ARTICLE IN PRESS

Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Democracy to become reality: Participatory

planning through action research
Anlı Ataöv
Department of City and Regional Planning, Middle East Technical University, Balgat 06531, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

Different approaches in participatory planning stem from argumentation that stresses a certain model of democracy.
While each model promotes participatory conditions, they do not always become reality. The needs of today’s
communities and the complex political system require a different approach for participatory planning to operate in a
democratic way. This paper argues that five conditions are salient and illustrates the empirical consequences of this
position by using the experiences of participatory movement in Kocaeli, Turkey, where the history of democratization goes
back to 30 years, and furthermore enters a new phase with the recent participatory planning intervention conducted with
an Action Research (AR) strategy. Research shows that the past participatory planning attempts and civil movements in
Kocaeli fostered two conditions including active citizen participation and enabling mechanisms for this. Given this ground,
the recent participatory planning intervention conducted through AR led to change towards a democratic society by
applying the other three conditions of democracy: taking a position in the process of formulating livable agreement,
enhancing effective participation of stakeholders of diverse interests, and translating thoughts into action.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Participatory planning; Action research; Democracy

Introduction

The framework of the functioning of most of today’s governmental systems involves representative
democracy. This model of democracy relies on a majority rule and enables participation only through voting,
thus it constitutes a closed system for direct influence on decisions. On the other hand, it helps organize the
state and regulate a control mechanism in the society (Warren, 2002). This model of democracy does not,
however, respond to the needs of today’s communities and the complex social and political system.
Representative democracy generates one truth and intends to apply that truth homogeneously without taking
into consideration the needs of a heterogeneous social structure (Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004).
In response to this shortcoming, global trends and today’s philosophical argumentation stress the social
content, in other words the popular control in the street. Citizens demand and desire to be involved in the
processes which are likely to affect their future. This requires other modes of democracy, one which does not

Tel.: +90 536 576 6942; fax: +90 312 210 1250.
E-mail address: ataov@metu.edu.tr.

0197-3975/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.04.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
334 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

allow anybody (regardless of ethnicity, race, age, or interest) to rule over others, instead transform differences
into an asset through their equal participation in decision making. A number of authors (e.g., Greenwood &
Levin, 1998; Laird, 1993; Pateman, 1970; Warren, 1996, 2002; Young, 1990) define democracy in its general
terms as consisting of ‘equal distribution of power to make collective decisions’ as well as ‘equal participation
in collective judgment’. The concept of ‘all should participate’ in this definition leads to a new social order of
the civil society, whose conditions differ from the ones of representative democracy. This gives the right to an
individual or a group to translate their wishes into reality, and thus, to make their lives meaningful.
Within this framework, Warren (2002) argues that while equal distribution of power runs effectively in
formal political institutions, equal participation takes place in specific fields, social issues or economic sectors.
This paper agrees with this view. It further acknowledges participatory planning as one of these fields, where
argumentation focuses on the issues of equality and people’s participation in decision making. In general
terms, participatory planning considers civil society and the participatory forces as the main vehicles in
democratic decision making. Specifically, different approaches in participatory planning incline on different
aspects of philosophical discussion on democracy such as deliberation, participation, commitment, and
empowerment.
Communicative planning theorists link to the deliberative and direct participation democracy. They value
the use of deliberative reasoning in collective decision making (e.g., Alexander, 2001; Forester, 1999). They
acknowledge full participation of citizens and their representatives as individuals in setting policy (Healey,
1997). Strategic planning is discussed as more an issue of governance than a question of management
(Albrechts, 2004; Healey, 1997). It suggests a deliberative process, which aims to change systems of meaning.
Commitment planning theorists view citizen participation as an enforcing tool in generating commitment in
policy implementation (Burby, 2003; Innes, 1996; Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).
Some conceive participation more in instrumental terms. Others stress commitment in the sense of ensuring
the protection of stakeholders’ interests over a longer period of time (Godschalk, Parham, Porter,
Potapchuck, & Schukraft, 1994). This acknowledges citizen participation in the civic republican term of
democracy as a way of expressing the citizen commitment to the political community. Finally, community
planning relates more to pluralist democracy with an aim to enable citizens to comprehend their interests and
to seek ways to influence decisions.
Theoretical discussions provide various models of democracy with a varying focus on citizen participation
and the political roles of civil society (Arnstein, 1971; He, 2002; Pateman, 1970; Stokes, 2002). The
argumentation of these theories on democracy suggests important notions for the growth of democratic
planning; however, assumptions about values and rationales do not always hold in practice (Flyvbjerg, 2002;
Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000; Watson, 2002). This paper does not present another model of democracy more
suitable in planning; but it focuses on the shortcoming that these models do not always apply in practice. The
paper further discusses what would take democracy to become reality in participatory planning by using the
Kocaeli case, Turkey, where democratization process goes back to 30 years and takes a new phase in the recent
participatory planning intervention conducted with an action research (AR) strategy (Ataöv, 2007).
Located east of Istanbul along the Izmit Gulf, Kocaeli is one of the Turkey’s fastest growing industrialized
metropolitan cities. Since the end of the 1970s, Kocaeli has maintained second in rank, following Istanbul, in
industrial production. This has always drawn immigrant workers from all over the country. The ethnic mosaic
in the community led hundreds of civil ethnic associations to flourish and this, in turn, might have influenced
the political ideology of the community as social democratic. Field research does not show any significant
reasons to why participatory activities have historically been influential in the community and political life of
Kocaeli, but one can argue that the social democratic tendency of the community may have played a role with
reference to some other Turkish cities such as Eskisehir, Izmir, and Bursa, whose composition of community
and participatory history show resemblances. Moreover, the locally initiated activities in Kocaeli have had a
significant impact at the policy level both nationally and internationally. This consequence might have played
the role of serving as a major stimulating factor for the processes significant in Kocaeli’s history of
participation.
This paper argues that participatory planning in Kocaeli met five conditions to relate democracy to practice.
These include active citizenry, an enabling mechanism, a process for deliberation, effective participation, and
action. Active citizenry and an enabling mechanism require a developmental phase both in the community and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344 335

