BUILDING COMMUNITIES WHILE BUILDING PLANS: A REVIEW OF TECHNIQUES FOR PAR

English, Mary R;Peretz, Jean H;Manderschied, Melissa J

Public Administration Quarterly; Spring 2004; 28, 1/2; ProQuest
pg. 182

BUILDING COMMUNITIES WHILE BUILDING

PLANS: AREVIEW OFTECHNIQUES FOR
PARTICIPATORY PLANNING PROCESSES

MaryR.English, Research Leader,

Energy, Environment andResources Center, University of
Tennessee

JeanH.Peretz, Research Scientist,

Energy, Environment andResources Center, University of
Tennessee

and

Melissa 1.Manderschied,
Minnesota Housing Partnership

Study sponsor: Waste Management Research and

Education Institute, University ofTennessee, Knoxville

Acknowledgments.This article is based on research supported

by the University of Tennessee's Waste Management Research
andEducation Institute, a state- sponsored "center of
excellence." The authors acknowledgewith thanks this
support and the external reviews of the resulting report. All
opinions expressed hereinaretheauthors' own,as areanyerrorsof
factor interpretation.

ABSTRACT

Thereisnosinglerecipeforasuccessful planningprocess.
Instead,communitiesmusttakeadvantageof theingredientsattheir
disposal. Avarietyoftechniques,bothhigh-andlow-tech,canbe used.
Noneisfailsafe;each hasprosandcons. Typically,theirsuccess

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQ SUN11v1ER2004 183

willdependonboththecommunity'sresourcesandits resourcefulness.
Inthisreview,webrieflydescribeandassesstechniquesthatcanbe
usedtoaidfivephasesofaparticipatoryplanningprocess:those
concerninggoals,information,options,decisions,andmonitoring.We
concludewithrecommendationsforwaystobuild,notsimplyaplan,
butastrongersocialfabric.Inparticular,wearguethatparticipantsin
aplanningprocessshouldbetreated,notprimarilyasrepresentativesof
vestedinterests,butascitizenswiththeresponsibilityandcapabilityto
planforthecommongood.

INTRODUCTION

According to Greek mythology, Procrustes

stretched orshortened hiscaptives tofitanironbed. Thus the
adjective "Procrustean," aterm which aptly describes
conventional planning and regulation during much of the
20th century, where the emphasis was on imposing
physical order (Meek, 1994).I Zoning was the primary
regulatory tool, and "planning efforts were largely carried out in
a hierarchical manner by technical experts in government"
(Ayres, 1996).Of late, however, "one-size- fits-all" has given
way to flexibility, innovation, and community-based plans
and regulations (see Ayres, 1996; U.S.Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000).
With an impetus arising primarily, although not
exclusively, from federally-funded urban renewal, anti-
poverty, and Model Cities programs, public participation has
become a centerpiece of local government planning (Sharp,
1989). Even ifparticipatory opportunities are not specifically
mandated, citizens have grown to expect that their voices will
be heard in local planning processes (Rosenbaum, 1976).
Moreover, by now itismore likely that citizen voices will be not
only heard but heeded: We have moved beyond what Arnstein
termed the "illusory form of 'participation" seen in many
urban renewal projects ofthe 1960s (Arnstein, p.218,
1969;Mazmanian and Kraft, 1999); in other words, we have
moved up the rungs of Arnstein's "ladder of participation"
(Arnstein,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 184 PAQSU1v1l\I1ER
2004

1969)toward amoresignificant degree ofcitizen influence.

The research presented here is grounded in the
view,nowheldbymanyscholarsand practitioners, that meaningful
opportunities for public participation in all levels
ofgovernment are essential. Public participation is
fundamental to democratic values, it increases the
accountability andresponsiveness ofpublic officials, andit
encourages civic commitment (John, 1994; Nelson et aI.,
1998;Plein etaI., 1998;Rosenbloom, 1998; Ketti, 2000).
Inaddition, thereis anempirical linkagebetweenpublic
participation and program achievements: Involving the
public inaprocess candirectly affect itsoutcomes (Meeks,
1985;Susskind andCruikshank, 1987).
There is, of course, a continuing debate between
thosewhoespouse participatory democracy, inpartbecause
itallows individuals greater sayoveraffairsthat affecttheir lives,
andthose who espouse representative democracy, in part out
of concern that interest groups will otherwise dominate
(Pierce et aI., 1992; Fischer, 1993; Overdevest,
2000). In this regard, we take a centrist position: We
acknowledge the continuing importance of decisions by
elected representatives, but we also believe that citizen
participation is a vital augmentation to representative
democracy, because, ifdone properly, itboth builds civic
capacity and increases the likelihood of fairer, more
broadly supported decisions. (For adiscussion ofvarious
methods to improve public participation, see, e.g.,
Creighton, 1981;Gastil, 1993;Verba etaI., 1995;Renn et
aI.,1995).
In addition to championing citizen participation,
this paper is oriented toward local practitioners: for
example, planners; public administrators such as mayors,
county executives, and city managers; and public works
managers who provide thephysical infrastructure forcities and
towns. Despite its practitioner orientation, the
information discussed here is notirrelevant for academic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 185

audiences. Indeed, scholars and students in public

administration and planning may be called upon to help
develop participatory planningprocesses. As just one
example, the University ofNorth Carolina atWilmington
wasaskedtohelpbuildregional alliances forsmartgrowth
intheCapeFeararea(Barth, 2000).
As suggested above, the literature on citizen
participation efforts inplanning processes isvoluminous.' This
article builds upon these contributions by discussing how they
might apply specifically to planning for smart growth.
"Growth management" ... "smart growth" "sustainable
development" these terms have received enormous
attention at the local, state, and federal levels over the past
decade (DeGrove, 1991; Meek, 1994; Banovetz etal.,
1994;Dobson, 1995; President's Council on Sustainable
Development, 1999). Yet many communities
arestillstruggling with howtoachieve smart growth or sustainable
development. (See, e.g., the case studies presentedby
Mazmanian and Kraft, 1999, for successes andshortcomings
thatmustbeovercome.)
Aplethora oftechniques are now available to aid
participatory planning processes. Yetinformation onthem is
scattered,each book or article tends to have its own formula
forsuccess, andthe"how to"aspects oftechniques
maynotbedescribed. Forexample, Alexander presents 15 ways to
make growth management work, ranging from
coordinatingannexation to monitoring performance
(Alexander, 1991); nevertheless, she does not offer ideas about
how public officials might design an approach that fits their
community. As another example, Creighton (1992)
extensively discusses methods toinvolve citizens in community
decision making but does not assess their advantages and
disadvantages. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) provide an
excellent discussion ofapproaches for resolving public
disputes but do not deal at length with other aspects ofcitizen
participation and decision making.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 186 PAQSUMMER 2004

