Journal of the American Planning Association Volume 69 Issue 1 2003Burby, Raymond J. -- Making Plans...

8/15/2019 Journal of the American Planning Association Volume 69 Issue 1 2003Burby, Raymond J. -- Making Plans That Matt…

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 03 September 2014, At: 23:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement andGovernment ActionRaymond J. BurbyPublished online: 26 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Raymond J. Burby (2003) Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action , Journalof the American Planning Association, 69:1, 33-49, DOI: 10.1080/01944360308976292

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and

should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claim s, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses , damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01944360308976292http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20


2/18

Making Plans thatMatter Citizen Involvement and Government Action

Raymond J. Burby

O ver the past decade, planning scholars have paid considerable atten-tion to the characteristics of good plans and to planning practicesfor communicating with citizens and building consensus for plan-ning proposals. 1 Less attention has been given to “plans that matter,” whichI dene as plans that bring about governmental action on the issues they address. In this article, I demonstrate that these concerns are intimately linked. Strong plans stem from planning processes that involve a broad array of stakeholders, and strong plans accompanied by broad stakeholder in-

volvement are needed if plans are to have a signicant effect on the actionsof local governments.Plans that do little else besides gather dust on government shelves have

been an issue for some time. In the 1960s and 1970s, scholars from a variety of elds commented on the irrelevance of plan making (e.g., Altshuler, 1965;Clawson, 1971; Wheaton, 1969). While Altshuler was not a friend of plan-ners, Clawson (an economist) and Wheaton (a planning educator) werestrong advocates. Nevertheless, Wheaton (1969) wrote, “There are enoughcases in which the planners have been wrong and their solutions irrelevant tocreate the necessity for review of their judgments and the public acceptanceof those judgments” (p. 241). According to Clawson (1971), “Bad as the planshave been, their implementation has been worse” (p. 69). Evaluations such asthese led the federal government to abandon its multimillion dollar plan-

ning assistance program in 1981, and they continue to be a concern as stateplanning mandates have come under attack in states as diverse as Florida,Maine, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Arguably one cause of ineffective plans, in addition to general govern-ment inertia (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984) and the wrong-headed solutionsthat concerned Wheaton, is the fact that some of the issues planners worry about and the solutions they advocate lack publics who appreciate the prob-lem and will work to see it solved. The term publicsrefers to the existence of identiable groups who are interested in particular policy issues or actively

APA Journal Winter 2003 Vol. 69, No. 1

Plans that are, as the cliché goes,“dead on arrival” and languish onlocal government shelves long havecontributed to skepticism about thevalue of comprehensive plans. In thisarticle, I show that if plans are to mat-ter and have an impact on local gov-ernment actions, planners must in-volve a wider array of stakeholders inplan making than is usually the case.Evidence from 60 plan-making proc-esses in the states of Florida andWashington indicates that withgreater stakeholder involvement, com-prehensive plans are stronger, andproposals made in plans are morelikely to be implemented. Planners canstimulate broader involvement by stakeholders by directly inviting moregroups to take part in the planningprocess and by providing opportuni-ties for dialogue in which plannersboth inform citizens about planningissues and listen to citizen concerns.

Burby , FAICP, is a professor of city and re-gional planning at the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill.

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 69, No. 1, Winter 2003. © AmericanPlanning Association, Chicago, IL.


3/18

involved in efforts to deal with them (Cobb & Elder,1972). Most of the discussion of stakeholder involve-ment in planning assumes that publics exist who will getinvolved in efforts to address various issues (e.g., Deyle,1995). The challenge is to use information, persuasion,and other means to bring about mutual understanding,minimize or resolve potential disputes, and achieve con-sensus on a course of action. 2 Political scientist PeterMay (1991) notes, however, that a number of issues of interest to planners lack publics, which makes progresson them problematic.

When issues lack publics, the formulation of plan-ning proposals tends to be dominated by technical ex-perts, such as planners and other local government per-sonnel. This raises fundamental issues for democraticgovernance, which has attracted considerable attentionfrom planning theorists (see Note 1). But it also createsfundamental dilemmas for plan making and for bring-ing about governmental action on policies proposed inplans. Scholars such as Innes (1990, 1998), Lindblomand Cohen (1979), and Schon (1983) note that citizenspossess “ordinary knowledge” that can help ensure thatpolicies proposed in plans reect local conditions and values. When issues do not attract the interest of poten-tial stakeholders, planners do not benet from this localknowledge, and the policies they propose may seem ir-relevant to those they are supposed to benet. Further-more, planners are unlikely to learn about potential op-position to their proposals. In the case of issues thatattract broad public interest, such as transportation im-provements or neighborhood revitalization, debates

among competing publics provide information that canbe used to nd a course of action that can achieve publicsupport. In the case of issues and policies that do not at-tract this attention, debate over the merits of policy pro-posals never occurs, which can create uncertainty amongelected ofcials about public preferences and the neces-sity for governmental action. It can also lead planners tounwittingly put forward proposals that mobilize latentpublics, who realize their interests are involved only when plans are being considered for adoption and whothen work to see that the offending planning proposalsare dropped or never implemented.

Most planners would have little trouble naming

planning issues that either lack publics or run the riskof mobilizing latent publics who work to see that plan-ners’ preferred policies are quashed. The most obviousare locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) and not-in-my-backyard/why-in-my-backyard (NIMBY/WIMBY) pro- jects, where the lack of local support sties needed landuse change and in some cases leads to state mandates toforce it (Bollens, 1993). Others include protection of bi-ological diversity and individual species, mitigation of

natural hazards, and in various jurisdictions likely a hostof others, such as higher density, affordable housing, in-frastructure maintenance, mixed-use development, andso forth.

In this article, I examine the proposition that plan-ners can produce better plans and increase the potentialfor government action on issues that initially lackpublics if they succeed in involving a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the plan-making process. The reasonsare not complex. As explained below, citizen involvementcan generate information, understanding, and agree-ment on problems and ways of solving them. It can givestakeholders a sense of ownership of planning proposalsand ease the formation of coalitions who will work hardfor their realization. As Bardach (1977) rst observed,the politics of adoption should carry over to implemen-tation. Groups who lobby elected ofcials to adopt plansthat embody proposals they favor will then continue towork to see that the proposals are carried out.

While there is nothing new in the argument thatplan making benets from public involvement, numer-ous authors have commented that there is remarkably little systematic empirical evidence in its support (e.g.,see Abney & Lauth, 1986; Bierle, 1998; Bierle & Konisky,2000; Day, 1997; Forester, 1993; Healy & Hillier, 1996;Kweit & Kweit, 1981). This article is signicant becauseit provides evidence that previously was not available. Inaddition, it shows that contrary to the prescriptive liter-ature calling for public involvement, plan-making proc-esses often are characterized by participation that is lim-ited to relatively few stakeholders, and that planners

make choices about public involvement that lead di-rectly to this result. By revealing how decisions aboutpublic involvement affect stakeholder participation, itoffers planners insights on what they can do to persuadea broader array of stakeholders to join them in makingcomprehensive plans.

The article is organized as follows. In the next sec-tion, I develop the conceptual basis for the article’s prin-cipal thesis that stakeholder involvement produces bet-ter plans and higher rates of implementation, but thatplanners themselves can stifle participation by thechoices they make about public involvement. I then de-scribe the data assembled to test these expectations and

the analytic techniques employed. The ndings are re-ported in three steps. First, I show that the breadth of stakeholder participation in plan making is frequently limited to a few groups—principally government offi-cials, business interests, and neighborhood representa-tives. Second, I show how stakeholder involvement andthe strength of plans are related and how in combina-tion they affect the degree to which plans are imple-mented. Third, I show how a variety of decisions plan-

RAYMOND J. BURBY

34 APA Journal Winter 2003 Vol. 69, No. 1


4/18

ners make about citizen involvement affect participa-tion. Based on these ndings, I conclude the article witha discussion of what planners can do to be more effec-tive in producing “plans that matter.”