in the system. The previous participatory history of Kocaeli helped establish the ground for these conditions.
In the recent participatory planning project, the AR strategy made a significant contribution in meeting the
last three conditions by taking a position in the process of democratic dialogue, by fostering broad
participation, and by transforming ideas into action.
The project documented in this paper is based on the AR’s strong commitment to democratic values. AR
can provide a practical guidance for how to approach planning processes to create democratic decision-
making milieu through effective participation while integrating scientific knowledge production into future
design processes. AR acknowledges that theory can be produced only insofar as it provides in-depth
understanding of social constructs inducing change through action (Dewey, 1976; Lewin, 1943). Reason and
Bradbury (2001) in the introduction of the Handbook of Action Research define AR as a democratic process
concerned with developing practical knowledge in the pursuit of human purpose. They further state that it
brings together action and reflection, theory and practice. Greenwood and Levin (1998) explain AR as a
composite balance of participation, research, and action, thus stressing, what this paper sees worthwhile from
this position, a strong value on democracy, a process of knowledge generation as part of social construction,
and action to alter the initial situation in the direction of liberated state.
This paper discusses the relation of democracy to the practice in Kocaeli in four sections. The first section
briefly reviews the prevalent democratic theories and reflects on their shortcomings in terms of their
applicability in planning practice. The second illustrates how participatory activities in Kocaeli historically
fostered active citizenry and enabled mechanism for participation. The third discusses how AR has
contributed to the recent participatory planning intervention guiding democratically involved and committed
society to its own destiny. In the conclusion, the paper highlights the democratic outcomes of the case.

Prevalent democratic theories and conditions for democracy

Since the argument in this paper is based on the premise that theory can only be produced in an
understanding of social constructs, which induce change through action, the paper views the notion of
applicability of a defined theory derived from a particular tradition to a context somewhere else, as irrelevant.
A review of different democratic theories reveals important notions for planning about varying types of
democracy. Active citizenry, broad participation, and deliberation constitute some notions which planning
imported to its reasoning of how planning works. However, the problem is that reality challenges these
democratic ideals.
The existing theory assumes rationalities, which do not hold with real world situations. They remain
inadequate in guiding plan making through democratic participation. For instance, civil institutions may exist
in a setting but they may not embrace democratic elements in their operation. Moreover, the political
mechanism may not allow their inclusion in the process. Civil associations may raise voice but their opinions
may not translate into action. There is a need for ensuring certain conditions for participation, and, thus, for
fulfilling more comprehensive, yet, complex societal requirements of democracy.
Each democratic theory has a particular focus regarding active citizenry, mechanism, process, effective
participation, and individual development. This section reviews democracy models with respect to these
principles and their relation to some planning philosophical discourses. This is important; because these
principles set the political ground for understanding where democracy can emerge in planning and with which
responsibility the actors can act.
Democracy models, which entitle different political roles of civil society, include elitist, pluralist, and
participatory democracy types (He, 2002). These models rely on maintaining pluralism in the society,
enhancing channels for direct participation, and assisting democratization. The models of democracy, built on
the notion of citizenship, vary with respect to the extent and nature of citizenship participation, and the effect
of participation on people. They include liberal minimalism, civic republicanism, developmental democracy,
and deliberative democracy (Stokes, 2002). The basic notions upon which these two groups of democracy
models are built slightly overlap.
The elitist democracy and liberal minimalism are limited to majority rule and involve constitutional
mechanisms for representative democracy. Participatory and pluralist democracy models focus on the notion
of active citizenship of civic republican democracy, the educational aspect of developmental democracy, and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
336 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

