Values and planning

The section above on policy and planning suggested that values are important in planning. As Hall
(2000a) argued, the standpoint or value position in relation to planning must not be ignored. A similar
view was put forward by Healey (1997, p. 29) who indicated that public policy and planning are ‘social
processes through which ways of thinking, ways of valuing and ways of acting are actively constructed
by participants’. Both Gunn (1988) and Veal (1994) suggested that planning for recreation and tourism
relies heavily on values, and each argued that community values are particularly important. Therefore, it
is important, they claimed, that a recreation and/or tourism policy should reflect the values of
stakeholders and interested parties. However, if planning is to intend to represent the views of all
stakeholders and interested parties, then it should be obvious that there will not automatically be
unanimity and homogeneity in values and views. Nevertheless, Wilkinson (1997) claimed that much
thinking and writing about planning tends to assume that it is a straightforward, virtually value free,
scientific process. He noted in relation to conventional definitions of planning that: emphasis (is) on a
straightforward approach that accepts the (positivist) possibility of comprehensive rationality. Wilkinson
argued such factors rarely exist in any planning situation, and are unlikely to be found in tourism
planning. Similar views were put forward by Cullingsworth (1997) who indicated the implications of the
meeting of differing value systems in the planning process. As Cullingsworth (1997, p. 5) claimed:
Rational planning is a theoretical idea. Actual planning is a practical exercise of political choice that
involves beliefs and values. It is a laborious process in which many public and private agencies are
concerned. These comprise a wide range of conflicting interests. Planning is a means by which attempts
are made to resolve these conflicts. Wildavsky (1987) also stressed the importance of recognising that
planning is not a rational activity. Hall, P. (1992) argued very strongly that planning is not a tidy process
as posited by theorists of the activity. He indicated that a key problem is trying to predict the future
when there are conflicts of values. He added to this that there is the problem of the interaction of
decisions made in different spheres of public policy, and there is the clash of organised pressure groups
with the defence of vested interests. Hence, Hall, P. (1992, p. 246) argued: ‘The systems view of
planning is therefore a condition to which planners aim but will never be the reality’. Several of the
processes referred to by Hall are related to conflict resolution and can be seen as very much as part of a
wider political process. Jenkins (1997) also indicated that planning is very much a political process. As he
stated, a plan is: ‘a document that has been the focus of political debate and is available to the public’
(Jenkins 1997, p. 25). The relationship between planning and policy in relation to differing