Conceptualization Three questions frame the conceptual reasoningthat underlies this research:

1. Does broader stakeholder involvement lead tostronger plans?

2. Do broader stakeholder involvement andstronger plans lead to higher rates of implementa-tion of proposals made in plans?

3. Do choices planners make about public involvement affect the degree to which stakeholdersactually participate in plan making?

There are a number of reasons beyond the instru-mental goals of better plans and higher rates of plan im-plementation for involving citizens in plan making.Most of these revolve around the importance of partici-pation to the achievement of democratic principles, asdiscussed by Arnstein (1969), Berry et al. (1993), Burke(1979), Day (1997), Etzioni-Halevy (1983), Fainstein andFainstein (1985), Pelletier et al. (1999), and Sewell andCoppock (1977). These principles include basic conceptsof fairness; the rights of individuals to be informed andconsulted and to express their views on governmental

decisions; the need to better represent the interests of disadvantaged and powerless groups in governmentaldecision making; and the contributions of participationto citizenship. They are embodied in the AICP Code of Ethics and are generally accepted as important by mostplanners. While acknowledging this, the focus in this ar-ticle is on what Burke (1969, 1979) terms citizen participation strategies—the use of participation to accomplishinstrumental planning objectives.

Stakeholder Involvement and the Strength of Comprehensive Plans

A number of scholars (e.g., Barber, 1981; Bierle,

1998; Creighton, 1992; Dovers, 1998; Glass, 1979; Hall,1993; Howell et al., 1987; Innes, 1995; May, 1992; Monik-hof & Edelenbos, 2001; So et al., 1986) argue that prog-ress in dealing with important issues depends on socialand policy learning. Learning can involve lessons aboutproblems facing communities and stakeholders, clari-cation and adaptation of goals to local circumstances,fresh insights on and suggestions for policy instruments,and ideas for implementation designs that reect local

values and thus enhance political feasibility (see Bierle,1998; Creighton, 1992; Dovers, 1998; May, 1992).

Innes (1998) and Innes et al. (1994) argue that theinclusion of stakeholders can ensure that local knowl-edge is incorporated in plans, and thus it should con-tribute to learning and better plans as ideas ow backand forth between planners and affected interests. Theformulation of proposals for hazard mitigation illus-trates how citizen involvement can enhance the strengthof plans. With narrow public involvement, hazard miti-gation is likely to be ignored entirely, or policy formula-tion will focus on a limited set of options designed toenhance development prospects in areas exposed to haz-ards. These might include ood control structures andadequate building regulations to minimize susceptibil-ity of development to damage. When neighborhoodgroups are involved, the policy agenda may expand tothe correction of problems such as nuisance ooding.With participation by affordable housing interests, relo-cation of repeatedly damaged property and provision of adequate moderately priced units in hazard-free loca-tions might be suggested. When environmental and re-source-protection groups take part, limits on develop-ment in hazardous areas might be proposed to protectenvironmental and resource values. Thus, broad publicinvolvement creates the potential for planners to expandtheir understanding of problems and to develop a stronger set of policies for dealing with them. This shar-ing of information and understandings can have imme-diate impacts on the strength of plans being developed,but it can also have delayed effects, since as Innes (1990,

1998) and Hanna (2000) observed, in the process of gen-erating, diffusing, and agreeing on information, new ways of thinking about issues can gradually become em-bedded in planners’ and stakeholders’ consciousness.

Stakeholder Involvement and Governmental Action on Planning Proposals

Citizen involvement has long been used as a tool orstrategy by agencies seeking to develop constituenciesfor their budgets and programs (e.g., see Selznick, 1949;Wildavsky, 1979). May (1991) observes that it also canbe used to mobilize publics for potential policies thattraditionally have not gained public attention. In the

case of plan making, Kaiser et al. (1995) note that par-ticipation processes allow planners to educate stake-holders about poorly understood problems and policy issues, which builds understanding and incentives forcollaboration. They also believe that it can generate po-litical support for planning ideas, a point made by a variety of others who have written about citizen involve-ment in planning and policy implementation (e.g., Burke,1968; Glass, 1979; Goggin et al., 1990; Levin & Ferman,


MAKING PLANS THAT MATTER


5/18

1986; Monnikhof & Edelenbos, 2001; So et al., 1986; Vogel & Swanson, 1988). This occurs in part becausewhen they have had a part in shaping policy proposals,stakeholders are more likely to develop a sense of own-ership and control. In addition, they are more likely to beaggressive in “keeping elected ofcials honest, diligent,and alert” (Ethridge, 1982, p. 490) to the public interestsexpressed in a plan and to counteract the inuence of traditional regulated interests (also see Caldwell et al.,1976). Ethridge (1982) found that public involvement isparticularly important in generating political supportfor policies that lack well-developed constituencies (poli-cies without publics). Innes et al. (1994) and Innes (1996)found in a series of case studies that stakeholder involvement helped to create political capital that allowednew alliances to form, which aided in getting legislationpassed and implemented (also see Creighton, 1992;Innes & Booher, 1999).

The contribution of stakeholder involvement to thedevelopment of consensus on and political support forthe policy proposals made in plans is a frequent theme of recent planning theory based on concepts of commu-nicative rationality and action (see Innes, 1995, whoterms this planning’s “emerging paradigm”). Commu-nicative action uses language (intersubjective reasoningand discussion) to create understanding and agreement(see Habermas, 1976, 1984, and those who have trans-lated and extended his ideas for planners, such as For-ester, 1989, 1991; Goldstein, 1984; Innes, 1995; andSager, 1994). Forester (1993) discusses planning as theorganizing of citizens’ attention toward the possibility of

public action and of anticipating implementation. Ac-cording to Healy (1994), the stronger the attempt at con-sensus formation, the more likely plans will affect sub-sequent governmental decisions. Creighton (1992) notesthat stakeholder involvement can “build solid, long-term agreement and commitment between otherwise di- vergent parties” (p. 14), which reduces controversy andcreates support for plan implementation (So et al., 1986,make similar points).

Inducing Stakeholders to Participate in Plan Making

While public involvement is something that every

planner is likely to view as benecial in theory, a num-ber of observers suggest that the actual decisions plan-ners make about participation can in fact stie it. Forone, it appears that planners may often ignore the needfor widespread participation or comply minimally withstate and federal participation requirements. Klein(1993) observes that what passes for citizen participa-tion is simply going through the motions, a point alsomade by So et al. (1986). Roesner (1978) claims that

many public ofcials view citizens as a professional haz-ard. DeSario and Langton (1987) and Kathleen and Mar-tin (1991) assert that the most common participationprocedures, such as public hearings, are both wastefuland worthless (also see Lowry et al., 1997). Furthermore,even when a modicum of participation takes place, plan-ners and elected ofcials may not really listen or attendto what stakeholders are saying, as found by Monnikhof and Edelenbos (2001) in a case study of public partici-pation in the Netherlands and Tauxe (1995) in a casestudy in the U.S. Possibly as a result of neglect by plan-ners and elected ofcials, Perkins (1997) reports that, “Ingeneral, citizen participation in local government has de-creased over time” (p. 6), reecting a growing sense of ap-athy and alienation from government (see Buckwalter etal., 1993; Day, 1997; Chrislip & Larson, 1994). This may be due in part to the fact that, as Berry et al. (1993) andKing et al. (1998) claim, many local efforts to involvestakeholders are symbolic rather than substantive.