the deliberation aspect of deliberative democracy. On the other hand, they differ according to the degree of
participation they articulate. Pluralist democracy operates based on partial participation. It is faced with a
threat of becoming a means for agreements among large organizations, in effect excluding individuals who
later will be effected by the plans made (Bobbio, 1987). Participatory democracy requires direct participation
by citizens, which, in turn, means more demands to fulfil a democratic process (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam,
1993, 1995; de Tocqueville, 1968). More demands can generate unmanageable situations, when they are
pursued by ineffective democratic procedures (Bobbio, 1987).
Civic republicanism emphasizes individuals’ capacity as an active citizen, an enabling mechanism for it, and
the use of reasoning in determining the public good. But it does not explain the level of participation nor does
it explain how citizens can decide what the public interest is. Developmental democracy considers political
participation and deliberation as a means for personal development (Warren, 2002) but this model does not
formulate procedures to achieve it. Deliberative democracy depends on collectively acting citizenry through
public deliberation and dialogue free of coercion but this model disregards the conflict and politics that follow
in real life situations (Flyvbjerg, 2002; Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000).
The communicative and strategic approaches in planning accept the primary goal of deliberative democracy.
They suggest that planners should facilitate collective decision making, which represent a reasoned agreement
among equals (Albrechts, 2004; Alexander, 2001; Forester, 1999; Healey, 1997). The communicative planning
theorists also discuss changing cultural conceptions and producing collective decisions (Albrechts, 2004;
Healey, 2004). They emphasize direct participation as a premise in the notion of democratic governance. This
suggests that individual citizens should have the opportunity to participate in decision making in policies
that affect them. By mainly focusing on the idealized procedure of deliberation, however, this approach
underevaluates the non-rhetoric of reality, which can, in fact, affect the proposed procedure in practice to move
into an undemocratic direction.
The commitment approach in planning discusses the argument of democracy in two different ways. Some
planning scholars view citizen participation as more instrumental purposes. This view promotes citizen
participation to generate credibility and commitment (Burby, 2003; Innes, 1996; Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004),
and a sense of ownership regarding a plan (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). These scholars suggest that in every
planning process stakeholders should take a position where they determine the actions to which they commit
themselves. Other scholars encourage participation in the civic republican democracy term and view it as an
effective tool in ensuring the protection of stakeholders’ interests over a longer period of time as a way of
expressing their commitment to the community (Godschalk et al., 1994). The commitment approach draws the
attention of planning theory to practice; however, it primarily focuses on the instrumentality of participation
in terms of getting things done. Without diminishing the pragmatic value of this approach, concerning the
implementation of decisions may narrow down the participation to include mainly stakeholders who have the
power to implement. This may, in turn, jeopardize equal participation in decision making.
Warren (2002) critically reflects on the need to formulate a theory of democracy in tune with real life
situations. He suggests principles which aim at responding to today’s emerging possibilities and expectations
of democracy. These principles help identify where democracy is placed in a social and political system.
Warren sees the position of democracy and the scope of participation in social and economic issues and/or
sectors, rather than in formal political institutions. Democracy constitutes a response to politics rather than a
way of organizing the state specifically. The state remains as a control mechanism capable of making and
enforcing legitimate laws. Civil society centrally conveys an important role in generating the social power in
response to the state and economic power, through equal participation of politically capable individuals.
In line with Warren (2002), this paper also argues that issue or sector-based systems provide better
opportunities for direct democracy since states rely on representative democracy. States remain as the key
organizers of politics and the sole agents, which enforce the constitutional mechanism. This, however, assigns
an important role to states in direct democracy. One condition for fostering direct democracy relies on how
much the existing political mechanism is permissible to the practices of direct democracies (Fiorino, 1990;
Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004). Additionally, the relative strengths of social forces, and in turn, the active
citizenry are vital in advancing direct democracy. This is an issue of the citizen’s self-perception as an active
citizen and acting like one (Pateman, 1970; Stokes, 2002; Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004). Citizens should be
responsible for raising their voice and also be committed to finding solutions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344 337

Given these conditions, which highlight the system and the people, this paper argues that plan making to
make direct democracy become reality, further requires a procedure for collective decision making, an
effective participation milieu, and means to translate thought into action. The AR strategy in planning
enhances these three conditions in closer relationships. The first is a process for deliberation and collective
decision making (Cohen, 1999; Elster, 1993; Forester, 1999; Healey, 1997, 2004; Thompson, 1970). The second
refers to the ways to design planning processes that enable broad and more effective participation on a basis of
greater equality (Pateman, 1970; Stokes, 2002; UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 1996).
Third, there is an issue of the use of appropriate tools for effective action (Ataöv, 2006).

History of democratization in Kocaeli

Kocaeli has a 30-year history of participatory activities including the participatory housing design project,
the foundation of Local Agenda (LA) 21, and restructuring of civil society. This has particularly built the
ground of two conditions for a democratic society: creating an active citizenry and enabling political
mechanism for participation. These conditions have contributed to the realization of recent participatory
planning conveying direct democracy principles. This section reviews this history with reference to local
archives and in-depth interviews with key actors of these processes, and also today’s ongoing participatory
activities and institutional structure.

