Reading
B. STYLES, BA, MCD, MRTPI,
Divisional Planning Officer,
City of Birmingham Planning Department
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
IN PLANNING
by
MICHAEL FAGENCE
University of Queensland
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD · NEW YORK • TORONTO
SYDNEY • PARIS • FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 75 The East Mall, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary Street,
Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles, 75240 Paris,
Cedex 05, France
WEST GERMANY Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
Pferdstrasse 1, Frankfurt-am-Main, West Germany
Copyright © 1977 Michael Fagence
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the
publishers
First edition 1977
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Fagence, Michael.
Citizen participation in planning.
(Urban and regional planning series v. 19)
Includes index.
1. Cities and towns—Planning—Citizen participation.
2. Regional planning—Citizen participation. I. Title. II. Series.
HT166.F24 1977 309.2'62 76-53785
ISBN 0-08-020397-3 (Hardcover)
ISBN 0-08-020398-1 (Flexicover)
Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheaton & Co., Exeter
Introduction
"The planner's current nostrum is 'citizen participation'... but...
within a very short time... it will be shown to be what in truth
it is: a mere palliative for the ills of the planning profession." (1) Un-
doubtedly, the subject has captured the imagination of both planners
and the public—or, at least, some of each of them—and the imple-
mentation of a diversity of participation strategies has been recorded
and added to the growing volume of literature in planning. However,
most of the available experience, and much of the readily accessible
literature is repetitive, and represents little more than variations on
a few well-worn themes. The reasons for this not wholly satisfactory
position are not difficult to find; the methodological basis for plan-
ning has yet to be fully exposed, and it certainly remains short of
a consensus; the behavioural dimensions of planning, and particu-
larly the political dimensions, receive scant treatment in planning
schools, and are merely 'experienced' rather than recorded for the
benefit of others by practitioners; the planning systems and their
processes have tended to become conceptually fossilised, too conser-
vative and bound by precedent or convenience to be innovative or
amenable to change. There are other reasons, but these three should
be sufficient to provoke a re-appraisal of the planner's attitude
towards change in the decision-making process.
In recent years, the planning process has assumed a more scientific
status; the introduction of concepts and methodologies from disci-
plines previously peripherally associated with planning, and from
others which have shaken the conservative foundations by their
diversity and peculiarities, has tended to render the theory and prac-
(1B) roady (1969), p. 216.
1
2 Citizen Participation in Planning
tice of planning more relevant to the challenges of society in the
latter half of the twentieth century. Whilst some conceptual and prac-
tical dimensions of planning have advanced, others, noticeably those
concerned with politics, have lost ground. With the statutory or
moral obligations to extend democratically the base of decision-mak-
ing in planning, there has emerged an information vacuum on the
subject of citizen participation. It is hoped that this book will contrib-
ute to the closing of the gap between theory and practice by drawing
together a diversity of threads from political science, philosophy and
psychology, community theory and regional science, rendering them
comprehensible in the context of planning. This synthesis is
attempted progressively. However, before a synopsis is given of the
scope of this book, it would be appropriate to briefly consider the
nature of participatory or collaborative planning, and its relationship
to the power 'game'.
COLLABORATIVE PLANNING
'There seems to be a consensus ... that we will not approach suc-
cess in the solution of our urban crises without the expansion and
further development of new forms in citizen participation." (2) It is
this sentiment which has promoted a prolonged and continuing in-
vestigation into the special area of politics and citizen participation.
The problem to which such investigation is addressed is not new;
it has exercised politicians, and the students and theorists in political
science for centuries, but it has only seriously entered the decision
field of urban and regional planning comparatively recently. As
society has developed, and has become culturally and technologically
sophisticated, there has grown an insistence that decision-making
should become compatibly refined and expert; but, in recent decades
there has emerged a paralled insistence, that decision-making should
be infused with a more democratic expression. Thus, within the last
decade or two modern society has tended to advocate the simul-
taneous growth of participatory democracy and expertise in decision-
making. Clearly, it is not possible to maximise both of these value
preferences; it is not that they are necessarily exclusive and incompat-
<2M) ann (1970), p." 182.
Introduction 3
ible one with the other, but that they are capable of neutralising
each other with the result that the decisions made are less than satis-
factory to the demands of the participants and the technical require-
ments of the problem to be solved. Despite these antogonisms, the
tensions in society dictate that meaningful attempts should be made
to reshape the traditional decision-making processes to accommodate
strategies of citizen participation; the movement of such advocacy
has gained a momentum which is now irresistible, and it has
attracted a high emotional content so that any denial of opportunities
for citizen involvement is challenged as a betrayal of the democratic
tradition.
In spite of the often reluctant indulgence in exercises of citizen
participation, there is a growth of case histories which is available
for examination, and from which lessons may be learned. From this
volume of case studies it becomes apparent that possibly nothing
in urban and regional planning has previously been the subject of
such contention, confusion and conflict. The almost incessant criti-
cism of the decision-making process, the opportunities for citizen
involvement and the means proposed to achieve participation, is fre-
quently accompanied by expressed suspicion of the motives for the
programmes; the antipathy towards the agencies participating in the
extended decision-making programmes is endured by both the
government planning departments at all levels, by advocacy-consul-
tants, and by some private paternalistic (and occasionally philanthro-
pic) community design agencies.(3) Burke (1968) has suggested that
this unfortunate situation has possibly arisen because of the inability
of society to wed its idealised notions of citizen participation to the
demands of public policy-making and implementation. To cope with
the intellectual problem he has suggested that citizen participation
could be interpreted as an instrument to achieve specific ends, or,
because of the diversity of ends sought in planning, as a series of
strategies each defined in terms of stated objectives. The failure to
properly identify the purposes of the chosen participation strategy,
and the ends it is hoped to attain, results in a gap between what
(3) There is evidence of the exclusion of advocacy planners from ikn-camera' com-
munity meetings, with these planners being associated conceptually with those
of the public planning agency as "them". (See footnote 85, p. 240.)
