Maria

 Monica  Salazar  Tamayo     History  and  Theory  of  Planning    

N  10282399   Fall  2015  
Mail  Box  0576   Response  Paper  #1  
 
New  Approaches  to  Planning:  Participation,  Advocacy,  and  Equity  Planning  
Introduction  
After   getting   to   know   the   rational   comprehensive   model   in   planning   and   its   critics   we  
move  forward  in  time  and  in  thinking  to  get  to  the  point  where  to  theoreticians  and  practitioners  
of   planning   engages   in   participation,   advocacy   and   equity   planning.   The   Advocacy   Planning  
model   highlights   the   importance   of   citizens’   participation   in   decision-­‐making   processes.   It   also  
sticks  out  the  validation  of  public  action  trough  public  opinion.  In  this  context  the  model  of  equity  
planning   is   a   different   terminology   to   talk   about   the   importance   of   fighting   inequality   and  
segregation  in  cities.    Keeping  always  in  mind  that  the  ultimate  goal  of  planning  it  is  to  achieve  
improvement  of  quality  of  life  standards  of  ALL  citizens.  
This   week   readings   described   citizen   participation   and   its   different   categories   and   make   a  
description   of   the   Advocacy   Planning   Model.   Then,   it   provides   an   analysis   of   the   citizen  
participation   process   in   the   US   and   proposed   the   collaborative   model   as   a   way   of   improve   it.  
Besides  this,  exemplified  how  participation  and  local  knowledge  are  integrated  in  practice  with  
the  planning  profession  in  the  cases  of  Cleveland  and  NYC.  
 
Summary  and  Critical  Reflection  
Davidoff,  P.  (1965).  Advocacy  and  Pluralism  in  Planning.  Journal  of  the  American  Institute  of  
Planners,  31(4),  331-­‐338.  
 

In   a   brief   but   substantive   article   the   author   discusses   the   importance   of   planning   in  
determining   public   policy   and   beyond   in   determining   democracy.   To   do   so   he   embarks   on   a  
description   of   the   planning   process   as   a   tool   to   settle   the   debate   on   “the   justice   of   the   present  
social   allocation   of   wealth,   knowledge,   skill,   and   other   social   goods”.   He   also   states   “the   right  
course  of  action  is  always  a  matter  of  choice,  never  of  fact”  therefore  the  planning  process,  which  
defines  the  choices,  is  crucial.  
In   this   context,   the   planner   becomes   an   actor   of   great   importance,   because   leads   the  
process.  Is  important  to  take  into  account  that  the  person  performing  this  role  has  prejudices  so  
there  would  always  be  values  attached  to  the  rational  decision-­‐making  process  that  takes  place.    
By   revealing   that   the   author   claims,   rather   than   judge,   the   planer   should   take   an   active   role   as  
advocate  of  the  mission  of  planning  and  aims  for  bringing  the  government  closer  to  the  citizens.  
The   interaction   between   government   and   citizens´   is   essential   to   guarantee   a   two-­‐way  
communication  that  would  legitimate  a  comprehensive  plans.  If  the  process  is  not  preform  that  
way,  planning  would  be  done  for  different  citizens  that  the  ones  who  live  the  problem  or  worse  
the  planner  would  end  up  being  a  physical  planner  rather  than  a  city  planner.  
Is   clear   from   the   author   perspective   that   the   way   planning   process   is   develop,   how   the  
planning  institution  works  and  the  type  of  education  the  planner  received  would  determine  the  
type   of   advocate   the   planner   is   going   to   become.   But   regardless   of   the   individual   outcome,   as  
guild   planners   should   tend   increasingly   towards   this   vision   because   people   are   the   basic   unit   for  
which  planning  is  made  for.    
In  my  opinion  this  article  addresses  the  issue  of  Advocacy  Planning  from  the  perspective  
of  the  role  planners  should  accomplish.  It  talks  about  the  importance  of  their  role  in  the  process  
of   planning   and   which   must   be   their   actions   within   it.   It   calls   for   the   importance   of   taking   into  
account   the   citizens   not   only   as   recipients   of   the   solutions   but   also   as   an   active   part   of   the  
process.  
 