The 1970s: participatory democracy

In the 1970s, the Mayor of İzmit (a town within the metropolitan boundaries of Kocaeli), a social
democratic, initiated the design of a participatory public housing project. The ‘New Settlements Bureau’ of the
local municipality directly managed this project under the supervision of Aydan Bulca. Ilhan Tekeli from the
Department of City and Regional Planning at the Middle East Technical University worked as the general
consultant of the project. Tuncay C - avdar, a nationally well-known architect was in charge of the design aspect
of the project. Ergun Unaran managed the company established to realize the implementation of the project
(Bulca et al., 1979).
The project emerged initially to respond to the need for low-income housing in the region. Then it aimed at
a social change through direct participation of residents in the design, production and maintenance of their
houses. The local authority made a conscious political choice in how to deal with this project and structured
the process as a united whole. Thus, the project led to new implications. The municipality had to buy a large
area of private land and to produce 30,000 housing units. This housing production would be the first largest
production in the country and it would respond to 60% of the housing need in the region for the following 10
years.
The participation of users would take place in every phase of the process at the scales of housing unit, as
well as street and neighbourhood. This also implied a conjunction with a process of the democratization of
local governing. This conscious effort intended to give an active position to citizens and a role not only as a
labour force, but also, as a project entity, and the freedom to take action for its own destiny. The project could
not be implemented for various bureaucratic and managerial difficulties and obstacles of the time. However,
the project planted the social ground for more participatory democratic decision making in urban affairs,
thus expressing itself in different social, economic, and political environments in the region later in time (Bulca
et al., 1979).

The 1990s: pluralist democracy

Almost after two decades, the Kocaeli community experienced another intensive change process following
the LA 21 principles and through realization of the community restructuring efforts after the big earthquake
in 1999. Many of these initiatives have been introduced mainly as a result of an international concern to
delegate decisions and hence responsibility to local communities about their own futures (Owen, 2002). These
efforts, on the one hand, promoted the institutional and legal systems to enhance active citizenry in local
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
338 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

governance and planning, and on the other hand, aimed at citizen participation through the establishment of
agencies.
First, Kocaeli agreed to apply LA 21 in 1998. The LA programme or Earth Summit’s Agenda for Change
was produced at the second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II or City Summit) (Davidson,
2003). The Turkish Government also signed this international agreement document, as ‘a guide for the
development of sustainable human settlements in the world’s cities, towns and villages through collaboration
between the urban government and the community’ (UNCHS (UN Centre for Human Settlements), 1996).
The agenda suggests collaboration through consulting an organizational body, the City Council composed of
city’s key stakeholders, and thus arriving at consensus on local strategies and objectives. My field interviews
indicate that the council model proposed by the Kocaeli’s participants at the Congress inspired this
participatory organizational schema. This transformed an informal undertaking by Kocaeli’s active citizens
about developing a democratic governing system model into an international and governmental policy. The
City Council model of Kocaeli was internationally recognized, and influenced the participatory schema
included in the Habitat Agenda, which Turkey signed.
Following the Habitat II Congress, Sefa Sirmen, the Mayor of Kocaeli at that time, asked a group of 15
active citizens to develop the statue of a Democratic City Council with reference to the LA 21 activities. The
intention was to found an alternative source of power to the local authority. The new structure chose its
members from the elected representatives of different interest groups. It aimed at uniting decision makers
including locally elected and centrally appointed local officials, the community representatives and the general
public under a parliamentary process. The jointing task included the identification of urban problems and the
development of relevant solutions. The Council held various meetings on 12 areas of urban affairs with the
participation of 3000 people. Participants identified and prioritized urban problems at these meetings. But at
the stage of developing suggestions, the community encountered one of the largest earthquakes that Turkey
has experienced. This severely impacted the functionality of the Council.
Secondly, after the 1999 earthquake, which resulted in the major destruction of housing, industrial and
military districts, there has been a significant effort for the establishment and the diffusion of local civil
associations along with the transference of international resource aid for regional physical and social
restructuring. This international effort aimed at strengthening the local capacity through participation,
empowering civil associations in local future actions, and achieving sustainability in urban development
through collaboration between local community representatives, LA 21, regional authority, the Governance
Office, and local governmental bureaus.
Along with the institutional opportunity, which LA 21 provided, this effort produced platforms on
marginalized issues such as women, youth, children, the handicapped, culture, environment, tourism, human
rights, and risk management. This activated citizens and enhanced collective thinking. Citizens could directly
participate in problem and solution formulation processes. This has had a significant impact on constructing
an active society. The increase in the number of civil associations and their activities fostered active citizenry.
However, citizens were not legitimized to establish the direct link to decision-making bodies. Soon after the
earthquake, when the local government in power changed, the political system did not always permit the
inclusion of interested stakeholders in the citywide decision-making processes. The stakeholder participation
through LA 21 became a little more than a consultation with no decision-making power. Some other
difficulties that this attempt encountered in achieving democratic dialogue and collective action included the
knowledge capacity of the community, and thereby, the cultural understanding and practice of community
participation, and people’s confidence in the attempt. Moreover, the lack of methodological guidance in
generating active knowledge, and thereby, participants’ being active in thinking, but passive in action,
prevented this structure from serving as a transforming agent.