Case studies also abound - for example, those of

Mazmanian and Kraft(1999)and Nelson,Robbins,and Simonsen
(1998)- buttheutility ofcasestudies islimited
bytheirlackofgeneralizability.
Inthisarticle,wepresent andbriefly assess anarray of
process techniques, in order to enable community
leaderstochoose techniques mostappropriate fortheirown
situations. We succinctly describe low-tech andhigh-tech
techniques thatcanbeused infivephases ofaparticipatory planning
process: eliciting values and setting goals, assembling
and forecasting information, developing and assessing
options, making decisions, and monitoring change.
Asweproceed, wenotekeypotential advantages and disadvantages
of various techniques. (For a much more extended discussion
ofthese techniques, seeEnglish et al., 1999. See also works such
asU.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1994; Daniels et aI.,
1995; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.)
Many ofthetechniques discussed herearelow-tech. We
haveemphasized low-tech techniques because they are more
likelytobeuseful tocommunities - especially rural communities'
- with small staffs and low budgets. Academia tends to
think in high-tech, computer-based terms such asthe Internet
orelaborate software programs. Yetinmanycommunities,
theuseofsuchhigh-tech toolsis stillquite limited. For example,
asurvey ofTennessee city and county officials revealed that only
25 percent ofthe respondents use the Internet daily, and 39
percent do not use it at all (Lyons, 1999). Although this
situation is changing, sophisticated computer-based
techniques - especially those requiring extensive data and
expertise - arestillnotviableformanycommunities.
This article supports a perspective where citizen
participation in the planning process is strongly
encouraged. The article is premised on the belief that a
planning process must betailored totheplace, the people,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 187

andthecircumstances; there isnosinglerecipe forsuccess. An

important starting point, however, isto have abasic
understanding ofthe array ofpossible techniques - some
alternative, some complementary. With this knowledge,
oneisbetter-equipped to craft aprocess to suitone's own
needsandresources.
We conclude byturning briefly from the "how" to
the"who": thatis,tostrategies forengaging citizens in the various
tasksofaparticipatory planning process. Whatever theparticular
strategy adopted, weurgethat participants in the process be
treated, not as stakeholders with vested interests, but as
community members with CIVIC responsibilities and capabilities.
Only then can a participatory planning process realize its full
potential of building, notjust aplan,butastronger community.

AFIVE-PHASEPROCESS

Planning processes usually follow a basic five- phase

iterative framework (see Figure 1). For each ofthe phases,
newtechniques arebeing explored. Some arestill outofthereach
ofmanycommunities: They require hard- to-obtain data,
sophisticated computers and software, and highly trained
staff or consultants. Other lower-cost, lower-tech
techniques are also being explored, however. These typically
require the dedication and creativity of a core group ofstaff and
community members, who inturn
reachouttoothersduringtheplanning process.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 188 PAQSUMMER 2004

Figure 1
Five StageProcess

Identifying Gathering,
Values and Integrating,

T
Setting Forecasting
Goals information

Developing
And
Assessing
Options

Making
Decisions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 189

1. Identifying Values andSettingGoals

Values area person's internal conceptions of what is

desirable or socially preferable (Kluckhohn, 1951;
Rokeach, 1973;Spates, 1983).Values are not static:While
"core values" are fairly permanent, other values are
context-specific (Brown, 1984; Dietz and Stem, 1995;
Gregory etal.,1997). Values coalesce withbeliefs toform
preferences and attitudes (Stern and Dietz, 1994).
Although individual values and preferences are important,
community goals should beaproduct, notonlyofpersonal
reflection, but also ofcollective dialogue.
Surveys are the traditional way to systematically
gather public opinions, but they increasingly are being
supplemented or replaced with collectively-developed
vision statements. Surveys and vision statements thus are
polesonaspectrum ofpossibilities. Eachhasvariations.
Surveys. For agiven population, the whole group
may be surveyed. If not, the survey may be directed
toward targeted orrandomly selected people, orastratified
randomsamplingtechnique maybe used.Inadditionto
determining the sampling size and technique, decisions
mustbemadeaboutthesurvey questions, howtheywillbe
administered (typically bymail,phone, orface-to-face, but
increasingly byelectronic means), and howresults will be
recorded and analyzed. Ifasurvey isto be repeated over
time to capture changes in views, forethought will be
needed toensure consistency. (For anextended discussion
ofsurveytechniques, seeBabbie, 1989;Frey, 1989; Miller
andMiller, 1991;Alreck andSettle, 1995;Folz, 1996).
In general, the more formal the procedures, the
largerthesample size,andthehigher theresponse rate,the
more representative the survey results. Time andcost also
goup,however. In contrast, informal surveys - e.g.,one run
in a local newspaper - can be done quickly and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 190PAQSUMMER 2004

cheaply butmayproduce distorted results. Whether formal

orinformal, surveystypically useclosed-ended questions to
make iteasierforpeople torespond andfortheirresponses to be
recorded and analyzed. With content analysis
software, the latter problem islessformidable, but surveys
stilltilttoward closed-ended questions. Assuch,theymay
notreallygetatwhat's onpeople's minds.
SurveysUsingVisualImages. One variant ofthe
traditional survey is the Visual Preference Survey™, a
concept refined and popularized byA.C.Nelessen (1994)
butrooted inthelandscape preference surveys ofthe 1970s (see,
e.g., Craik and Zube, 1976). A Visual Preference Surve/M
uses images - typically, photographic slides- withevaluation
forms. Itusually isadministered inagroup setting
suchasapublic meeting. Aseachimage isshown, participants
are asked to individually rate the image (e.g., from +10 to -
10); mean scores for each image are then calculated; and the
images are ranked from most to least desirable. With
the digital image possibilities of computers, theVisual
Preference Surve/M couldbeputon a Web site, where
people could respond at their convenience from home or
publicly accessible computers (although "ballot-stuffing"
would then need to be controlled).
A Visual Preference Surve/M lets participants
respond toimages rather thanwords, andtheresults canbe
fairly readily translated by planners and architects into
building codes, subdivision controls, and other design
criteria. Selecting the images is difficult, however:
Perspective and subject matter (e.g., atree inglorious fall
color, an especially repugnant billboard) may lead to
distorted responses. Furthermore, the images must
represent a range of features but must not be dauntingly
numerous. Finally, aVisual Preference Surve/Misonlya
supplementary tool; it should be used to spark dialogue
aboutthecurrent anddesired character ofthecommunity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 191

Vision Statements. Vision statements have been

promoted by groups such as the National Civic League, which
regards the mas essential to collaborative planning processes:

A community vision is an expression of possibility, an

ideal state that the community hopes to attain.... The
vision provides the basis from which the community
determines priorities and establishes targets for
performance. It sets the stage for what is desired in the
broadest sense... Okubo, 1997, p.31

The National Civic League recommends that vision

statements be reached by consensus, include strong visual
descriptions, and look at least 10 years into the future. It
suggests a weekend visioning retreat but notes that more
typically vision statements are developed over two or more non-
consecutive evenings.
Vision statements have hidden costs in staff and
participant time. For example, Helling (1998) estimated that
Atlanta's four-year Vision 2020 project cost $4.4 million in
resources, although its direct, billed expenditures were $1.1
million. In addition, getting the right mix of people is difficult,
as is finding the right balance between breadth and specificity in
the vision statement. Both affect the credibility and utility of the
statement. Looking for areas of agreement can be time-
consuming, yet important differences should not be papered
over, and the vision statement should clearly set the stage for
action.
Scenarios. Scenarios tell stories about the future:
What people think or hope will happen. The former are
forecasting scenarios. The latter - "preferred future"
scenarios - can be used to augment vision statements. They
make the abstract concrete.
To generate "preferred future" scenarios,
participants maybe asked to put themselves into the future