Arnstein,  S.  R.  (1969).  A  Ladder  of  Citizen  Participation.  Journal  of  the  American  Institute  of  
Planners,  35(4),  216-­‐224.  
The  main  points  of  this  article  are  the  definition  of  citizen  participation,  its  classification  
and   proper   explanation.   “Citizen   participation   is   a   categorical   term   for   citizen   power.   It   is   the  
redistribution  of  power  that  enables  the  have-­‐not  citizens,  presently  excluded  from  the  political  
and   economic   processes,   to   be   deliberately   included   in   the   future.   In   short   it   is   the   means   by  
which   the   can   induce   significant   social   reform   which   enables   them   to   share   in   the   benefits   of   the  
affluent   society”.     “The   fundamental   point   is   that   participation   without   redistribution   of   power   is  
an  empty  and  frustrating  process  for  the  powerless”.    
In   this   context,   citizen   participation   can   be   classified   in   to   eight   categories   grouped   in  
three  classes.  (1)  Manipulation  and  (2)  Therapy  classes  integrate  the  “non-­‐participation”  group.  
“Their  real  objective  is  not  to  enable  people  to  participate  in  planning  or  conducting  programs,  
but  to  enable  power  holders  to  “educate”  or  “cure”  the  participants”.  Next  we  find  (3)  Informing  
and  (4)  Consultation  which  are  “levels  of  “tokenism”  that  allow  the  have-­‐  nots  to  hear  and  to  have  
a  voice”.    (5)  Placation,  “is  simply  a  higher  level  tokenism  because  the  ground  rules  allow  have-­‐
nots   to   advise,   but   retain   for   the   power   holders   the   continued   right   to   decide”.   The   last   group  
begins   with   (6)   Partnership   “that   enables   them   to   negotiate   and   engage   in   trade-­‐offs   with  
traditional  powerholders.  At  the  topmost  rungs,  (  7  )  Delegated  Power  and  (  8  )  Citizen  Control,  
have-­‐not  citizens  obtain  the  majority  of  decision-­‐making  seats,  or  full  managerial  power”.  
With   qualification   the   author   gives   clarity   about   the   different   dimensions   of   citizen  
participation.   Each   class   has   one   given   related   processes   and   by   using   examples   is   easy   to  
understand   their   dimensions.   The   main   idea   is   that   is   not   only   about   participation,   is   about   what  
type   of   participation   you   are   accessing.   Undoubtedly   the   classes   in   which   they   are   given   voice,  
vote   and   decision   making   power   are   the   most   wanted.   Because   here   is   where   they   really   can  
achieve  comprehensive  planning.    
 

Innes,  J.  and  Booher,  D.  “Reframing  Public  Participation:  Strategies  for  the  21st  Century,”  
Planning  Theory  &  Practice  5,  4  (2004):419-­‐436.  
 

In  their  article  they  presented  the  failures  of  public  participation,  the  dilemmas  of  how  to  
put  public  participation  in  practice  and  the  ambivalence  found  in  the  literature  around  this  topic.  
They   also   propose   a   model   for   public   participation   called   collaborative   participation.   The   way  
author   explain   it   is   by   saying   that   “   participation   must   be   collaborative   and   it   should   incorporate  
not  only  citizens,  but  also  organized  interest,  profit-­‐making  and  non-­‐profit  organization,  planners  
and   public   administrators   in   a   common   framework   where   all   are   interacting   and   influencing   one  
another  and  all  are  acting  independently  in  the  world  as  well”.    
For  the  authors  participation  should  accomplish  the  following  purposes:  (1)  Find  out  what  
the   public´s   preferences   are.   (2)   Improve   decisions   by   incorporating   citizens’   local   knowledge.  
(3)   Advancing   fairness   and   justice.     (4)   Getting   legitimacy   for   public   decision.   (5)   Fulfill   law  
requirement.   The   effectiveness   of   participation   methods   is   given   by   the   level   of   collaboration   the  
interaction,   inclusiveness   and   dialogue   obtain   from   the   multiple   participants.   Ideally  
participation  process  should  be  prospective  exercises  and  not  reactive  consults.    
 The  most  remarkable  thing  about  this  article  is  the  self-­‐critical  character  of  the  public  
participation  processes  with  in  the  United  States.    The  authors’  takes  a  step  forward  and  propose  
an  inclusive  model  of  participation  in  which  all  players  receive  the  same  treatment.  Furthermore,  
the  analyzed  the  favorable  tendencies  to  set  this  proposal  in  motion.    
 