Today’s participatory mechanism

Kocaeli is also engaged in self-organizing activities, which foster individuals to become active in decision
making in work life and enhance a collaborative mechanism in industrial companies as well as in space. Some
include the establishment of industrial organized areas and techno-parks, and the application of European
Quality Management (EFQM) models in work life.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344 339

Despite its rapid growth and the economic upswing, Kocaeli faces negative consequences of this trend. The
concentration of rapid and unorganized industrial development caused a crowded development of housing
and industry, which, in turn, gave rise to environmental problems and to the loss of urban identity. To help
organize the regional industrial development, the Chamber of Industry of Kocaeli (KSO) initiated the
construction of organized industrial districts in the 1980s. Gebze and Plastics Organized Industrial Districts
are among the first ones. Presently, they are 16. The Vehicle Subsidiary Industrial District is under
construction since Kocaeli and the East Marmara are expected to become the leader region of Turkey in
automotive industry in the 21st century (Governorship of Kocaeli, 2004). The region also accommodates one
of the few techno-parks in the country through the partnership of industrial companies, uniquely built exterior
of a university campus.
Parallel to these heavy production activities of leading national and international companies in the region,
KSO has also taken on leadership in implementing and diffusing international quality systems in industrial
enterprises to increase their competitive efficiency with respect to the global and European Union standards.
As a result, Kocaeli has become one of the Turkish cities that have most widely applied EFQM, a continuous
quality improvement model at work place through worker participation. Moreover, the chamber is the first
winning public institution of the EFQM Award in 2003. A recognized national economy newspaper, World
Newspaper, has nominated KSO as the most successful institution fostering economic development.

Democratic planning in Kocaeli: an AR perspective

The historical review of democratization of Kocaeli shows that the emergent and external initiatives have
helped build a permissible mechanism for participation and collective action, and enhanced active citizenry. In
order to foster participatory democracy, the planning practice recently enhanced three more conditions
including a ‘process’ intervention, effective ‘participation’, and ‘action’. These 3 were blended together
through the AR strategy. The crucial point of integrating AR in planning was to foster democratic decision
making, which displays citizens’ point of view, and which makes planning available to collective inquiry in a
process for the purpose of joint action, and thus, sustainable change.
This section presents this recent participatory planning intervention in Kocaeli. KSO initiated and
coordinated the project. Oğuz Babüroğlu and the author worked as ARs and undertook this project with an
AR approach. The main focus of this research strategy in its use in the planning of Kocaeli, was to foster
change through directly involving diverse stakeholders in the knowledge construction and joint action of
planning. The researchers, thereby, aimed to achieve the value of democracy and participation in planning. In
this case, planning and research were not treated as two separate tasks; but research rather has played an
essential role of maintaining the planning process to be democratic and action-oriented.
The section below discusses the recent planning intervention in Kocaeli in terms of how the use of AR has
fulfilled three domains of democratic planning, including the process, participation, and action. The main
sources for retrieving the democratic aspect of the intervention are the author’s notes and observations from
the participatory conference and meetings and in-depth interviews after the planning phase with 15 active
stakeholders, process managers or coordinators, and community leaders.

A ‘process’ of planning

The AR process in Kocaeli attempted to trigger change by taking a position in the process. This is different
from what a growing number of planning theorists do by analysing deliberative democratic participation.
They seek the ways in which planning outcomes are determined. Some of this work attests to the lack of
involving different segments of the population in the planning process where the participation means are
inadequate but this work remains insufficient in moving the planning process forward toward a democratic
state.
In the planning process of Kocaeli, the contextual situation and the emerging needs of the complex system
determined the methodological tools. The researchers contributed to constructing the initial procedural
framework of the project. This later reconstructed itself throughout the process. The researchers adopted the
search methodology believing that its epistemological basis and corresponding methodological tools would
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
340 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

play a vital role of conducting a democratic process and leading to social action (Ataöv, 2006). The project
gathered stakeholders of different interests on one platform so that they could engage in creative task-oriented
work to plan the future of Kocaeli, to take collective action, and thereby, to involve in joint learning in the
created participative environment (Babüroğlu, 1996; Emery, 1982, 1999; Emery & Purser, 1996).
This process aimed at promoting the notions of collective action, through a free and reasoned agreement,
among equals. The planning activity accepted that values define the ‘good’ and the social action could lead to
that good. The planning and action started from an imagined future, in other words, ‘how Kocaeli ought to
be’. This normative perspective has stemmed its future premise suggesting that change is in the nature of
reality (Babüroğlu & Ravn, 1992). This constructivist epistemology put emphasis on actionable knowledge of
how to bring about desirable futures.
Knowledge is generated through a series of participatory planning conferences including search, vision,
decision making, and commitment, with broad participation as well as numerous follow-up and evaluation
meetings with smaller participation. Assessment workshops were also organized in between some conferences.
Participatory events including conferences, workshops and meetings were based on open dialogue, discussion,
and deliberation. Knowledge in each phase was built over previously generated knowledge from abstract to
concrete. The dialogical settings allowed each participant to raise voice, and to construct a collective view.
They, on the other hand, prevented the manipulation of the generated knowledge. Additionally, a citywide
public survey assessed an evaluation of the broader community. Follow-up, reflection, and reformulation
meetings ran throughout the process with participants while media continuously informed the general public
about the outcomes.