There are a variety of possible reasons for this seem-ing inattention to participation. Administrative culturein the U.S., dating from the days of Hamilton and Madi-son, emphasizes centralization of power and bureau-cratic rationality in government decision making. Fromthis perspective, elected representatives and their ap-pointed managers are responsible for dening the pub-lic interest and using technical analysis to nd the bestways of achieving it in public policies and programs. Infact, many administrators have practical reservationsabout citizen involvement programs, believing they in-crease costs, create delay, open the door to emotional

considerations and self-interest, and can create controversy rather than consensus (Kettering Foundation,1989). In addition, in some cases, planners may lack thepolitical resources to overcome entrenched bureaucratic values that limit participation (e.g., see Grant 1994).

The choices planners make in conducting public involvement processes may also inadvertently stie partic-ipation. The prescriptive literature cited earlier and a number of manuals (e.g., Creighton, 1992; Godschalk etal., 1994; Moore, 1995) suggest ways planners can in-crease public involvement. These can be boiled down tove key choices and related advice.

1. Choice of objectives: Provide information to aswell as listen to citizens; empower citizens by providing opportunities to inuence planning deci-sions.

2. Choice of timing: Involve the public early andcontinuously.

3. Choice of whom to target: Seek participationfrom a broad range of stakeholders.

RAYMOND J. BURBY



6/18

4. Choice of techniques: Use a number of tech-niques to give and receive information from citi-zens and, in particular, provide opportunities fordialogue.

5. Choice of information: Provide more informa-

tion in a clearly understood form, free of distortionand technical jargon.

Planners who do not follow these prescriptions could ndthat relatively few stakeholder groups choose to partici-pate in plan-making efforts.

In summary, there is good reason to believe thatstakeholder involvement in plan-making processes canprovide planners with a tool that can contribute to bothstronger plans and planning proposals that are morelikely to be implemented. Nevertheless, there also is rea-son to believe that in many cases, planners pay relatively little attention to or make the wrong choices about par-

ticipation, so that these benefits are not realized andplans have less impact than they otherwise might.

Data and MethodsData to examine the effects of citizen involvement

on the strength of plans and plan implementation weregathered for a sample of 60 local governments in thestates of Florida and Washington that had recently pre-pared comprehensive plans (see Appendix, Figure A-1 fora complete list). The random sample of places studied,selected to take advantage of data on plan making and

planning policies developed in an earlier study (Burby etal., 1997), consists of cities and counties with popula-tions of 2,500 or more in 1990 and potential for signi-cant exposure to natural hazards 3 in order to improvecomparability among the jurisdictions studied. Themean population of these jurisdictions was 77,216 in1999, and the mean growth rate from 1990–1999 was16%. In both Florida and Washington, state growthmanagement laws mandated local government prepara-tion of comprehensive plans. The Florida plans studiedwere prepared in response to a state requirement thatplans originally adopted in the late 1980s and early 1990s be updated through “evaluation and appraisal”

reports and subsequent plan amendments. The Wash-ington plans studied emerged from the rst round of plan making under the state’s 1990/1991 growth man-agement laws. In both Florida and Washington, as inmost states, state laws require citizen involvement in theplan-making process, but apart from required publichearings, the precise methods used are left to the discre-tion of the local government.

Data collection procedures included content analy-

sis of the 60 plans prepared in response to state require-ments, personal interviews with planning staff membersto measure characteristics of stakeholder participationand the fate of planning proposals, and coding of infor-mation from a variety of secondary sources. Tests of thereliability of measures were conducted and revealed nonotable problems. These included recoding a sample of plans to evaluate consistency across coders in measur-ing the content of plans and calculating Chronbach’salpha to test the reliability of indexes employed to mea-sure various concepts.

Because of the interest of this study in planning is-sues that traditionally have lacked publics, the measuresof the strength and implementation of plans are basedon proposals contained in the plans for actions to reducepotential losses from natural hazards. 4 This also madepossible the use of data from earlier research conductedin the sample communities, which also focused on haz-ard mitigation. The strength of plans is measured as thenumber of 16 possible hazard-mitigation proposals thatwere made in the plans. 5 The mean is 3.7 proposals,which is low and reects the low priority hazard mitiga-tion generally receives from planners and the public.Implementation is measured as the ratio of proposedhazard mitigation actions that were subsequently im-plemented to proposed actions that were not imple-mented. Here the mean is 1.8, which indicates that forevery 1.0 proposed action that was rejected, on average1.8 were implemented. Thus, plans in these jurisdictionswere not “dead on arrival,” and in a typical jurisdictionsome degree of action on planning proposals took place.

But implementation success varied considerably. Justover 10% of the jurisdictions had none of their proposedactions adopted, and a quarter had more proposed ac-tions that were not acted upon than were implemented.

The explanatory variables include the degree of stakeholder involvement in plan making and a numberof variables selected to control for alternative explana-tions of why the strength of plans and plan implemen-tation vary from one local government to another. I em-ploy two variables to measure stakeholder involvement.The rst is the number of 15 different types of potentialstakeholders who were represented in the plan-makingprocess (see Appendix, Figure A-2 for a complete list).

On average, 6 of 15 took part. The second is whether ornot a stakeholder group called for attention to hazardmitigation in the plan (this occurred in only 14 of the 60 jurisdictions). The control variables include the state(Florida or Washington), measures of planners’ com-mitment and capacity to deal with hazards in plan mak-ing, measures of the seriousness of hazards as a policy problem, population size, and rate of population growthbetween 1990 and 1999.




7/18

Previous research on policy agendas (see Kingdon,1995; Mintrom, 1997) and attention to hazards in localgovernment (see Olshansky & Kartez, 1998) indicatesthat whether a policy idea such as hazard mitigation re-ceives attention in local government depends on the ex-istence of an advocate. In addition, it seems logical thatthe capacity to attend to particular policy problems alsocould be important. I use two variables to measure advocacy for hazard mitigation within local government:(1) whether or not local planners were a source of initia-tive for attention to hazards in the plan; and (2) the num-ber of hazard-mitigation measures that had beenadopted by the local government as of 1991, before theplan-making processes studied got underway.

Three variables represent the degree to which nat-ural hazards are a problem: (1) pressure to develop areassuch as floodplains that are exposed to hazards; (2)chronic losses from hazards; and (3) the occurrence of a natural disaster from 1991 through 1999 while the plansstudied were being prepared and implemented. Burby etal. (1997) found that development pressures tended tostimulate attention to hazard mitigation in local gov-ernment planning, as did the existence of chronic losses.Other studies (e.g., Berke & Beatley, 1992; Birkland,1996; Godschalk et al., 1989) have found that naturaldisasters served as triggering events that lead to actionon proposals made in plans that received little attentionfrom elected ofcials prior to the disaster. In this study,the measure of development pressure is a ve-point scalefrom very low to high, based on local planners’ estimates.The degree of chronic losses from hazards is measured as

the number of buildings that have been repeatedly dam-aged by oods, based on information provided by theFederal Emergency Management Agency. The existenceof a disaster (yes or no) comes from reports provided by local planners in each jurisdiction. Additional details onmeasurement of the variables analyzed in this researchare available from the author on request.

Data analyses include descriptive statistics report-ing the degree of citizen involvement in plan making, bi- variate statistics that examine the associations betweencitizen involvement and plan strength/implementation,and multivariate models. Square root transformationsof three variables (implementation success, population,

and scope of mitigation measures used in 1991) wereemployed in the multivariate analysis to meet requiredstatistical assumptions. Diagnostic tests revealed no par-ticular issues of multicollinearity in these models. Levelsof statistical signicance are reported for the bivariateand multivariate statistical analyses.