Corburn,  J.  "Bringing  Local  Knowledge  Into  Environmental  Decision-­‐Making,"  Journal  of  
Planning  Education  and  Research  22,  4  (2003):  420-­‐33.  
  The   articles   stars   by   stating   that   “local   knowledge   can   improve   planning   in   at   least   four  
ways   (1)   epistemology,   adding   to   the   knowledge   base   of   environmental   policy;   (2)   procedural  
democracy,   including   new   and   previously   silenced   voices;   (3)   effectiveness,   providing   low-­‐cost  
policy   solutions;   and   (4)   distributive   justice,   highlighting   inequitable   distributions   of  
environmental  burdens”.    
  The  local  knowledge  is  the  wisdom  acquire  by  the  community  member  trough  experience,  
evidences   and   day   to   day   testing.   “Local   knowledge   is   mediated   through   cultural   tradition.   Is  
generally  tested  in  public  narratives,  community  stories,  street  theater,  and  other  public  forums”.    
For   the   author   there   are   two   models   for   approaching   community   knowledge   the   deficit   model  
and   the   complementary   model.   The   first   model   states   “the   public   needs   to   be   educated   in   the  
ways   and   knowledge   of   professional   experts   to   meaningfully   participate”.   In   the   second   model  
“the  public  is  asked  to  offer  values,  raise  questions  of  fairness,  and  provide  “political”  insights,  but  
scientific   experts   retain   autonomy   over   technical   issues”.   Besides   these   models,   the   article  
propose   a   “third   model   called   “co-­‐   production,”   where   all   publics   are   understood   as   potential  
contributors  to  all  aspects”  of  planning  process.    
The  author  makes  a  strong  defense  of  local  knowledge  and  highlights  its  importance  and  
especially  its  validity.  Local  knowledge  is  an  equally  crucial  input  to  planning  process  as  
economic  resources.  The  article  is  a  assertion  of  the  high  quality  inputs  stakeholders  can  provide  
to  planning  process.    
 

Krumholz,  N.  “A  Retrospective  View  of  Equity  Planning,”  Journal  of  the  American  Planning  
Association  48,  2  (1982):  163-­‐174.  
This   article   written   by   Norman   Krumholtz   former   director   of   City   Planning   in   Cleveland   is  
a   story   of   how   he   in   reality   the   exercise   of   the   profession   of   planner.   It   is   clear   throughout   the  
story  that  the  main  concern  was  to  achieve  a  more  just  and  accessible  city  for  its  citizens.  This  
Planner  is  an  exponent  of  Equity  Planning  in  USA  and  especially  how  to  do  a  reality  even  if  the  
context  is  adverse.  
The  author  tells  how  his  planning  office  managed  relations  with  elected  city  officials,  city  
council  members,  private  entrepreneurs  and  citizens  for  10  years.  From  his  perspective,  is  vital  
that   the   planner   take   action   to   make   visible   the   studies   and   proposals   to   tackle   the   main  
challenges   cities   face.   The   planner   should   be   an   active   actor   in   the   run   for   improving   the   welfare  
of   the   city   and   its   citizens.   His   entire   point   is   illustrated   trough   the   cases   of   transportation,  
commercial  development  and  light  utility  service  in  Cleveland.  
The  main  contribution  of  this  author  is  presenting  how  this  idyllic  vision  of  advocating  for  
a  fair  and  inclusive  city  can  be  a  reality.  He  definitely  gave  some  valuable  insights  of  how  political  
relation  should  be  maintained  and  how  an  active  role  from  the  planner  is  most  required.    
 
Conclusion  
 

The  model  of  Advocacy  Planning  /  Equity  Planning  is  a  commitment  to  highlight  and  to  
keep  track  of  who  and  why  it  exists  planning.  Planning  is  a  process  of  construction  of  solutions  to  
problems  related  to  the  quality  of  life  of  citizens  in  cities.  
The   way   in   which   the   planning   process   is   given   in   the   Advocacy   Planning   /   Equity  
Planning  Theory  is  closely  related  to  the  Rational  Comprehensive  model.  Because  Local  Authority  
wants   to   make   conscious   decisions   considering   several   options   based   on   gather   data.   The  
innovative   element   is   that   this   theory   invites   citizens   as   active   actor.   In   this   sense   it   develops  
models   to   include   local   knowledge   and   inclusive   forms   of   participation   in   which   citizens   have  
real  power.  
In  a  sense  we  can  say  that  Theory  progress  has  been  incremental.  It  began  by  defining  an  
apolitical   model   of   decision   making,   then   it   moved   towards   the   consideration   of   the   political  
sphere  and  how  decisions  should  be  made  gradually  and  then  radical  a  turn  was  made  to  include  
citizens.   Specifically   to   include   their   knowledge   in   the   planning   process   (METIS   mentioned   by  
Scott)  and  to  validate  actions  and  make  them  more  legitimate  through  their  participation.  
 
Questions    
After  going  through  all  the  content  of  the  reading  there  are  questions  that  arise  for  further  
and  deeper  reflection:    
• ¿Who  are  summoned  to  participate  to  ensure  representativeness?  
§ ¿What  day  and  what  time  participation  exercises  are  done  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  
working  people?    
§ ¿How  do  you  increase  citizens  interest  over  planning  issues?    
§ ¿How  to  make  citizen  participation  an  easy  access  tool  but  also  effective  in  supporting  the  
solution  of  public  problems?