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 192 PAQSUMMER 2004

And then describe where they areand how they got there: in
effect, a hypothetical reflection on the past. A similar tactic
is to ask participants to project themselves into a scenario and
describe their reactions. Scenarios also can be used as "thought
experiments" to test alternative visions. As described
inShaping ARegion's Future (Dodge and
Montgomery,1995),participants may,forexample, discuss a"best
case" vision, where everything goes well; a"worst case" vision,
where everything goes wrong; and atrended vision, where
things goas they have to date.
In developing scenarios, specific examples and
representative events should be used, and links among
different factors should be described. Doing sotakestime.
Moreover, scenario-building requires a working
understanding of the community's economy, social life,and
physical environment, which may mean some people are less
able to participate. Finally, scenarios for community goal-
setting can't easily be generated by large groups: They must
be developed by several small groups and then integrated by
looking for broad themes or areas of agreement.
High-tech Aids. With new technologies, more
people can participate in a community goal-setting process, and
results can be integrated more easily. One aid was mentioned
above - conducting a Visual Preference Survey™ via the
Internet or a publicly accessible computer. A few other
examples are:(1)With the advent of community channels,
television can be used to provide information and elicit
opinions via amail-in questionnaire distributed with notice of the
program. (2) Through video conferencing,people at multiple
satellite locations can view a program transmitted from the
central location and relay questions to that location. (3)
Using computer-based
polling in meetings, participants can anonymously register
their opinions, which can be instantly tallied. (4)Internet-
basedmeetings allow people to receive information and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 193

exchange views inreal time while sitting attheir personal

computers (McKenzie, 1999).
Techniques such as these can reach people who might
be reluctant or unable to participate inconventional meetings,
and they can expedite opinion-gathering. They may, however,
intimidate people who are uncomfortable with new
technologies, and they may be cumber some and expensive. In
addition, taken alone, many of them do little to encourage
dialogue.

2. Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information

Information grounds aplanning process in reality, and

differences in values can be lessened if people agree on facts.
It has been argued that information should be thought of as
embedded incommunicative action (Innes,
1998). Without disputing the important role that
informally-received information can play throughout a
planning process, we would argue that there also is arole for
more formal, conscious transmission of factual information early
in theprocess.
Often, existing information can be used: for
example, from secondary data sources (e.g., the U.S.
Census), local o routside experts, and community members. The
challenge is to collect and synthesize this information into useful,
shared knowledge. The aim should not be endless detail;
itshould be meaningful patterns, displayed using techniques
such as indicators and community profiles.
Forecasting is an essential follow-on: It enables
people to compare what is likely to happen with a preferred
future. Low-tech forecasting techniques - for example,
scenarios, trends extrapolation, comparisons with similar
communities, and intention surveys can be
supplemented with higher-tech tools such as geographic
information systems and computer-based forecasting

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 194PAQSUMMER 2004

models.
Because information about the present and future
may help to shape preferences, this phase should be
concurrent with the"values andgoals" phase, eventhough
itisoftenlistedsequentially.
Knowing thePresent:Indicators and Community
Profiles. Indicatorscanpaint apicture ofthe community asitwas
and istoday. They also can be used to predict
wherethecommunity isheaded, toevaluate options, andto monitor
changeinthecoming years.
Indicators are, ineffect, barometers of community well-
being: They are measurable features that represent
otherimportant features aswell. For example, acurrent or
projected change inthelocalagecomposition mayindicate a
looming need for more schools or senior services.
Indicators should show both vector and force -the direction
and extent of change. Good indicators use reliable,readily-
obtained information;attract attention;and inspire action
(MacLaren, 1996; Redefining Progress,
1997;Hart, 1998).
Choosing indicators is difficult: They need to be
selected not only for representativeness but also for data
availability; they need to cover avariety oftopics but not lose
people inamaze offacts andfigures; they need tobe selected early
inthe planning process, but their later uses (e.g., for monitoring)
need to be anticipated. Moreover, theycanbemisleading unless
theyareseenassigns,notas goals. Thewhole isgreater
thanthesumofitsmeasurable parts. AsAlbert Einstein said,"Not
everything that canbe counted counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted."
Community profiles build on the concept of
indicators. As described by the National Civic League
(Aqaba, 1997), a community profile combines indicators
witha surveyaskingcommunity membersabouttheir perceptions
of the community's assets and challenges.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUM:MER2004195

(These questions may be augmented with "visioning"

questions about their values and goals concerning the
community.) The community profile results in a single
informational package identifying ways in which the
community isdoingwellorpoorly.
Ideally, the profile will integrate hard data with
local perceptions. Itmay, however, reveal discrepancies
between dataandperceptions. Whilethiswillberevelatory (people
may learnthat their perceptions aren't right orthat the data don't
tell the whole story), it may make the information
phaseprotracted andcontroversial.
Anticipating theFuture: Constructing Scenarios,
ExtrapolatingTrends,MakingComparisons,andEliciting
Intentions. Asmentioned above,scenarioscanbeusedfor
forecasting as well as for "wishful thinking." Peter
Schwartz, a futurist, has prescribed steps for developing
forecasting scenarios: Identify a focal situation, together with
positive and negative internal (local) and external factors
influencing the situation; rankthefactors according to their
importance and uncertainty; and then, mindful of the most
important anduncertain factors, flesh out afew scenarios whose
differences would dictate different actions (Schwartz, 1991).
Developing scenarios requires time, imagination, hard
thinking, and basic knowledge about crucial factors andtrends.
Keydecision makers should beinvolved inthe group process of
building scenarios, yet they may be difficult toengage.
Ontheotherhand, somepeople maybe alltoo eagertoparticipate:
Theprocess maybedominated byafewpeople whogetcaptivated
by"their" scenarios.
Below, three other relatively low-tech techniques
forforecasting arementioned. Agood discussion ofthese and
other forecasting techniques can be found in
"Forecasting for Environmental Decision Making," by J.
ScottArmstrong (1999).
Trendsextrapolation- using past trends as the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 196PAQSUMMER 2004