Before proceeding to the results of the analysis, threecaveats should be noted. First, the focus on a policy with-out a public, such as hazard mitigation, may limit gen-

eralization of the ndings to similar policies; whetherthe ndings are applicable to more salient, less techni-cal issues addressed in plans is not known. The limita-tion here should be in the direction of conservatism,however. That is, I would expect the effects of citizen involvement to be greater for policies that are of greaterimportance to citizens, such as trafc congestion, eco-nomic decline, and the protection of neighborhoodcharacter, and for issues that are less technical, such ashousing. If the study’s expectations about citizen involvement are supported for the less salient, more tech-nical policy problem, I believe they can be condently generalized to other policy arenas. If they are not sup-ported, however, it is still possible that they would apply when issues are more salient to and easier for the publicto understand.

Second, because local governments in only twostates, both of which employ planning mandates, werestudied, care should be taken in generalizing the study’sndings to all states and, in particular, to states that lackmandates. It is possible, for example, that local plannerspay more attention to citizen involvement when state of-cials are reviewing their actions, as in Florida, or whencitizens can appeal their actions to a quasi-judicial tri-bunal, as in Washington. Third, the measure of plan im-plementation—whether an action recommended in a plan was subsequently taken—is admittedly crude, sinceit does not take into account various degrees of imple-mentation, such as actual enforcement of regulationsadopted or funds budgeted to programs established.Nevertheless, because adoption is the rst step in effec-

tive implementation, I believe it provides a useful gaugeof the degree to which plan implementation is occurringin the places studied.

FindingsCitizen Involvement in Plan Making

Citizen involvement in plan making tends to bedominated by an “iron triangle” composed of local busi-ness and development interests, local elected and ap-pointed government ofcials, and neighborhood groups.Local governments in Florida and Washington saw six

groups most often represented in plan making, as shownin Table 1. Of the six groups, two represented local gov-ernment (elected officials and department personnel)and two represented business and development inter-ests. Rounding out the top six participants were neigh-borhood groups and the media.

A substantial minority of places obtained participa-tion from environmental groups and special districts,but a variety of other groups were infrequently involved.

RAYMOND J. BURBY



8/18

They include property owner groups (surprising in thisday of property-rights concerns); groups representing re-source industries, such as agriculture, forestry, and sh-ing; professional groups; older people’s groups; andgroups representing the interests of disadvantagedhouseholds, such as affordable housing groups andgroups representing poor people exposed to hazards.

The makeup of the stakeholders represented in planmaking would not be surprising to those who have fol-lowed scholars such as Logan and Molotch (1987),

Logan et al. (1999), and Stone (1989), who argue thatlocal government decision making about urban devel-opment is dominated by either a growth machine or cor-porate regime made up of government ofcials and peo-ple whose livelihoods are strongly affected by planningactions. The comparative absence of groups represent-ing less advantaged households and those representingenvironmental concerns is rather surprising, given man-dates for inclusiveness from codes of ethics, mandates

for environmental quality in state and federal legislation,and the arguments made by planning theorists fromPaul Davidoff (1965) and Sherry Arnstein (1969) on-ward, who have called for planners to pay attention tothe needs of the powerless.

Effects on the Strength of Plans and Plan ImplementationWhen planners in Florida and Washington involved

a broader array of stakeholders in plan making, they pro-duced stronger plans and policy proposals that weremuch more likely to be implemented than was the casewhen participation was limited. As shown in the top sec-tion of Table 2, hazard-mitigation measures proposedin plans increased 72% (from an average of 2.9 to an aver-age of 5.0) when the number of stakeholders who par-ticipated in making the plan increased from less than 5to 10 or more. Implementation success more than dou-bled. Planners batted 50-50 (a success ratio of 1) whenthey involved few stakeholders in plan making, but thisincreased to a success ratio of 2.4 when they involved 10or more stakeholders.

The bottom section of Table 2 shows the strengthof plans and implementation success planners achievedwhen they obtained the participation of particular typesof stakeholders. When property owners and environ-mental groups participated, plans were stronger on av-erage, and proposals made in plans stood a much higherthan average chance of being implemented. Since thesetwo groups often have conicting interests, it seems pos-sible that citizen involvement processes that included

them provided a forum in which consensus about ap-propriate policies could be achieved. As noted above,however, each of these two groups was involved in lessthan a majority of the plan-making processes examined.Participation by both at the same time occurred in only 11 of these 60 jurisdictions. Other groups whose partic-ipation seems to produce stronger plans (i.e., plans thatcontained more proposals) include neighborhoodgroups and local government departments. Implemen-tation success improved with the added participation of government departments, special districts, and develop-ment groups, in addition to property owner and envi-ronmental groups.

When stakeholders take the initiative and put pro-posals on the table for consideration in plans, both thestrength of plans and implementation success improvemarkedly, as shown in Table 3. In fact, stakeholder advocacy has the strongest impact of the various sourcesof policy initiative examined. Plans in which stakehold-ers were one of the sources of initiative for attention tohazard mitigation on average proposed 5.5 mitigationmeasures versus an average of 3.7 for the sample as a



TABLE 1. Stakeholders represented in the comprehensiveplanning processes.

Types of stakeholders a % jurisdictions

Groups most often represented bBusiness groups 75Local elected ofcials 72Development groups 68Local government departments 63Neighborhood groups 58Media representatives 57

Other groups representedEnvironmental groups 43Special districts 40Affordable housing groups 32Property owner groups 27Port, shing, and marine industry groups 22Agriculture or forest industry groups 17Professional groups 15Older people’s groups 15Groups representing disadvantaged people

living in hazardous areas 5

a Question: Looking over this list of possible groups, please tell mewhich, if any, was represented, either formally or informally,during opportunities you gave citizens to take part in the processof preparing the comprehensive plan.

b The mean number of stakeholder groups participating in thecomprehensive planning processes studied is 6 (standarddeviation = 3.4). The median is 5. The sample consists of arandom sample of 60 jurisdictions. See Appendix, Figure A-1 for acomplete list.


9/18

whole; the mean implementation success rate was 2.8in comparison to an average rate of 1.8 for the sample asa whole. Advocacy of hazard mitigation by the plan-ning staff and other governmental departments is alsoimportant for plan strength but has less effect onimplementation success, where stakeholder advocacy is the critical factor in moving ideas forward from pro-posals made in plans to actual actions undertaken by governments.

Planners’ lack of impact on plan implementation isnot too surprising, given their often marginal role inlocal government growth machines or governing re-

gimes. But it would be a mistake to conclude that plan-ners have no impact on what governments do. Instead,these ndings suggest that their inuence is indirect andchanneled through the strength of the comprehensiveplan and their role in bringing stakeholders into theplanning process. The multivariate models summarizedin Table 4 illuminate this indirect inuence. On the onehand, the initiative of planners has the single strongestimpact on the number of hazard mitigation proposals

made in plans, when other explanatory factors are con-trolled for in the multivariate model. On the other hand,it has little direct effect on implementation success. Butimplementation success varies positively with thestrength of the comprehensive plan and the number of stakeholders that planners induce to participate in theplan-making process (keeping in mind issues of statisti-cal signicance and differences in the variability of eachof the explanatory variables).

Planners in the past have been criticized by scholarsfor their apparent political impotence (e.g., Altshuler,1965; Benveniste, 1991; Catanese, 1984; Rabinovitz,

1969). The data reported here indicate that while plan-ners’ impact on policy implementation, on its face,seems limited, planners in fact can be effective in seeingtheir ideas translated into governmental action. Theirinuence comes from putting policy ideas on the tablethat are not likely to “bubble up” from stakeholders(planners were twice as likely as citizens to be one of thesources of attention to natural hazards in comprehen-sive plans). And by informing and empowering stake-

RAYMOND J. BURBY


TABLE 2. Effects of stakeholder participation on plan strength and implementation success.