‘Participation’ in planning

Participation and democratization in a social construction process conceptualize the AR approach

(Gaventa & Cornwall, 2002). Greenwood and Levin (1998, p. 7) emphasize the notion of participation by
‘placing a strong value on democracy and control over one’s own life situations through decision-making
processes which respect and enhance the diversity of groups’. The AR position of this project also viewed
participation as an essential element of achieving a democratic process. This implies the involvement of public,
semi-public and private actors in the implementation of policies, their interaction with one another, no central
steering for their interaction, and the need of social capital for collective work and collaborations. What KSO
initiated and coordinated in Kocaeli can be considered as this kind of attempt. The participatory mosaic of the
project involved three components with different degrees of participation.
The first is the participation of the leading institution. KSO took on leadership in maintaining the process,
as collective action at large, to generate liveable agreement on a desirable future. The Chamber attempted to
serve Kocaeli’s interest by promoting the shared ground in urban policy making. KSO rose up the concern
that Kocaeli, a heavily industrialized region, needs an organized development. Apart from its organizational
role in the process, KSO also participated as one of the stakeholder groups to the collective knowledge
generation.
The second component involves the community’s stakeholders’ participation in the Kocaeli’s planning
process, which was used as an important vehicle for democratization. The attempts emphasized the socially
constructed order of planning through interactions between social institutions and citizens’ action; thus, the
planning activity required the consideration of stakeholders’ values in the identification of the future as well as
the means for its realization. It was vital to involve citywide decision makers and implementers. This, however,
limited the range of participants at participatory conferences to involve more than 100 top-level decision
makers of stakeholder groups, including elected and appointed officials as well as community representatives.
This cultivated pluralist democracy, while achieving wide-range participation in decision making.
On the other hand, considering the lack of direct participation of citizens, the project involved more than
1000 people (0.1% of the whole population) in an assessment process. Participating citizens did not generate
new knowledge, but they were consulted on what had been collectively generated. This means that they
participated partially in the knowledge generation of the planning process. Moreover, general public was
informed about the process as well as the outcomes throughout the process. Active citizens used the media
including local newspapers and TV to reflect on the project.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344 341

Towards the end of the planning process, the notion of local governance in Turkey moved into a new phase.
Participation in planning was legally enforced. The field interviews indicate that the recent participatory
planning in Kocaeli has influenced the formation of this new legal framework. The newly enacted local
authority laws including the Municipality Law no. 5393 dated 7.3.2005, the Greater Municipality Law no.
5216 dated 7.10.2004, and the Special Provincial Administration Law no. 5302 dated 2.22.2005 demand that
each local authority produces both spatial and institutional strategic plans through ‘the effective participation
of local stakeholders including professional chambers, universities, other public institutions, civil
organizations, and the people’. Although the new laws contain (unclear?/confusing?) fuzzy definitions on
direct participation and how to do it, they contain concrete sanctions on somehow doing it. More specifically,
for instance, Article 76 of the new Municipality Law enacts the collaboration with City Councils, an operating
structure under LA 21 composed of local stakeholders, and with local authorities in the process of city vision
and strategy formulation. The law further foresees the development of citizenship awareness, sustainable
development, environmental protection, building social solidarity and support, and transparency in local
governance.
The researchers constituted the third component of the participation structure. They played a proactive role
in the process as process designers and moderators. They did not have any particular position in the local
political structure. They came into the setting as outsiders, and then became ‘insiders’ as actively engaged
participants in the construction process. Positioning outside the system would provide absolutely no chance to
enhance a democratic process. They contributed to the process with their theoretical, methodological and
practical professional knowledge. They moderated conferences and meetings and managed the process by
keeping the communication and collaboration alive, reporting, systematizing, modelling, feedback, and
reformulating the generated knowledge. The researchers provided the epistemological framework and
appropriate methodological means for maintaining a participative forum. They were actively engaged in
continuous knowledge, reflection, and action cycles.