basis for projections is perhaps the most common

technique foranticipating thefuture. Thistechnique, which
usually uses quantitative data(e.g., population size,
household income, number ofacres infarming), commonly
employs "straight line" projections, but other statistical
methods canbeused.Trends extrapolation canbebiasedby the
data chosen and the statistical methods used. Disagreement also
may arise over how far into the future theprojection isaccurate.
Thistechnique isbest-suited to situations where no major new
forces for change are expected.
In contrast, comparisons with other communities
allow internal and external forces for change to be
anecdotallyobserved. These comparisons - in effect,
"anticipation by analogy"- canbedoneinformally, by networking
and reading newspaper articles and case studies. Orthey
can be done formally, by locating afew places that are similar in
most respects, except that they have already experienced
changes that could occur inthe community inquestion, andthen
systematically analyzing whythechanges haveoccurred.
Making comparisons can berisky, however: Neither
thecompared communities nor the forces forchange
willbeexactly the same. Analogies shouldbeusedforinsights,
notforpredictions.
The purpose ofanintentionsurveyisto anticipate
how people will behave under certain conditions. For
example, key decision makers in a community might be
surveyed tohelpanticipate theiractions (e.g.,theymightbe asked
what they would do if traffic on a major route through town
increased 50%), or community members might be surveyed to
get a sense ofthe many individual actions that could, in the
aggregate, have major effects
(e.g.,theymightbeaskedwhattheywould doifthetown's high school
were closed and students were directed to a regional high
school.) Intention surveysare difficult to construct, however:
Questions must be plausible, and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 197

time frame must notbesetsofaroffastoseemirrelevant. Inaddition,

theresults shouldn't betaken aspredictors of behavior:
Instead, they're an indication of what people
nowthinktheymightdo.
High-techAids. It's easytoassertthatageographic
information system (GIS) is not "high tech"; that it is
standard planning equipment - easy, that is, unless you
areaplanner inarurallocalewithaminimal budget andno staff.
In Tennessee, for example, many small municipalities
arenotlikelytohaveGIS's intheimmediate future, due to fiscal and
staff limitations (English et al.,
1999). In fact, according to the KnoxvilleNews-Sentinel
(November 23, 1999, p. 1) some municipal libraries In
Tennessee don't evenhaveindoor plumbing!
Basically, aGISis acomputerized versionof transparency
overlay maps. The computer ismuch faster: It enables quick
selection and display of data sets at different levels of
detail. However, a GIS requires hardware andsoftware,
training torunit,anddata setsthat may be unavailable or time-
consuming to enter. Furthermore, ifaGIS isused interactively
during apublic workshop, the information will need to
bedisplayed on a large screen (adding tothe cost); extra
personnel may be needed (also adding to the cost); and the
GIS may be bewildering topeoplewhohavedifficulty reading
maps.
Even more out-of-reach or daunting for some
communitres are computer-based predictive models.
Models use complex "if-then" theories and quantifiable data to
predict system changes (e.g., changes inthe local economy
orlocalecological systems). Theycanhighlight key variables
and relationships among variables. For example, INDEX,
developed by Criterion, Inc., has modules for
characterizing and analyzing physical and social aspects of
an area (see http://www.crit.com). PLACE3S, created for
the U.S. Department of Energy's Center of Excellence in
Sustainable Development, uses

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 198 PAQ SUMMER 2004

energy as a measure for communities to understand how

energy affects sustainability (see
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/tooikit/TCDDMIPLACE3 S
.htm). As we have discussed ingreater detail elsewhere
(English et al., 1999), other decision support tools for
planning are available or inthe works inthe private and public
sectors.
Computerized models can surpass human brains in
integrating many different factors and assessing how they
willinteract, buttheyarebestatpredicting large, notsmall, effects.
Although simplified programsare becoming available, they
typically are expensive and still require expertise. Moreover,
they are only asgood astheir data inputs. Ifthedata
arenotavailable attheright scale(e.g., atthemunicipal
level),themodel maynotwork. Similarly,
ifthesystembeingmodeled isopen,notclosed- thatis,if itissubject
tosignificant external influences - themodel mayproduce
misleading results.

3. Developing andAssessing Options

Generating options requires creativity and

imagination; assessing them requires hard analytic
thinking. Theinformation phase will help,butthechoices still
may be difficult. People often have competing goals and vested
interests in certain options. Choosing among options also
involves uncertainty about how anoption will
alterthecommunity's future, forbetter orforworse.
In acommunity planning process, developing and
assessing options should be done collectively as well as
individually. Togetcommunity input onoptions, some of
thetechniques foridentifying values andsetting goals may be
supplemented with one or more of the techniques mentioned
below.
Charettes. Charettes aremostoftenassociated with
architectural brainstorming and problem-solving, but they

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 199

can beusedtodevelopoptionsforcommunity projectsor plans.

Forexample,theRegionallUrbanDesignAssistance
Team(RlUDAT)organizedundertheAmericanInstituteof
Architectsoftenconductsintense three-dayeffortsforthis
purpose(http://www.earchitect.com). Charettes usually
havethreeparts: (1)specialistsand othersworktogether to
come toanunderstandingofthegoals,resources,and
limitationsathand;(2) thegroupconsiders various
proposalsand thenfocusesononeorafewpreferred options;and
(3)theideasaresketchedand refined.
Charettes typicallyarequickandinexpensive,
althoughifprofessionalhelpisneeded(anditmaybe),
costswillincrease unlessitcanbeobtainedonaprobono basis.
Inacharette,thegroupshouldbelargeenoughto
spuranexchangeofideasbutnotsolargethatpeoplecan't
talkandworkwitheachother. Theatmosphereshould be
creativelycharged,and theresultsshouldberealisticand well-
rounded.
Decision-AnalyticTechniques. Incontrastwith the
hot-bloodedatmosphereofacharette,coolrationalismmay
bepreferred,especially foroptionsassessment. Ifso,
variousdecision-analytic techniquesthattilttowardthe
informalorformal,andtowardanindividualoracollective
deliberativeprocess,canbeused(see Englishetal.,1993;
Merkhofer,1999).Afewsuchtechniquesare:
(1)Prosandconschart."Pros andcons"canbe
thoughtofas"benefitsandcosts"butshouldbeinterpreted
broadly,notjustasdollarprofitorloss. Inaddition,the
difficultyofcarryingouttheoptionshould betakeninto account.
Chartingtheprosandconsofvariousoptionscan
bedonebysmall groupsorindividuals. Thenatureofthe
prosandconswillneedtobeidentifiedandtheirmagnitude
thenestimated. Theestimatescanbebasedon judgment,
usingdescriptorssuchas"agreatdeal"or"verylittle"that
arethenconvertedtonumericalscales(e.g.,from1to5).
Ortheycanbebasedonformalanalytictechniquesand

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 200 PAQSUMMER 2004

models (e.g., aregional economic impact model), inwhich

casetheyprobably willrequire professionals recognized for their
expertise and neutrality. Even so, estimations ofthe magnitude
of pros and cons may be fraught with controversy
anduncertainty.
Itmayfeel likecomparing "apples andoranges" to
weigh theprosandconsofdifferent options.Sometimes it is.
Options shouldbesorted, notonlybythegoals theyare meant to
achieve, but also by whether they are "low investment"
or"highinvestment." Low-investment options with high
payoffs are usually winners; high-investment options with low
payoffs are usually losers. The others require morethought.
(2)Decision matrix. A decision matrix is asimilar
but somewhat more formal technique suitable for small
groups orindividuals. Ithas four basic elements: (1)the
setofoptions under consideration; (2) asetofcriteria to evaluate
the options; (3) a numerical weight on each criterion,
reflecting its relative importance; and (4) numerical
assessments of how well each option satisfies each criterion.
For a particular option, each numerical assessment ismultiplied
bythecriterion's numerical weight to produce a score, and the
scores for allthe criteria are summed to produce a total score
for the option. Total scoresfor theoptionsmaythenbecompared.
Minimum "passing" scores foreachcriterion ensure thattheoption
is a good all-round choice. (This is to account for the
possibility that anoption may "fail" some criteria but still receive
a high total score if it does very well on other criteria.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004201