Mean number of hazard-mitigation ImplementationBreadth of participation a measures proposed in plan b success ratio c

Number of types of stakeholders who participated in planning process (n = 60)Low (less than 5 of 15; n = 21) 2.9 1.0Medium (5 to 9 of 15; n = 27) 3.9 2.1High (10 or more of 15; n = 12) **5.0** **2.4**Average for entire sample 3.7 1.8

Participation by type of stakeholders dProperty owner groups *4.6* **2.4**Environmental groups *** 4.6*** **2.3**Neighborhood groups *** 4.5*** 2.0Local government departments *** 4.4*** **2.1**Agriculture or forest industry groups 4.3 2.4Special districts 4.1 *2.2*Development groups 4.0 *** 2.2***

a Based on 15 groups represented in the plan-making process (see Appendix, Figure A-3 for a complete list).b Based on list of 16 hazard-mitigation measures that could be proposed for adoption in comprehensive plan (see Appendix, Figure A-2 for a

complete list).c n = 55. Calculated as number of proposals for hazard mitigation adopted divided by number of proposals not adopted. Excludes ve local

governments that prepared plans with no proposals for hazard-mitigation measures (and thus no recommendations to implement). The sumof adopted and not adopted measures is greater than the average number of mitigation measures proposed in plans, since the latter includes

jurisdictions in which no measures were proposed, while the former include only those jurisdictions with plans that proposed one or moremeasures.

d Participation by the remaining groups did not result in a statistically signicant increase in the number of measures proposed in plans,measures subsequently adopted, or the ratio of measures adopted to those not adopted.

* p < .15 ** p < .05 *** p < .01 (difference of means tests)


10/18

holders through broadly inclusive citizen involvement

processes, planners enable stakeholders to secure gov-ernment action in policy arenas, such as hazard mitiga-tion, that more often than not receive little attentionfrom elected ofcials.

The effects of the control variables on the strengthof plans and success of implementation present no par-ticular surprises. Any differences between the states of Florida and Washington beyond the measured variablesdo not affect the strength of plans produced, whichprovides greater condence in the ability to generalizethe study findings. Population size is associated withstronger plans, probably reecting greater resources forplanning in larger places, but population growthrather

than size affects implementation success. This likely isdue to the greater salience of planning in general inplaces that are experiencing rapid growth.

The scope of the hazard-mitigation measures thatwere in existence in 1991 did not affect subsequent at-tention to hazards in the plans adopted but did inu-ence implementation success. The lack of effect on thestrength of plans could be the result of two offsettingeffects. On the one hand, localities that were doing more

to mitigate hazards in 1991 probably needed less atten-

tion to hazards than places with limited hazard-mitiga-tion programs at the start of the study period. On theother hand, planners in those places may be more com-mitted to governmental attention to mitigation. Thestronger impact on plan implementation may reflectpolicy learning in the locality. Over time local elected of-ficials may have become comfortable with mitigationas they learned its benets. It is also possible that withmore experience with hazard mitigation, measuresproposed in plans were more sensitive to the politicalenvironment.

The degrees to which hazardous areas have experi-enced development pressures and repeated losses are re-

ected in the attention given to mitigation in plans, butthey do not enhance the likelihood for implementation.Instead a focusing event such as a natural disaster isneeded for the problem to be catalyzed and local gov-ernments to act on the proposals made in plans. Thisnding underscores the importance of strong plans, sothat hazard mitigation has been thought through andproposals crafted before a disaster occurs.



TABLE 3. Comparison of impacts of stakeholders to other sources of policy initiative for attention to natural hazards incomprehensive plans.

Mean number of% citing hazard-mitigation measures Implementation

Source of initiative a source proposed in plan b success ratio c

Citizen advocate or group 23 *** 5.5*** *** 2.8***Planning director or staff 50 *** 4.9*** 2.1Someone else in local government 30 **4.8** *2.3*State or federal agency 38 3.9 1.8Our understanding of state requirements 87 4.6 2.2

Whole sample 8 3.7 1.8

a Question: Now I have some questions that deal specically with natural hazards. Which of these statements describes where the initiativecame from for including natural hazards in the comprehensive plan? More than one statement may be correct. Including natural hazards inthe comprehensive plan was initiated by:

The planning director or staff Someone else in local governmentA citizen advocate or groupOur understanding of state requirements

A state or federal agency Other sourceb Based on 16 hazard-mitigation measures that could be proposed for adoption in comprehensive plan (see Appendix, Figure A-2 for a

complete list).c N = 55; Excludes ve local governments that prepared plans with no proposals for hazard mitigation measures (and thus no

recommendations to implement). Calculated as number of proposals for hazard mitigation adopted divided by number of proposals notadopted.

* p < .15 ** p < .05 *** p < .01 (difference of means test)


11/18

Effects of Planners’ Choices on Stakeholder Involvement

Decisions that planners make about stakeholder involvement processes affect how many different types of stakeholders actually participate. These decisions helpexplain why participation often is limited to the iron tri-

angle (businesses, neighborhood groups, and govern-ment officials). By the same token, if they know whatfactors affect participation, planners can make betterchoices in the future or, at a minimum, design stake-holder involvement programs to match the breadth of participation desired.

Table 5 lists correlation coefcients and standard-ized multiple regression coefcients between various de-cisions planners made about citizen involvement and the

breadth of participation that resulted. The four most im-portant decisions planners made, based on the magni-tude of correlation and standardized regression coef-cients, are (1) the number of stakeholders actually targeted for participation, (2) the number of differenttypes of information provided to stakeholders, (3) theuse of a citizen advisory committee, and (4) consciously

setting as an objective of participation nding out citi-zen preferences. Two participation techniques that, likeadvisory committees, serve to ease dialogue betweenplanners and stakeholders also had some impact: (1) theuse of visioning, charettes, and workshops for establish-ing goals and deciding on strategies and (2) conveningcommunity forums to air issues related to the plan.

Examination of the choices planners made in involving citizens in plan making explains why stake-

RAYMOND J. BURBY


TABLE 4. Multivariate model of the effects of stakeholder participation on plan strength and implementation success.

Standardized regression coefcients

Hazard-mitigationmeasures Implementation

Variables proposed in plan a success ratio b

Stakeholder participationNumber of types of stakeholders who participated * .14* * .20*Attention to hazards in plan initiated by citizens * .15* * .26*

Plan strengthNumber of hazard-mitigation measures proposed in plan — * .26*

Control variablesState (Washington) −.10 − −.04 −Attention to mitigation initiated by local ofcials other than planning

staff −.08 − −.14 −Attention to mitigation initiated by planning staff *** .37*** −.17 −Staff capacity for mitigation .07 −.01 −

Scope of hazard mitigation, 1991 .07 * .19*Demand for land in hazard areas * .16* .14Chronic losses from hazards ** .29** −.13 −Natural disaster, 1990–1999 .02 ** .27**Population, 1990 * .16* .09Population growth, 1990–1999 −.01 − * .22*

Model statisticsNumber of observations 60 .00 55.00Adjusted R 2 .48 .25F-value for overall model *** 5.94*** ** 2.38**

a Dependent variable is the number of 16 potential hazard-mitigation measures that were proposed in the comprehensive plan (see Appendix,Figure A-2 for a complete list).

b Dependent variable is the number of measures proposed in a plan that were subsequently adopted divided by the number of measuresproposed in that plan that were not subsequently adopted (square root transformation to meet regression assumptions).

