Collaborative Planning

Collaborative Planning

Distributive negotiation • Zero sum assumption--pie is fixed • Bargaining is competitive, other party is adversary, so intimidate and weaken adversary • Take extreme position, then back off incrementally • Focus on one’s own needs • Reveal as little as possible Willson

Mutual gains approach • Adopt collaborative, reciprocal posture • Focus on interests and concerns that underlie positions • Create value first, then distribute it • Understand other parties’ interests • Create fair and creative outcomes • Recognize long-term consequences of hardball negotiation style--losers get revenge Willson

Collaborative Planning • Sherry Arnstein and the Ladder of Participation • Patsy Healy and Collaborative Spatial Planning in the UK • Forester and the communicative role of the planning analyst • Social democratic vision • Participatory processes • Functionalist and conflict theorists For Reading see – Arnstein, Healy, Willson and Forester

Key common themes • Power and influence • Democracy and the right to participate • Justice and equity • Limits of functional/operational models • Importance of accurate science • Social construction of reality • Development of consensus • Honest communication • The role of the planner/expert • Prescription/facilitation/advocacy

Some suggested values • Redistributive justice • Equity and care for the powerless • Avoidance of zero-sum games • Planner as facilitator • Benefits of communication • Seeking mutual benefit

Criticisms of process • Assumes co-operative vision of society • Leads to fudging of real issues to achieve consensus • Action/implementation is often a problem • Powerful can impede implementation • Facilitator role of planner can block new thinking • Too drawn out and resource hungry • Stakeholder input can be excluding for the weak • Experts often come to better solutions For Reading see – Fainstein and Pennington

And now.....a debate!! • Collaborative Planning is a myth! The citizen does not have the knowledge, understanding or time to engage in a decision-making process. Consultation is the best that can be achieved.

Prescription Consultation Participation The continuum

Related approaches • Village design statements • Planning for Real • Rapid Rural Appraisal • Participatory Rural Appraisal

Elements in process • Facilitated dialogue between authoritative actors • Creation of shared meaning and understanding • Creation of agreement on key outcomes • Creation of beneficial networks • Creation of long-term action possibilities

A modified approach • Process seeks agreed vision and goals through facilitated process • Planner is an active facilitator rather than a passive one • Planner acts as a seeker of equity and challenges unclear proposals • Actions to achieve goals are proposed by experts in a consultative process

When might collaborative planning work? • Suggestion by Innes and Booher • Different models apply in different social contexts related to the extent of diverse interests and the inter-dependence between the interests • All can gain from collaboration in a particular context • Collaborative approaches may not always be appropriate For Reading see – Innes and Booher

Political influence Technical/ Bureaucratic Social Movement Collaborative One Model Low High Diversity Interdependence of interests High Innes and Booher

IAP Model Rational Advocacy Goals Objectives Targets Actions Data Inclusion Steering Group Engagement with PBs Data methods Focus groups Issue Identification Solutions Barriers Implementation Resources Facilitated Outcome focused Networking Consensus Group development Incrementalist Collaborative

What is needed for this to work? • Right attitude of participants • Right attitude of planner • Planners with proper skills • Symbiotic relationship • Inevitability of action • Implementing authority

Attitudes of participants • Honesty • Perspective and not a position • Willingness to accept some scientific knowledge • Willingness to compromise • Belief in outcome

Attitudes of planner • Willing to be facilitator • Belief in rights of others • Belief in a socially constructed reality • Recognition that many ‘scientific’ decisions are value-based • Belief in multiplicity of interests and in all being valid • Belief in benefits of dialogue • Patience

So a final reflection.. • Write it down as a note for yourself • What do you think are • The purposes of planning • The values that should inform planning processes • The role of the planner in the process • The outcomes that a planning process should seek to achieve • Do these fit with the values of a collaborative planning approach?

Resources • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216-224. • Fainstein, S. S.,(2000), New Directions in Planning Theory Published in Urban Affairs Review, 35 (4) (March 2000), 451-78. • Faludi, A., (1973), A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon Press, New York • Forester, J., (1989), Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, • Healy, P. (1999) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies Macmillan, London • Innes, J. and D. E. Booher (2000). Collaborative Dialogue as a Policy Making Strategy, Berkeley, University of California.

Resources • OECD (2001). Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Paris. • Pennington, Mark (2002), A Hayekian Liberal Critique of Collaborative Planning In: Allmendinger, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (ed)., 2002) Planning Futures: New Directions in Planning Theory. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 187-205. • Willson, Richard, Facilitation, Mediation and Group Consensus Building California State Polytechnic University, Pomona http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/classes/463lec3_files/frame.htm#slide0001.htm • Willson, Richard, Facilitation, Introduction to Negotiation and Mediation California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/502/lecture1_files/frame.htm#slide0001.htm

Collaborative Planning