Assigning thenumbers toweight thecriteria andto

assesstheoptions requiresjudgment and,ifagroup process isused,
ameans ofreaching agreement. (Forthispurpose, the Delphi
Technique might be used - see below.) To help ensure
impartiality, the criteria should be weighted before the options
areassessed, but conflict stillmay arise overthecriteria weighting
and the options assessment. A decision matrix should betreated
simply asatool to help structure option comparisons, with
aIIowances made for other factors (e.g., political realities) that
can't beincluded in the matrix. Nevertheless,it may be tempting
to treat eachoption's scoreasthe"bottom line."
(3)Delphi Technique. The Delphi Technique isa
formal, iterative process for distilling opinions and
identifying areas ofagreement anddisagreement. Itcanbe used
to clarify where differences lie or to arrive at a consensual or
majority view. Aswith the two techniques above, it is better
suited to assessing than developing options. Historically,
itwasused mainly forexpert panels, but recently, italso has been
employed with laypeople on policyandplanning issues.
The Delphi Technique requires a facilitator, who
prepares andpretests questions to beposed. The questionnaire
is filled out by each participant, working solo. Thefacilitator
thenprovides afeedback summary and a follow-up questionnaire.
Thesummary allowsthe participants to reflect onthe group's
responses taken as a whole; the foIIow-up questionnaire
allows them to modify their initial responses. The process
may be repeated for severalrounds. Thefinalfeedback summary
represents the finalpoints ofagreement anddisagreement.
The Delphi Technique is best suited to relatively
small groups; otherwise, digesting open-ended responses can
be overwhelming. Because the technique can be conducted
bymail, it's especiaIIy useful when participants cannot find
aconvenient time or place to meet. Itallows

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 202 PAQ SUM:MER2004

each participant torespond without feeling pressured,

and,because responses are anonymous, the result may be
greater frankness (but also less accountability). The
technique requires good reading skills and, if the
questionnaire is open-ended, good writing skills; it thus may
be biased against some potential participants. Moreover,
itdoesnotallowthefreeexchange ofideasthat canhelptobuild
innovative solutions aswell asasense of community.
High-tech Aids.Computer-based tools may be
desirable at the options stage, especially for complex, multi-
faceted issues. For example, the GIS-basedtools
mentioned above canbeusedtohelpvisually represent and evaluate
options suchasaproposed newroadorpark. The option is sketched
in and then can be seen in relation to factors suchaspopulation
density andprojected growth. A GIS-based
toolalsomayallowadjusting various features of anoption (e.g.,
park size, location, access points) tocreate the best alternative.
GIS-based tools are better suited for assessing "on-the-ground"
options such asanew shopping center than for assessing policy
and program options such asanewdevelopment impact
feeorfarmland preservation program.
Expert systems and optimization techniques also
may be used (English et al., 1993). When expert
knowledge is available, a formal system with "if-then" rules
can guide options assessment. Optimization techniques
areappropriate when there isaclear objective, formally defined
constraints, andmany variables, resulting inmanypossible
solutions. Search techniques that employ either linear or
dynamic programming are then used to systematically identify
anoptimal solution. These systems and techniques are likely
to rely on a sophisticated computer program. They may
require extensive data inputs, and - even though
simplified, user-friendly computer programs are being
developed - running the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 203

program typically requires tranung. Moreover, how the

system reaches its conclusions can be difficult to
understand orcommunicate. Finally, as withlower-tech
techniques, these should betreated asevaluationaids, not as black
boxes grinding out the final preferred option. Factors that
cannot beincorporated intotheprogram often needtobetaken
intoconsideration.

4. Making Decisions

For the plan to betranslated into action, decisions will

be required from private-sector individuals and
organizations as well as from local government. Key
potential decision makers of various stripes should be
engaged earlyon,together withother community members. At
the "making decisions" stage, however, the
recommended plan isturned over to the appropriate local
governmental body - typically, theplanning commission, the
city council, or the county commissioners. The plan may be
informally or formally considered and adopted, usually
following setprocedures.
Nevertheless, the decision-making stage is not
always written instone. Thecouncilor commission may,
forexample, choose toconsult directly withvoters through
techniques such as abindingornon-bindingreferendum. Local
laws vary in their specific requirements concerning these direct
democracy techniques; basically, the goal is determine whether
aproposal iswidely supported.
Ontheplusside,referenda allowvotersan equal opportunity
toexpresstheiropinion. However, people such asyouths
areleftoutunless special techniques such asin- school polling
areused. Furthermore, iftheturnout islow orthevote isclose,
the"will ofthepeople" may stillbein doubt. Ifareferendum
isundertaken, theballot questions mustbecarefully phrased
toavoidbias. Evenso,responses are limited to a "yes" or
"no"; moreover, without

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 204 PAQ SlJJ\1MER 2004

supporting information about the proposed plan, voters may make

uninformed choices. Especially if the outcome of a referendum
is to be non-binding, other, more informative and interactive
techniques such as those discussed under "Identifying Values
and Setting Goals" might be used in lieu ofor inaddition to
aformal, ballot-box technique.

5. Monitoring Change

No vision or plan lasts forever - Chattanooga, for

example, had a revision process in 1992 as a sequel to its
1984 process. Until aplan is replaced, however, it should chart
acourse and help the community to stay on it, rather than being
buffeted aimlessly bythe winds of change. Developing
aplanisnotenough. Notonlyshould itleadto actions; change must
bemonitored and,when appropriate, responded to.
The concept of monitoring change issimple: Are
westaying oncourse? Ifnot,aretheunanticipated changes good?
Butthepractice ofmonitoring change isdifficult. It requires
foresight, to know which symptoms of change
shouldbetracked. While monitoring change isafollow-on
totheplanning process, itshouldbeanticipated earlyinthe process,
when information isfirst being gathered. Italso requires
dedication, to bring continued attention to symptoms of
change long after the excitement of the planning process
haspassed. And itrequiresjudgment, to distinguish large, long-
lasting changes from small, fleeting changes.
In monitoring change, it's important to track both
positive and negative change,both big events (e.g., a
prospective regional shopping center) and incremental
change (e.g.,agradual decline inwildlife habitat), andboth internal
and external forces forchange. Tracking external forces for
change can be especially important. Given today's increased
mobility and global economy, even