* p < .15 ** p < .05 *** p < .01 (one-tailed)


12/18

holder participation was limited in a number of places.

Of the 60 planning processes studied, for example, lessthan half targeted ve or more types of stakeholders forparticipation. In 11 places, no stakeholders were asked tocontribute to the plan-making effort. Similarly, plan-ning departments on average provided four or fewer dif-ferent types of information to citizens (of eight types of information I specically asked them about). Half useda citizen advisory committee, but less than half (40%)emphasized learning about citizen preferences. Thus, the

reasons for relatively low stakeholder participation seem

clear.6

What is less clear is why planners in many places pay relatively little attention to securing the involvement of stakeholders and the public in plan making. Althoughthis issue was not addressed directly by this research, sev-eral explanations seem plausible. As noted earlier in thisarticle, concepts of representative government and ad-ministrative efciency may lead local ofcials to devaluecitizen involvement. As a result, planning agencies,



TABLE 5. Association of planners’ choices about stakeholder involvement with breadth of stakeholder participation.

Number of types of stakeholders who participated a

Standardized multiplePlanners’ choices (% of jurisdictions) Correlation coefcients regression coefcients

Objectives sought through participation bEducating citizens about policy issues (37%) .45*** .19 ***Finding out citizen preferences (40%) .46*** .21** *

Early involvement of stakeholders in planningprocess (62%) .19 *** .12 ***

Number of stakeholder groups actively targeted forparticipation (40% targeted 6 or more groups) .62*** .31***

Number of types of information provided to citizensduring planning process (60% provided 4 or moreof 8 types) c .53*** .29***

Citizen advisory committee used to facilitate

participationd

(used by 50%) .33*** .28***Controls

Washington State .13 *** −.02 *** −Population, 1990 .19 *** −.09 *** −Population growth, 1990–1999 .12 *** −.02 *** −

Model statisticsNumber of observations 60 .00*** 60.00***Adjusted R 2 —*** .56 ***F-value for overall model —*** 8.44***

a Dependent variable is an index based on the number of 15 types of stakeholder groups that were represented in the process of preparing thecomprehensive plan.

b Objectives not related to stakeholder participation include the following: compliance with state requirements, tapping citizen knowledge and

experience, fostering citizen inuence in decision making, and mobilizing an active constituency of citizens who would support plans.c Types of information asked about include maps of environmentally sensitive areas, growth projections, summaries of plan elements, vision

statements, summaries of citizen input, and alternative planning design concepts.d The use of visioning (r = .47) and community forums (r =.36) also induced participation but had less effect than advisory committees in the

multivariate model. Other techniques to gain public input (public hearings, open meetings, workshops, and subcommittees) were only weakly (r =.3 or less) associated with participation. Techniques used to give citizens information (bill stuffers, brochures, newsletters, etc.) had littleimpact on the breadth of participation obtained.

* p < .15 ** p < .05 *** p < .01


13/18

which often are understaffed to begin with, may have dif-culty garnering the resources needed for an effectivecitizen involvement program. In addition, plannersthemselves may be hesitant to pursue citizen involve-ment vigorously because staff trained in citizen partici-pation techniques are not available or because the plan-ning staff does not view the resources required for citizeninvolvement as worth the benets obtained. Given thesubstantial benets from citizen involvement demon-strated in this article, the reasons for planner disinterestin it are an important subject for future research.

ConclusionsThis study examined stakeholder involvement in the

making of comprehensive plans using data assembledfrom 60 local governments in Florida and WashingtonState. The results provide strong support for the idea

that broad stakeholder involvement contributes to bothstronger plans and the implementation of proposalsmade in plans, but they also indicate that planners inmany places have made decisions about public involve-ment that stie participation. In a typical jurisdiction,participation in plan making, beyond government of-cials, is limited to development interests and neighbor-hood groups. In the case of hazard mitigation (the policy area used as the test case here), the analysis suggests thatif environmental and property owner groups, in partic-ular, had participated more frequently, the strength of plans and plan implementation would both have beenenhanced. In other policy arenas, undoubtedly other key

neglected groups would play a similar role. This helpsexplain why efforts to prepare comprehensiveplans thatcover a whole range of issues in a community need pub-lic participation that goes well beyond the narrow inter-ests that typically dominate plan-making forums.

Getting often-neglected stakeholders into the plan-ning process provides planners with an important toolfor increasing their political effectiveness without beingovertly political. Many of the issues planners address incomprehensive plans, such as hazard mitigation, lackpublics that have the same degree of appreciation of theproblem as planners. By involving stakeholders, plan-ners can increase public understanding of these issuesand persuade potential constituency groups of the needfor action. With broader participation in plan making,planners develop stronger plans, reduce the potential forlatent groups who oppose proposed policies to unex-pectedly emerge at the last moment, and increase the po-tential for achieving some degree of consensus amongaffected interests. This, in turn, can ease the formation of advocacy coalitions that will work to see that proposalsmade in plans are acted upon.

The single most effective step planners can take tosecure broader involvement by stakeholders is simply toinvite a variety of groups to take part in the planningprocess. Beyond that, planners can induce greater par-ticipation by ensuring that participation is meaningfulto citizens. Planners make participation meaningful by providing citizens with information about problems andalternative ways of solving them and by providing op-portunities for dialogue among citizens and between cit-izens and planners. This can occur in the deliberations of advisory committees, discussions at facilitated meetings,and through other means. The key is for planners towork hard to both educate and learn from citizens.

These ndings and prescriptions reinforce and ex-tend the conclusions reached by planning theoristsdiscussed earlier. Previous to this study, empirical inves-tigations to examine their efcacy in planning practicehas been based on case studies (e.g., studies conducted by Hanna, 2000; Innes, 1995, Innes et al., 1994; Lowry et al.,1997; Tauxe, 1995; Throgmorton, 1996). By arriving atsimilar conclusions using an alternative cross-sectional,quantitative research design, this study adds anotherlayer of support for their veracity, and it increases thecondence planners can have in the notion that broadstakeholder involvement is important in the preparationof strong, effective comprehensive plans.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is based on research supported by U.S. NationalScience Foundation Grant No. CMS-9801155 to the Univer-sity of New Orleans and subsequently to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Co-investigators on this study include Philip Berke, David Godschalk, Jack Kartez, and Gary Pivo. Helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscriptwere provided by Philip Berke, John Cooper, Robert Deyle, JackKartez, Peter May, and three anonymous referees for this jour-nal. I am also grateful to Denise Boswell, Samuel Brody, JohnCooper, Kathleen Pagan, and David Robison for their help incoding plans and interviewing local planning ofcials in thestates of Florida and Washington. Of course, the ndings andopinions reported are those of the author and are not neces-sarily endorsed by the National Science Foundation, the co-investigators who participated in the research, or those whoprovided assistance with the research and comments on earlierdrafts.

NOTES1. There is an extensive recent literature on both of these

subjects. In the case of good plans, examples include Baer(1997), Berke and Conroy (2000), Berke et al. (1996), Con-nerly and Muller (1993), and Kaiser et al. (1995). In thecase of communication and consensus building, exam-ples include Forester (1989, 1993, 1999), Hanna (2000),

RAYMOND J. BURBY



14/18

Healy (1993), Innes (1995, 1998), Sager (1994), andThrogmorton (1996).

2. The notion of planning as a consensus-building processpermeates recent discussions of planning and plan mak-ing. For example, four of the chapters in the latest editionof The Practice of Local Government Planning(Baum, 2000;Hoch, 2000; Kaiser & Godschalk, 2000; Klein, 2000) stressconsensus building, as do those works cited in Note 1.