‘Action’ in planning

In most planning processes, it is the local authority, which takes action with or without the consideration of
expressed opinions. Participation is conventionally applied where it does not hold a decision-making power.
Other actors maintain a position where they raise their interest and make suggestions. As a result, some
stakeholders’ decisions get transformed into an action, but others do not. However, ‘speaking is part of
thinking; being heard is a way of connecting one’s views with those of others; action is building up power as a
citizen’ (Ataöv, 2006). What may start as an informal undertaking can translate into a policy. To do that,
action and stakeholder should be taken together simultaneously (Tekeli & Pınarcıoğlu, 2004). The process
should use the appropriate means of effective action and enable participants to commit to decisions to
implement.
The AR strategy of the Kocaeli planning intervention promoted an enabling process for involved
stakeholders to take control over their destiny through taking actions and to change the urban life into a
better state. AR aimed to alter the initial situation of the community in the direction of a more liberated state
through orchestrating practice and socially constructed meaning. In this process, practical consequences re-
entered into the process as inputs to foster new action. Three prerequisites seemed to be important for
generating action in the planning process of Kocaeli. One was the actors’ capacity to translate thought into
action. The second involved the generation of actionable knowledge. The third was the implementers’
participation in the action planning process.
First, in Kocaeli, it was vital to moderate the process in a way that did not hold participants passive in the
process. This was different than how previous participatory activities were managed. After the earthquake, as
part of the activating process of the civil society, not all citizens took an active role at participatory meetings.
Some participants found it convenient to let legitimate leaders generate new ideas, which they could then
pursue. This inactivated most participants, and no collective action was taken. This time, everyone was given
the opportunity to express opinion both at the plenary and in small group sessions. Moreover, stakeholders
became an active part of the knowledge generation process by consistently being given the opportunity to
reflect, declare, feedback, and take an action.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
342 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

Secondly, the recent intervention was concerned with developing actionable knowledge. Knowledge
generated in each step was built upon knowledge generated in the previous step. Furthermore, knowledge
evolved from abstract towards a more concrete form. Previous attempts in Kocaeli had suffered from not
transforming thoughts into action. Many ideas were generated at sector-based meetings but the suggestions
were not merged into a direction according to which the stakeholders could implement relative actions in the
next 20 years. They did not contain concrete action plans.
Finally, the participation of decision makers in the action planning process was essential in ensuring the
decision realization. To lead to action in the most effective and efficient way the normative approach of the
intervention allowed decision makers to commit to implement decisions. The approach ensured stakeholders’
commitment by involving them in the decision formulation process from the beginning to the end. This
matched responsible stakeholders with relevant actions. This further helped maintain the integrity of the
content and foster the enthusiasm and commitment of participants in to implementing decisions.

Conclusion

This paper discussed five conditions, which enhance the democratic value in planning practice by using the
Kocaeli case in the phase of democratization in urban planning. These include active citizenry, an enabling
mechanism, a process for deliberation, effective participation, and action. In Kocaeli, the past experiences in
participatory housing development and civil movements promoted active citizenry and an institutional
mechanism to enable citizen participation. Given this ground, the recent participatory planning conducted
with the AR strategy fostered a process for deliberation and liveable agreement, effective participation of
stakeholders, and translation of thoughts into action.
The AR strategy played a powerful role of applying the democratic value in practice. AR used research to
induce change, and thereby, empowered people through participation, and finally, altered the existing
situation into a liberated state through action. Workability of the process, participation and action
components of the recent participatory attempt has overcome some shortcomings of previous attempts in
Kocaeli with respect to democratic planning. This project also showed that these components can overcome
the difficulties which existing planning theory encounters in terms of transmitting the democratic value into
practice. On the other hand, the application of these components also hindered some shortcomings within
itself.
Along with the move of the notion of participation from representative democracy to direct participation,
like in many other fields, communication has also gained more emphasis in planning. Dialogue-based
perspectives and methods are promoted for participative processes. These current theoretical arguments seem
to process information on collaborative action but they seem to miss knowing as part of collective action. This
requires a procedural intervention with a corresponding epistemological approach and its methodological
means. Planning theory deals with change; thus, it ought not only to process information but also to create
new knowledge. The Kocaeli case aimed to overcome this shortcoming in practice by taking a position in the
process. Furthermore, the participatory attempts often are limited with a single event. When applied as a one-
shot affair, this approach loses credibility in terms of enhancing sustainability of democratic planning. The
process component of the Kocaeli case allowed the construction of new knowledge, ownership and
commitment.
Although rational planning rules in practice in many cities, the state looses its central position in planning
practice. This put the approach of people’s participation forward as the main motor of democratic
socialization process in line with the development of participatory democracy. Thus, the Kocaeli case viewed
the participation of interested stakeholders essential. However, not all community organizations became part
of the participatory planning conferences and meetings. Some are deliberately invited to be part of the process
and the individuals that became involved did so as nominated representatives. The available methods could
not accommodate the involvement of hundreds of ethnic associations in participatory discussions. This,
instead, was compensated by assessing the general public’s view through public survey.
Moreover, the time pressure derived from completing the planning process before local elections led to
skipping the initial preparatory meetings with stakeholder groups. This eliminated the chance of convincing
the stakeholders, who did not participate in the first place. In later stages, the coordinating group did not
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344 343