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQ SUMMER 2004 205

deeply rural towns and counties are subject to outside

influences. Those influences cannot bestopped, but they
canbeanticipated andguided.
Techniques such as surveys, indicators, and
benchmarks canbeused:
(1) Community surveys, which were discussed
under "Identifying Values and Setting Goals," are best
suited to either assessing changes inpeople's opinions or
gatheringfactualinformationabouttheir householdand
neighborhood circumstances (e.g., annual household
income,numberof milesdriven,recreational activities,
neighborhood meeting places).
(2) Indicators, which were discussed under
"Gathering, Integrating, andForecasting Information," can
establish a systematic track record of the direction and extent
of change: They serve as measures of progress toward
goals;they also serve as"red flags" forundesirable trends. They
are, however, best suited to flagging incremental change,
not sudden big events. Indicators of exogenous
aswellasendogenous changewillbeneeded.
(3) Benchmarkscanbeusedasachievement targets.
For example, in northeastern Mississippi, aregional non- profit
organization - the Commission on the Future of Northeastern
Mississippi - has established three sets of goals: human
resource development, infrastructure development, and
communityand economic development. Within each set, they
have established benchmarks (e.g., attaining a 90 percent
immunization rate in the region) (Baldwin, 1997).
Benchmarks only measure goal attainment; they donot help
in understanding whygoals aren't beingmet. Andlikeindicators,
theyarenotuseful in tracking events that can have abrupt, large
impacts onthe community.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 206 PAQSUMMER 2004

WHOSHOULDDOALLTHIS?

A common theme in the five phases discussed

aboveis that,whiletechnical aidsandexperts canhelp, community
members are essential to a good planning process
Translating consensus intoaction canbedifficult (Margerum,
1999), but there clearly is a trend toward consensus-building,
participatory processes, and adaptive systems using various
techniques (Innes and Booher,
1999a;InnesandBooher, 1999b).
There remains, however, the practical question of
how people should be called upon to participate in a
planning process. In the course of our research in
Tennessee, we have observed three quite different
organizational strategies (Englishet aI.,1999;English,
unpublished manuscript, 1999). In each ofthethree cases
studied, the community was atthe metropolitan fringe and
wasexperiencing double-digit growth rates.
o In White House, a small town 30 miles north of
Nashville, theplanning process centered onacitizen'stask
force ofabout adozen members who had volunteered or
wereenlisted bythetown planner andthemayor
[J In Loudon County, a quasi-rural area to the
southwest of Knoxville, theplanning process centered ona
seriesofpublicworkshopsheld around the county inthe
"visioning" andtheninthe"options assessment" phases.
o InBlount County, aquasi-rural areatothesoutheast
ofKnoxville on the edge ofthe Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, acombination was used: aseriesofpublic
workshops followed byacitizensadvisorycommittee. Members
of the latter were appointed by county commissioners
fromtheirdistricts.
In each,lowbudgetsandsmallstaffsizeswere
considerations, but tovarying degrees. The White House
process employed a consultant to work withthe citizens' task
force; the Loudon County process (which had

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 207

supplemental funds from special sources) used several

consultant teams; the Blount County process relied on its
staffofaboutthreepeople.
Each approach had strengths and weaknesses. In
WhiteHouse,the citizens'taskforcefosteredcommunity leadership
and made theplan agrassroots effort. Because broad public
input was not sought early on, however, the
taskforceencountered "Whydidn'twe knowaboutthis?" objections.
In Loudon County, those who carne to the publicworkshops
shared acommon vision, butturnout was low despite the
organizers' fervent efforts; in addition, options were developed
without citizen involvement. In Blount County, opinion polls
atthe public workshops and the intensive, half-year effort of
the citizens advisory committee provideda strongbasisforgoal-
setting and consideration of options, but when the
planning commission putforth itsconceptual plan, some people
felt that public input had been discounted. (Blount County
was, however, confronting a highly contentious issue:
whether andhowtoadoptcounty-wide zoning.)
Thesethreecasesrepresent aspectrum of typical
approaches to public input in planning processes. In
addition, other innovative approaches are being explored
aroundthecountry. Forexample:
iJ In Cambridge, MA, civicforums were used inthe mid-
1990s to generate an action plan for the city (see
http://www.libertynet.org/edcividiscvhome.htmT).
o SanFrancisco usedacommunity draftingprocess in
its sustainability planning. Topic areas (e.g., air quality, parks,
transportation) were chosen, volunteer coordinators were
recruited, topic-specific community meetings were
held,andtheresultswerewrittenup (see
http://www.ci.sf.ca.lls/environment/sllstain ).
o The National Civic League recommends forming
keyperformance area (KPA) taskforces (Aqaba, 1997)
KPAs are high-priority areas defined by sector (e.g.,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 208 PAQSUMMER 2004

government), issue (e.g., sprawl), or project (e.g., a

greenway system). The rationale is that, because
everything cannot bedone atonce, afewkeyareas should bechosen.
For eachKPA,atask force isformed, outside expertise isrecruited
asneeded, current performance within the KPA is evaluated,
specific goals are developed, and "who, what, when, how"
isspecified. The results arethen reported to the larger community
group and feedback is received. Asthe larger group reaches
agreement on each task force's work, high-priority projects are
identified and putinanactionplan.
To complement the work ofcivic forums, citizens
advisory committees, and soforth, special-purpose efforts
maybeusedinoneormorephases oftheplanning process.
Forexample:
o Acommunitymappingprocess may beused. The
reason maybetocollect community members' perceptions
of theirphysical surroundings: forexample, "cognitive mapping"
ofdistricts, nodes, landmarks, edges, and paths (Lynch, 1960);
or identifying "sacred places" to be protected.
Alternatively, community members maybeused tocollect
andmapspecified objective information (e.g.,the location
ofvacant lots),
r::J A professional organization may be needed for
more elaborate information-gathering and processing.
Some are available on a not-for-profit basis. In Ouray County,
Colorado, forexample, theSouthwestern Colorado Data Center
conducted asurveyforthecounty aspartofits master planning
process. Citizens are also encouraged to review and comment
on data sets provided by the Data Center
(http//www.landuse.com). At the University of Tennessee,
theCenter forBusiness andEconomic Research often contracts
with Tennessee counties andmunicipalities toconduct economic
forecasts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 209

o Other specialregionalresourcesmay be available aswell

Forexample, theLoudon County planning process mentioned
abovehadthefreeassistance ofboththeQuality Communities
Initiative ofthe Tennessee Valley Authority (see
http://www.tva.gov/econdev) and the "FutureScapes" program
oftheEast Tennessee Community Design Center
(seehttp://www.etcdc.org).
D "Trustees" can be used to monitor change.
Sustainable Seattle, avolunteer network that advocates for
sustainability in King County, Washington, has explored this
approach, wherein respected citizens who represent
community diversity and subscribe to sustainability
principles are elected as trustees to monitor program
activities, considerpolicy issues, andlinktheorganization
toothercommunity efforts

CONCLUSION: FOSTERINGASENSEOF
COMMUNITY

General precepts for each of the five phases of a

planning process are given in Figure 2. The most
fundamental precept istoengage people intheprocess.
Granted, there may be impediments to community
participation: for example, adverse social conditions or
ambiguities about who should be represented (Baum,
1998). Moreover, although powerful people with strongly-
heldinterests needtobeengaged inplanning processes for
pragmatic reasons, to help ensure their "buy-in," their
views should not beallowed to dominate. Yet they often
do(Tauxe, 1995).
Despite these obstacles, a community planning
processshouldstrivetobe well-balanced andinclusive.
Furthermore, it shouldnottreatpeopleascitizens, not stakeholders.
Inotherwords,it shouldemphasize civic capabilities and
responsibilities and the common good. (For discussions of this
political philosophy, often called