3. This potential was dened as location in a coastal juris-diction in Florida and west of the Cascade Mountains inWashington, where ood hazards are ubiquitous.

4. The lack of public interest in and generally low priority of hazard mitigation in local policy making has been re-ported in numerous studies (Birkland, 1996; Burby &May, 1998; Petak, 1984; Rossi et al., 1982; Wyner & Mann,1986).

5. A broader conception of plan quality was also considered,such as inclusion of fact bases and goals in the measure of plan strength (e.g., see Berke et al., 1996). Because of thefocus of this research on implementation of proposals

made in plans, a more limited conception focusing on pro-posed policies and actions is used, hence use of the term plan strengthrather than plan quality. The 16 potential haz-ard-mitigation measures coded in plans and examined forimplementation are detailed in the Appendix, Figure A-2.The measures are weighted toward land use (as opposed toengineering) to reect the focus on comprehensive, ratherthan hazard-mitigation, plans. In addition, land use mea-sures have been found to be those least likely to enjoy pre-existing support from stakeholders (Rossi et al., 1982).The additive index of plan strength weights each hazard-mitigation measure equally. Obviously, these measureswill have varying degrees of impact on the reduction of lives lost and property damage from natural hazards, but

the impact of any given measure is likely to be different indifferent communities, depending on local conditions.Thus, a more sophisticated measure that weights items by their likely degree of effect on hazard mitigation attainedin the communities studied was not feasible.

6. A number of actions prescribed in the literature on citi-zen participation were not strongly associated with varia-tion in the breadth of stakeholder participation in theseplaces. These include formulation of a plan for participa-tion, appointment of someone to manage the participa-tion process, use of consultant assistance, the stage atwhich citizens first became involved (most plannersbrought people in early, however), and a variety of partic-ipation techniques that offer little opportunity for dia-

logue with citizens, such as public hearings, surveys, hot-lines, and various impersonal channels of communication(bill stuffers, brochures, etc.).

REFERENCES Abney, G., & Lauth, T. P. (1986). The politics of state and city ad-

ministration. Albany: State University of New York Press. Altshuler, A. A. (1965). The city planning process: A political analy-

sis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.

Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 329–344.

Barber, D. M. (1981). Citizen participation in American communi-ties: Strategies for success. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Bardach, E. (1977). Implementation: What happens to a bill after iis adopted.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baum, H. (2000). Communities, organizations, politics, andethics. In C. J. Hoch, L. C. Dalton, & F. S. So (Eds.), The practice of local government planning (3rd ed.; pp. 439–464).Washington, DC: International City/County Manage-ment Association.

Benveniste, G. (1991). Mastering the politics of planning . San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berke, P. R., & Beatley, T. (1992). Planning for earthquakes: Risk, politics and policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sus-tainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehen-

sive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66,21–33.Berke, P. R., Roenigk, D. J., Kaiser, E. J., & Burby, R. J. (1996).

Enhancing plan quality: Evaluating the role of state plan-ning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 37 (2), 155–169.

Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Johnston, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bierle, T. C. (1998, November). Public participation in environ-mental decisions: An evaluation framework using social go(Discussion Paper No. 99-06). Washington, DC: Re-sources for the Future.

Bierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and

trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 19(4), 587–602.Birkland, T. A. (1996). Natural disasters as focusing events:

Policy communities and political response. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 14(2), 221–243.

Bollens, S. A. (1993). Restructuring land use governance. Jour-nal of Planning Literature, 7 (3), 211–226.

Buckwalter, D., Parsons, R., & Wright, N. (1993, September).Citizen participation in local government: The use of in-centives and rewards. Public Management , 14, 11–15.

Burby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1998). Intergovernmental environ-mental planning: Addressing the commitment conun-drum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management ,41(1), 95–110.

Burby, R. J., May, P. J., Berke, P., Dalton, L. C., French, S. P., &Kaiser, E. J. (1997). Making governments plan: State experi-ments in managing land use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Press.

Burke, E. M. (1968). Citizen participation strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34, 287–294.

Burke, E. M. (1979). A participatory approach to urban planning .New York: Human Science Press.

Caldwell, L., Hayes, L., & MacWhirter, I. (1976).Citizens and theenvironment . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.




15/18

Catanese, A. J. (1984). The politics of planning and development .Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clawson, M. (1971). Suburban land conversion in the United States: An economic and governmental process. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American pol-itics: The dynamics of agenda-building . Baltimore: Johns Hop-kins University Press.

Connerly, C. E., & Muller, N. A. (1993). Evaluating housing ele-ments in growth management comprehensive plans. In J. M. Stein (Ed.),Growth management: The planning challengeof the 1990s(pp. 185–199). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Creighton, J. L. (1992). Involving citizens in community decisionmaking: A guidebook. Washington, DC: Program for Com-munity Problem Solving.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Jour-nal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331–338.

Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essentially contested concept? Journal of Planning Liter-ature, 11(3), 421–434.

DeSario, J., & Langton, S. (1987). Citizen participation andtechnocracy. In J. DeSario & S. Langton (Eds.), Citizen par-ticipation in public decision making(pp. 3–17). New York:Greenwood Press.

Deyle, R. E. (1995). Conict, uncertainty, and the role of plan-ning and analysis in public policy innovation. Policy Stud-ies Journal , 22(3), 457–473.

Dovers, S. (1998). Community involvement in environmentalmanagement: Thoughts for emergency management. Aus-tralian Journal of Emergency Management , 13(2), 6–11.

Ethridge, M. E. (1982). The policy impact of citizen participa-

tion procedures: A comparative state study. American Pol-itics Quarterly, 10(4), 489–509.Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1983). Bureaucracy and democracy: A political

dilemma. London: Routledge-Kegan-Paul.Fainstein, N. I., & Fainstein, S. S. (1985). Citizen participation

in local government. In D. R. Judd (Ed.), Public policy across states and communities. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power . Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press.

Forester, J. (1991). Anticipating implementation: Reflectiveand normative practices in policy analysis in planning. InD. A. Schon (Ed.), The reective turn: Case studies in and oneducational practice(pp. 191–212). New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning prac-tice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging par-ticipatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Glass, J. (1979). Citizen participation in planning: The rela-tionship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 180–189.

Godschalk, D. R., Brower, D. J., & Beatley, T. (1989). Cata- strophic coastal storms: Hazard mitigation and development

management . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.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,DC: Urban Land Institute.

Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole, L. J. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Goldstein, H. A. (1984). Planning as argumentation. Environ-ment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 11, 297–312.

Grant, J. (1994). The drama of democracy: Contention and dispute incommunity planning . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and the evolution of society.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston:Beacon Press.

Hall, P. A. (1993, April). Policy paradigms, social learning, andthe state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain.Comparative Politics, 25, 275–295.

Hanna, K. S. (2000). The paradox of participation and the hid-

den role of information. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 398–410.Healy, P. (1993). The communicative work of development

plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20,83–104.

Healy, P. (1994). Development plans: New approaches to mak-ing frameworks for land use regulation. European Planning Journal , 2(1), 39–55.

Healy, P., & Hillier, J. (1996). Communicative micropolitics: Astory of claims and discourses. International Planning Stud-ies, 1(2), 165–184.

Hoch, C. (2000). Making plans. In C. J. Hoch, L. C. Dalton, &F. S. So (Eds.),The practice of local government planning (3rded.; pp. 19–39). Washington, DC: International City/

County Management Association.Howell, R. E., Olsen, M., & Olsen, D. (1987). Designing a citizeninvolvement program: A guidebook for involving citizens in theresolution of environmental issues. Corvallis: Western RuralDevelopment Center, Oregon State University.