4 Citizen Participation in Planning
the planning agency and the citizens purport to do and what they
actually can do. It is necessary, therefore, for planning agencies and
the general citizenry to achieve a consensal precision on the inter-
pretation of 'citizen participation', how the concept may be opera-
tionalised, what resources will be required, what the various decision-
making responsibilities will entail and where they may be properly
located. "This may mean a redefinition.. .a new focus where a citizen
group assumes the responsibility for defining the goals and the aims
of the planning agency."(4)
Citizen participation may be best conceived, not as an alternative
to the conventional decision-making process pursued by the public
planning agencies in the institutionalised framework of modern
government, but as α decision-forming partnership, an exercise in col-
laboration. This is the interpretation given to participation by Gods-
chalk (1966). Collaborative planning has been simply described as a
process in which there is a genuine interchange between citizens and
planners. "Participation is a two-edged sword; planners must be open
t
to working with citizens, and citizens must be active and competent
in planning.,,(5) In his development of the concept of collaborative
planning Godschalk (1971) has tentatively set twelve propositions;
in summary these are:
1. the broader the base of citizen participation in'
the planning process, the more potential influence
the planner and citizens can bring to bear on pub-
lic policies and plans;
2. the broader the base of citizen participation, the
planning
more potential influence the planner can bring
strategy
to bear on the social choices of the citizens, and
vice versa;
3. the more diverse the interests represented in the
planning process, the more innovative will be the
proposals;
(4) Burke (1968), p. 294.
(5G) odschalk (1972), p. 31.
Introduction 5
4. the more decentralised the client groups, the more >
innovations will be adopted; I planning
5. the more centralised and comprehensive the deci- [ strategy (6)
sion process, the fewer will be the innovations;.
6. locaj planning goals will be more congruent with
community desires if discussed widely by partici-
pant groups and then communicated to the deci-
sion-making body;
7. a one-way flow of objectives from a central deci-
^ planning
sion-making body to a planning agency will tend
method
to under-represent the interests of some com-
munity groups;
the more public consultation techniques are used,
the more the planning programme will attract
public support;
9. the more the planning process facilitates citizen'
participation, the more the community will be
aware of the planning function as a democratic
and community force;
planning
10. participatory planning, open to radical proposals,
^programme
is more likely to pursue innovative solutions to
content
community problems;
11. the wider the scope of planning and the longer
the time horizon, the less useful (and possible)
collaborative planning will be;
location of
12 the relevance of the planning function, and its in-
^the planning
fluence will depend upon the number of dispersed
decision
contacts established in the community.
system
These twelve propositions provide a basis from which to explore
the ramifications of citizen participation, both as a concept, and as a
decision-making technique. The need, in planning, to become aware of
the significance of citizen participation has been expressed by Bolan
(1967): "No matter how we improve our substantive knowledge of
(6) The classification of planning system components—planning strategy, method, pro-
gramme-content and position—is derived from Bolan (1967).
6 Citizen Participation in Planning
how cities function, and no matter how we improve our capabilities
in information handling, operations research, and prediction, if there
is not a corollary development of the community's capacity for
improved decision-making within the framework of democratic
processes, there is the real possibility that heavy investment in the
current forms of city planning technique will have been in vain. ,,(7)
Despite the serious implications of Bolan's warning, there is a
patent tendency for citizen participation to be treated as a fad. Some
cities and planning agencies are inclined to embark upon the adop-
tion of every new concept and technique almost as soon as it is
revealed; it is as true of citizen participation, as it has been of corpor-
ate planning, systems planning, and as it was with the 4Buchananisa-
tion' of urban road plans in Britain during the mid-1960's. In con-
trast, but exceptionally, other agencies conduct thorough investiga-
tions into the rationale and practicability of participation, drawing
upon the experience of the increasing volume of methodological and
case studies/8) This is precisely the context in which this book is set.
PARTICIPATION AND POWER
There is a tendency for the more theoretical studies of citizen par-
ticipation to refer to the practice as an attempt to achieve a redistri-
bution of power, on the basis that a reduction in the differences
in power between levels in society, or in organisations or in groups
should be conducive to a more realistic implementation of the
democratic credo. In this vein participation has become one of the
most vital organisational problems in decision-making, i.e. how par-
ticipation can be made a reality. In the development of structures
to achieve a meaningful state of participation there is a danger that
the exercise will become the focus of a power struggle, between those
emphasising the need for more participation from the public, and
those who emphasise the desirability of reserving decision-making
functions and responsibilities to an élite, no matter how that élite
is derived or composed. The debate between these two viewpoints
has tended not to explore the goals of decision-making, nor the
(7B) olan (1967), p. 244.
(8F) or example, NIPC (1973), Tacoma (1971).