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 210 PAQ SUM:MER 2004

communitarianism, see, e.g., Etzioni, 1993, and Sandel,

1996.) Only then can itbuild adurable plan and adurable
community.
A community is more than a place; it is a social
entity. Its fabric is woven from three essential attributes: the
interaction of its members, their shared culture, and their
interdependence (Hillery, 1955; see also English and Zimlich,
1997). The process of developing aplan for the physical
community can and should cultivate these attributes. It
should foster community leadership, enable dialogue, and
encourage people to work and have fun
together.
Planning is about change, and change often breeds
conflict. Sometimes itseems as ifthe conflicts that surface during
planning processes will rip the community asunder. But change is
inevitable. Planning allows people, not to arrest change, but
to guide it. In so doing, they can strengthen their
communities. Across the nation, people are awakening to
both the threats imperiling the places where they live and
work and the opportunity, in confronting these threats, to
become more resilient and tightly-knit communities.

Figure 2
Process Considerations

IdentifyingValuesandSettingGoals

1. Istheprocess representative?
Arediverseviews included?
2. Dopeoplehaveenoughinformationabout
thecommunity toconstruct theirpreferences?
3. Howpreciseshouldthegoalsbe,tohelpshapethe
plan?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 211

Figure2,continued

Gathering,Integrating,andForecastingInformation

1. Whatinformationisrelevant?
2. Whatinformationisavailable,andisnewinformation
needed?
3. Whatinformationscaleandformatisneeded?
4. Can informationbe collected onexternal aswell as
internalforces forchange?

DevelopingandAssessingOptions
1. Aretheplanning goalsrealistic,
givenwhatis now known?
2. Whatevaluatorycriteriacanbederivedfromthegoals,
andhowshouldtheybeweighted?
3. Shouldanoptionachieveagoal,orismoving toward
itsufficient?
4. Arespecialinterestsaffectingtheassessmentofan
option?

MakingDecisions
1. Havekeypeoplebeenkeptinformedduringthe
process,andtheirinvolvementsought?
2. Do the decisions take different perspectives into
account?
3. Arethe decisionsdrivenbyalong-termview ofthe
community'swell-being?

MonitoringChange
1. Whatkeyeventsandincrementalchangesshould
betracked?
2. Howcanmonitoringqualitybeassured?
3. Whatactionswillbetakenifthecommunityisgoing
off-course?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 212PAQSUMMER 2004

NOTES
For an historical perspective on American city
planning,seeGerckens,1988.
2 For avariantontheterm citizenparticipation, see
Plein,etal.(1998),whoconsideranewapproach topublic
participation as"organicplanning."
3 Forone discussiononruraltrends,seeWalzerand
Deller,1996.

REFERENCES

Alreck,PamelaL.andRovertB.Settle(1995).TheSurvey
Research Handbook:Guidelines and Strategies
forConductingaSurvey. New York:McGraw- Hill.

Alexander,Nancy(1991)."FifteenWaystoMakeGrowth
Management Work," in John M. Degrove and
Patricia M. Metzger (eds.). Balanced Growth:A
Planning Guide for Local Government,
Washington, DC: International City/County
ManagementAssociation(ICMA),11-17.

Armstrong, 1. Scott. (1999). "Forecasting for

EnvironmentalDecision Making," in V. H. Dale and
M. REnglish (eds.). Tools to Aid
Environmental Decision Making, New York:
Springer,192-225.

Arnstein, Sherry R (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen

Participation."AlPJournal(July):216-224.

Ayres, Janet (1996)."Essential Elements of Strategic

Visioning,"inNorman Walzer(ed.).Community
Strategic Visioning Programs, Westport, CT:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUM:MER2004 213

Praeger, 21-36.

Babbie, Earl(1989). The practice ofSocial Research, 5th

edition, Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Baldwin, Fred D. (1997). "The Power ofVision: Making the

Strategic Plan Come Alive." Appalachia
(September-December).
(http://www.arc.govlinfopubsfappalach/sepdec97fpo
wer.htm)

Barth, Thomas J.(2000). "The Role ofRegional Alliances

inTheSmart Growth Movement, anOrganizational
Process View." TheUniversity ofNorth Carolina at
Wilmington. SECOPA 2000. Paper presented at
conference, Greensboro, North Carolina (October
5).

Baum, Howell S. (1998). "Ethical BehaviorIs

Extraordinary Behavior: It's the Same asAllOther
Behavior: ACase Study inCommunity Planning."
Journal of the American Planning Association
64(4):411-423.

Banovetz, James M., Drew A.Dolan, andJohn W. Swain (1994).

Managing Small Cities and Counties:A Practical
Guide. Washington, DC: ICMA.

Brown, Thomas C. (1984). "The Concept of Value in

Resource Allocation." Land Economics 60(3):231-
246.

Craik, Kenneth H., and Ervin H. Zube (eds.) (1976).

Perceiving Environmental Quality:Research and
Applications. NewYork:PlenumPress.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 214 PAQ SUMIvlER 2004

Daniels, Thomas L., John Keller, and Mark B. Lapping

(1995). The Small Town Planning Handbook,
2ndedition. Chicago: Planners Press.

Degrove, John M., and Patricia M. Metzger (1991).

"Fifteen Ways to MakeGrowth
ManagementWork," In Balanced Growth:A
Planning Guide for Local Government
Washington, DC:(ICMA).

Dietz, Thomas, and Paul C. Stern (1995). "Toward a

Theory of Choice: Socially Embedded Preference
Construction." The Journal of Socio-Economics
24(2):261-279.

Dobson, Charles (1995). The Citizen's Handbook.

Vancouver, BC Canada: Vancouver Citizens
Committee.

Dodge, William R.,andKimMontgomery (1995). Shaping

aRegion's Future:A Guide to Strategic Decision
Making for Regions. Land-of-Sky Council in
collaboration with Strategic Partnerships
Consulting.

English, Mary R. (1999). Blount County's Comprehensive

Planning Process. Unpublished
manuscript. University ofTennessee, Knoxville.

English, Mary R., Jean H. Peretz, and Melissa 1.

Manderschied (1999). Smart Growthfor
Tennessee Towns and Counties:A Process Guide.
Waste Management Research and Education
Institute, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Available from the Planners Book Service,
American Planning Association.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUM:MER2004 215

English, Mary R.,AmyK.Gibson,DavidL.Feldman,and Bruce

E. Tonn (1993). Stakeholder
Involvement:Open Processes for Reaching
Decisions About the Future Uses of
Contaminated Sites.WasteManagementResearch
andEducation Institute, Universityof Tennessee,
Knoxville,TN.

English,MaryR.,andMargaret A.Zimlich(1997).The
"Community" in Community-Based
Environmental Protection. Energy,Environment
and Resources Center, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville,TN.