Innes, J. E. (1990). Knowledge and public policy: The search for mean-ingful indicators(2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Com-municative action and interactive practice. Journal of Plan-ning Education and Research, 14, 183–188.

Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: Anew view of the comprehensive ideal. Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association, 62, 460–472.

Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 64, 52–63.Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building andcomplex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, 412–423.

Innes, J. E., Gruber, J., Neuman, M., & Thompson, R. (1994).Coordinating growth and environmental managementthrough consensus building. CPS Briefs, 6(4), 1–8.

Kaiser, E. J., & Godschalk, D. R. (2000). Development plan-ning. In C. J. Hoch, L. C. Dalton, & F. S. So (Eds.), The prac-tice of local government planning (3rd ed.; pp. 141–169).

RAYMOND J. BURBY



16/18

Washington, DC: International City/County Manage-ment Association.

Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S., Jr. (1995). Urbanland use planning (4th ed.). Urbana: University of IllinoisPress.

Kathleen, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen partici-pation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 10(1), 46–63.

Kettering Foundation. (1989). The public’s role in the policy proc-ess: A view from state and local policy makers. Dayton, OH: Au-thor.

King, C. S., Feltrev, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic participation in publicadministration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Klein, W. R. (1993, May). Visions of things to come. Planning ,59(5), 10.

Klein, W. R. (2000). Building consensus. In C. J. Hoch, L. C.

Dalton, & F. S. So (Eds.), The practice of local government planning (3rd ed.; pp. 423–438). Washington, DC: Inter-national City/County Management Association.

Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen partic-ipation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praeger.

Levin, M., & Ferman, B. (1986). The political hand: Policy im-plementation and youth employment programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 5(4), 311–325.

Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving . New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press.

Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Logan, J. R., Whaley, R. B., & Crowder, K. (1999). The characterand consequence of growth regimes: An assessment of twenty years of research. In A.E.G. Jonas & D. Wilson(Eds.),The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives two dec-ades later(pp. 73–94). New York: SUNY Press.

Lowry, K., Adler, P., & Milner, N. (1997). Participating the pub-lic: Group process, politics, and planning. Journal of Plan-ning Education and Research, 16, 177–187.

May, P. J. (1991). Reconsidering policy design: Policies andpublics. Journal of Public Policy, 11(2), 187–206.

May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354.

Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusionof innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3),

738–770.Monnikhof, R. A. H., & Edelenbos, J. (2001). Into the fog?Stakeholder input in participatory impact assessment. Im- pact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 19(1), 29–39.

Moore, C. N. (1995). Participation tools for better land-use planning:Techniques and case studies. Sacramento, CA: Local Govern-ment Commission.

Olshansky, R. B., & Kartez, J. D. (1998). Managing land use tobuild resilience. In R. Burby (Ed.), Cooperating with nature:

Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities(pp. 167–201). Washington, DC: JosephHenry/National Academy Press.

Pelletier, D., Kraak, V., McCullum, C., Uusitalo, U., & Rich, R.(1999). The shaping of collective values through delibera-tive democracy: An empirical study from New York’snorth country. Policy Sciences, 32, 103–131.

Perkins, M. S. (1997). Reaching out to community planners. Landlines, 9(3), 6.

Petak, W. J. (1984). Natural hazard mitigation: Professional-ization of the policy making process. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 2(3), 285–302.

Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Rabinovitz, F. F. (1969). City politics and planning . New York: Atherton.

Roesner, J. B. (1978). Matching method to purpose: The chal-lenge of planning citizen-participation activities. In S.Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America(pp. 109–123). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Weber-Burdin, E. (1982). Natural hazards and public choice: The state and local politics of hazamitigation. New York: Academic Press.

Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Schon, D. (1983). The reective practitioner: How professionals thinin action. New York: Basic Books.

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. New York: HarperTorchbooks.

Sewell, W. R. D., & Coppock, J. T. (1977). A perspective on pub-lic participation in planning. In W. R. D. Sewell & J. T.Coppock (Eds.), Public participation in planning (pp. 7–15).London: John Wiley and Sons.

So, F. S., Hand, I., & McDowell, B. D. (Eds.). (1986). The practice

of state and regional planning . Washington, DC: Interna-tional City/County Management Association & Ameri-can Planning Association.

Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta 1946–1988.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Tauxe, C. (1995). Marginalizing public participation in localplanning: An ethnographic account. Journal of the Ameri-can Planning Association, 61, 471–481.

Throgmorton, J. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: Therhetorical construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Vogel, R. K., & Swanson, B. E. (1988). Setting agendas for com-munity change: The community goal-setting strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 10(1), 41–61.

Wheaton, W. L. C. (1969). The federal role as an incentive tolocal development. In M. H. Hufschmidt (Ed.), Regional planning: Challenges and prospects(pp. 238–259). New York:Frederick A. Praeger.

Wildavsky, A. (1979). The politics of the budgetary process(3rd ed.).Boston: Little, Brown.

Wyner, A. J., & Mann, D. E. (1986). Preparing for California’searthquakes: Local government and seismic safety. Berkeley: In-stitute of Governmental Studies, University of California.




17/18

RAYMOND J. BURBY


APPENDIX

FIGURE A-1. Sixty Florida and Washington jurisdictions in the study sample.

Florida Atlantic Beach Ft. Lauderdale Mary Esther Pinellas County Bradenton Holly Hill Miami Shores PompanoCape Canaveral Jacksonville Naples SarasotaCocoa Jupiter Niceville St. AugustineDania Longboat Key North Palm Beach St. PetersburgDeereld Beach Lynn Haven Oldsmar ValparaisoDelray Beach Manatee County Ormond BeachDestin Martin County Palm Bay

WashingtonAberdeen DesMoines Mason County RentonArlington Enumclaw Milton SequimBothell Ferndale Mountlake Terrace Skamania County

Bremerton Fife Normandy Park Thurston County Brier Gig Harbor Pacic Tumwater Chehalis Issaquah Pierce County WashougalClallam County Kent RaymondClark County Lacey Redmond

FIGURE A-2. Sixteen potential hazard-mitigation measures.

Public informationHazard education programPublication of hazard mapsDelineation of hazards on subdivision mapsHazard warning system

Safe development Special studies or impact assessments to identify

hazard reduction required for new developmentSite plan review to identify hazard reduction required

for development approval

Land useLow-density zoning of hazard areasOverlay zoningDown zoningMandatory dedication of open space with preference

given to hazard areasCluster development to protect hazard areasDensity bonus in exchange for dedication of hazard

areasRelocation of existing hazard area developmentAcquisition of land in hazard areas

Public facility Policy to locate public facilities outside of hazard areasImpact fees to nance hazard reduction

Potential Hazard-Mitigation Measures

Jurisdictions Studied


18/18


FIGURE A-3. Fifteen types of stakeholders.

Affordable housing groups (e.g., Habitat for Humanity)

Agriculture or forest industry groupsBusiness groups (e.g., chamber of commerce)Development groups (e.g., homebuilders

association)Environmental groups (e.g., local chapter of the

Sierra Club)Groups representing disadvantaged people exposed

to hazardsLocal government departments

Local elected ofcialsMedia representatives (newspapers, radio,

television)Neighborhood groupsOlder people’s groups (e.g., local chapter of the

American Association of Retired Persons)Port, shing, and marine industry groupsProfessional groups (e.g., associations of architects

or engineers)Property owner groupsSpecial districts (e.g., school districts)

Types of Stakeholders

Journal of the American Planning Association Volume 69 Issue 1 2003Burby, Raymond J. -- Making Plans...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of the American Planning Association Volume 69 Issue 1 2003Burby, Raymond J. -- Making Plans...