either make a special effort to convince these stakeholders, who were invited to become a part of the process,
but did not show an interest. This resulted in their exclusion from the process. This was, however, rather a
pragmatic exclusion than an ideological or instrumental one. A thorough preparatory phase with stakeholders
in the beginning of the process could strengthen their commitment to the process.
Finally, the participation of relevant stakeholders in the action planning was essential in ensuring the
decision realization in the Kocaeli case. As much as participative processes are appreciative of the diversity,
participants should take action in order to define common goals (Dewey, 1976; Lewin, 1943). The AR strategy
aimed to construct actionable knowledge so that participants can rely on knowledge which can promote
progress towards concrete actions. However, as a result of the requirement of involving the general public,
more projects gained significance in the future agenda of the city. While decision makers assessed large-scale
governance and planning-focused projects as more important, the general public thought environmental and
social projects as more critical. This divergence dispersed the focus of the project. More project groups worked
simultaneously. This diminished the researchers’ engagement in the formulation of action plans with a role of
serving as a supporting factor. Two follow-up and evaluation workshops were held but a closer follow-up at
project group meetings could foster the generation of more detailed action plans.

References

Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 743–758.
Alexander, E. R. (2001). The planner-prince: Interdependence, rationalities and post-communicative practice. Planning Theory and
Practice, 2(3), 311–324.
Arnstein, S. R. (1971). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Ataöv, A. (2007). Constructing co-generative search processes: Re-thinking urban planning/making urban plans actionable. European
Planning Studies, forthcoming.
Ataöv, T. (2006). Democracy, values and institutions: The essentials vs. the formality. A paper presented at the World Symposium on ‘The
Prospects for Democracy 2006, New York.
Babüroğlu, O. (1996). Searching for a program in national participation: An action research experiment in Turkey. In: S. Toulmin &
B. Gustavsen (Eds.), Beyond theory: Changing organizations through participation (pp. 119–136). Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Babüroğlu, O., & Ravn, I. (1992). Normative action research. Organization Studies, 13(1), 19–34.
Bobbio, N. (1987). The future of democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- evre, 4, 53–62.
Bulca, A., et al. (1979). Following the ‘‘Izmit’’ experience. C
Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plant that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association,
69, 33–49.
Cohen, J. (1999). Democracy and liberty. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 185–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Davidson, J. (2003). Citizenship and sustainability in dependent island communities: The case of the Huon Valley region in southern
Tasmania. Local Environment, 8(5), 527–540.
Dewey, J. (1976). In A. Boydston (Ed.), Essays on logical theory, 1902– 1903. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Elster, J. (Ed.). (1993). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Emery, M. (1982). Searching: For new directions, in new ways, for new times. Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian
National University.
Emery, M. (1999). Searching: The theory and practice of making cultural change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Emery, M., & Purser, R. E. (1996). The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human
Values, 15(2), 226–243.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
21(4), 353–366.
Forester, J. F. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2002). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of AR: Participative inquiry
and practice (pp. 70–80). London: Sage.
Godschalk, D. R., Parham, D. W., Porter, D. R., Potapchuck, W. R., & Schukraft, S. W. (1994). Pulling together: A planning and
development consensus-building manual. Washington: Urban Land Institute.
Governorship of Kocaeli. (2004). Industry. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from homepage of the Governorship of Kocaeli. Available
online: /http://www.kocaeli.gov.tr/S.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1680.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to AR: Social research for social change. California: Sage.
He, B. (2002). Civil society and democracy. In A. Carter, & G. Stokes (Eds.), Democratic theory of today (pp. 201–227). Cambridge: Polity.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
344 A. Ataöv / Habitat International 31 (2007) 333–344

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
Healey, P. (2004). Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies, 25(2), 97–102.
Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsetting the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342.
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 62, 460–472.
Laird, F. N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technology decision-making. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18(3),
341–361.
Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National Research Council, 108, 35–65.
Owen, S. (2002). From village design statements to parish plans: Some pointers towards community decision-making in the planning
system in England. Planning Practice and Research, 17(1), 81–89.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research. London: Sage.
Stokes, G. (2002). Democracy and citizenship. In A. Carter, & G. Stokes (Eds.), Democratic theory of today (pp. 23–51). Cambridge:
Polity.
Tekeli, I., & Pınarcıoğlu, M. (2004). Commitment model for regional planning: How to unlock frozen gears of stagnant regions. In
T. Gök, & T. Marszai (Eds.), Urban and regional development: Concepts and experiences (pp. 9–28). Warszawa: Academy of Sciences.
Thompson, D. F. (1970). The democratic citizen: Social science and democratic theory in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
de Tocqueville, A. (1968). Democracy in America. London: Fontana.
UNCHS (UN Centre for Human Settlements). (1996). Habitat II. Press release, issued on June 3, 1996. Istanbul.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1996). Cities, people and poverty: Urban development cooperation for the 1990s.
UNDP strategy paper, UNDP, New York.
Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political Science Review, 90(1), 46–60.
Warren, M. E. (2002). What can democratic participation mean today? Political Theory, 30(5), 677–701.
Watson, V. (2002). The usefulness of normative planning theories in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa. Planning Theory, 1(1), 27–52.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons form innovation in natural resource management.
Washington: Island.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.