Etzioni,Amitai(1993).The Spirit ofCommunity. New

York:Simon&Schuster.

Fischer, Frank (1993). "Citizen Participation and the

Democratization of Policy Expertise-from
Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases." Policy
Sciences26(3)165-187.

Frey,JamesH.(1989).Survey Research byTelephone.

NewburyPark,CA:SAGEPublications.

Folz,David H.(1996).SurveyResearch forPublic

Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

Gregory, Robin, James Flynn, Stephen M. Johnson,

TheresaA.Satterfield, PaulSlovic,andRobert Wagner
(1997). "Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for
Resource Managers." Land Economics
73(2):240-254.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 216 PAQSUl\1MER2004

Hart,Maureen. (1998). "Sustainable Community Indicators

Trainer's Workshop Manual." Hard
Environmental Data,North Andover, MA.

Helling, Amy (1998). "Collaborative Visioning: Proceed

WithCautionI" Journal oftheAmerican Planning
Association 64(3):335-349.

Hillery, George A.Jr.(1955). "Definitions ofCommunity: Areas

of Agreement." Rural Sociology
20(June):111-123.

Innes,JudithE.(1998)."Information in Communicative
Planning." Journal of the American Planning
Association 64(1):52-63.

Innes, Judith E.,andDavid E.Booher (1999a). "Consensus

Building asRole Playing andBricolage: Toward a
Theory ofCollaborative Planning." Journal ofthe
American Planning Association 65(1):9-26.

Innes, JudithE.,andDavid E.Booher (1999b). "Consensus

Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A
Framework forEvaluating Collaborative Planning."
Journal of the American Planning Association
65(4):412-423.

John, DeWitt (1994). Civic

Environmentalism:Alternatives toRegulation in
States and Communities. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.

Kettl, Donald F. (2000). "The Transformation of

Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the
Role of Government." Discussion paper prepared
for Spring Meeting, National Academy of Public

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSillvlMER 2004 217

Environmentalism:Alternatives toRegulation in
States and Communities. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.

Ketti, Donald F. (2000). "The Transformation of

Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the
Role of Government." Discussion paper prepared
forSpringMeeting,National Academy of Public
Administration (June 1-3).

Kluckhohn, Clyde (1951). "Values and Value Orientation inthe

Theory of Action," inT.Parsons and E. A. Shils(eds.).
Toward aGeneral Theory of Action, New
York:Harper, 388-433.

Lynch, Kenneth (1960). The Image of the City.

Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT)Press.

Lyons, William (1999). "Local Government Training: Are

WeMeeting YourNeeds?" Center ofGovernment
Training Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Department ofPolitical Science (January).

Maclaren, Virginia W. (1996). "Urban Sustainability

Reporting." Journal of theAmerican Planning
Association62(2):184-203.

Margerum, Richard D. (1999). "Getting Past Yes: From

Capital Creation to Action." Journal of the
American Planning Association65(2):181-192.

Mazmanian, Daniel A, and Michael E. Kraft (1999).

Toward Sustainable Communities, Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 218 PAQSUMMER 2004

McKenzie, Stewart (1999). "Virtual Tomorrows."

Planning 65(7):14-18.

Meek, Stuart (1994). "Planning," in James M. Banovetz, Drew

A Dolan, and John W. Swain (eds.). Managing
Small Cities and Counties:A Practical
Guide. Washington, DC:ICMA, 61-80.

Merkhofer, Miley W. (1999). "Assessment, Refinement,

andNarrowing ofOptions," inV.H.DaleandM. R.
English (eds.). Tools to Aid Environmental
DecisionMaking, NewYork:Springer,231-281.

Miller, Thomas 1.,andMichelle A Miller (1991). Citizen

Surveys:How to DoThem, How to UseThem, What
TheyMean.Washington,DC: ICMA

National CivicLeague(1998).The Civic Index:A New

Approach to Improving Community Life.
Denver,CO.

Nelessen,AntonC. (1994).VisionsforaNewAmerican
Dream:Processes, Principles, and an Ordinance to
PlanandDesignSmallCommunities. Chicago:
PlannersPress.

Nelson,LisaS., MarkD.Robbins,andBillSimonsen
(1998)."IntroductiontotheSpecial Issueson
Governance."The Social ScienceJournal 35(4):
477-491.

Okubo, Derek(1997).TheCommunity Visioningand

Strategic Planning Handbook, 2nd printing.
Denver,Colorado:NationalCivicLeague.

Overdevest, Christine(2000). "Participatory Democracy,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 219

Representative Democracy, and the Nature of

Diffuse and Concentrated Interests: ACase Study of
Public Involvement on a National Forest
District." Society and Natural Resources 13(7):
685-696.

Pierce, John c.,Mary Ann E. Steger, Brent S. Steel, and

Nicholas P. Lovrich (1992). Citizens, Political
Communication, and Interest
Groups:Environmental Organizations inCanada
andtheUnitedStates.Westport, CT:Praeger.

Plein,Christopher L., Kenneth E. Green, and David G.

Williams (1998). "Organic Planning: A New
Approach to Public Participation in Local
Governance," in David A. Freeman (ed.). The
SocialScienceJournal, Stanford, CT: (35)4: 509-
523.

President's Council on Sustainable Development. (1999).

Towards a Sustainable America:Advancing
Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Heathy
Environment for the 21st Century.Washington, DC:
The White House, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/media/pdf/tsa. pdf.

RedefiningProgress(1997).The CommunityIndicators
Hardbook:Measuring Progress Toward Healthy
and Sustainable Communities. San Francisco,
CA.

Rokeach, Milton (1973). The Nature ofHuman Values.

NewYork: TheFreePress.

Rosenbloom, David H (1998). Public

Administration: Understanding Management,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 220 PAQ SUMMER 2004

Politics, and Law inthe Public Sector. NewYork,

McGraw-Hill.

Sandel, Michael 1. (1996).Democracy's

Discontent:America in Search of a Public
Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schwartz, Peter. (1991). The Art ofthe Long View. New
York:Doubleday.

Spates, James L. (1983). "The Sociology of Values."

AnnualReviewofSociology 9:27-49.

Stern,PaulC, andThomas Dietz (1994). "TheValueBasis of

Environmental Concern." Journal of Social
Issues50(3):65-84.

Tauxe,CarolineS. (1995)."MarginalizingPublic
Participation inLocalPlanning." Journal ofthe
American Planning Association61(4):471-481.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994).

Environmental Planning for Small
Communities:A Guide for Local Decision-
Makers. Washington,DC: OfficeofResearchand
Development,EP Al625/R-94/009.

(1997).
Community-Based Environmental Protection:A
Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and
Communities. Washington,DC:OfficeofPolicy,
Planning,andEvaluation,EP Al230-B-96-003 .

(1997).
Community-Based EnvironmentalDecision
Making:Proceedings ofthe Fifth Workshop in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 PAQSUMMER 2004 221

the Environmental Policy and Economics

Workshop Series, Washington, DC: Office of
ResearchandDevelopment, EE-0433.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Further reproduction prohibited without permission.