Ever since Sherry Arnstein's simple and effective1 typology of the levels of public participation (Arnstein, 1969), planning theorists have been trying to conceptualise the nature of public involvement. At the same time planning practitioners have been grappling with the realities of trying to engage in a meaningful and ‘democratic’ way with the local communities and stakeholder groups in whose name the plans and strategies are prepared and in whose interests places and spaces are supposed to be developed. Both ventures have been fraught with uncritical conceptualisation, simplistic analysis, unexpected findings, and frustrated encounters. They have also been characterised by a slow maturing of understanding and the development of realistic and sensitive approaches and conceptual frameworks. Many contemporary writers and practitioners now see public participation in planning as a constrained but potentially socially progressive vehicle for ‘opening-up’ decision-making processes to a wider range of interests, particular the citizens who have to use the environment which is planned and produced. They realise that this process, like the society within which planning is embedded, is complex and needs a reflective approach which builds dialogue over time.
Much of the participation literature has concentrated on local planning practice and the involvement of local community groups in these planning exercises. Some (e.g. Cawson, 1982; Healey, McNamara, Elson, & Doak, 1988; Low, 1991; Saunders, 1979) have emphasised the fragmentation of planning regimes and the (imperfect) hierarchical power relations which are one of the major constraints on the freedom of local planning. Often these studies stress the inequality in access to the higher levels of governmental decision-making and different ‘modes of operation’ apparent at the various levels of state policy-making and implementation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domesticating the scallops and fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, belief: A new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Cawson, A. (1982). Corporatism and welfare: Social policy and state intervention in Britain. London: Heinemann.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1992). Planning policy guidance note 12: Development Plans. London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000). Planning policy guidance note 11: Regional planning. London.
Doak, A. J., Stott, M., & Therivel, R. (1998). From SEA to sustainability: The life and times of the SERPLAN sustainability panel. Regional Studies, 32(1), 73–78.
Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity
Government Office for the South East (GOSE) (1999). Regional planning guidance for the South East of England: Public examination May/June 1999 — report of the panel. Guildford: GOSE.
Government Office for the South East (GOSE) (2000). Draft regional planning guidance for the South East of England: Proposed changes. Guildford: GOSE.
Government Office for the South East (GOSE) (2001). Regional planning guidance for the South East of England (RPG9). Guildford: GOSE.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity.
Harloe, M., Pickvance, C. G., & Urry, J. (1990). Place, policy and politics: Do localities matter? London: Unwin Hyman.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Oxford: Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1996). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
Healey, P., McNamara, P., Elson, M., & Doak, A. (1988). Land use planning and the mediation of urban change: The British planning system in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S., & Madani-Pour, A. (Eds.) (1995). Managing cities: The new urban context. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (1998). Power and planning in the information age: Consensus building as action strategy for the network society. Paper presented at the 12th AESOP Congress; July 1998. University of Aveiro, Portugal.
Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books.
Low, N. (1991). Planning, politics and the state: Political foundations of planning thought. London: Unwin Hyman.
Marsh, D. & Rhodes, R. A. W (Eds.) (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murdoch, J. (1997). Tracing the topographies of power: Spaces of prescription and negotiation in actor-networks. Paper presented at the Actor Network and After Conference; July 1997. University of Keele, Keele, UK.
Parker, G. & Wragg, A. (1999). Networks, agency and (de)stabilization: The issue of navigation on the River Wye, UK. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(4), 471–487.
Saunders, P. (1979). Urban politics: A sociological interpretation. London: Heinemann.
Saunders, P. (1981). Social theory and the urban question. London: Hutchinson.
SERPLAN (1995a). Sustainability principles. RPC 2867R. SERPLAN.
SERPLAN (1995b). Working with the public. RPC 2762, SERPLAN.
SERPLAN (1996). Strategic environmental assessment: A methodology and appraisal framework for the review of the regional strategy. SERP 68, SERPLAN.
SERPLAN (1998a). A sustainable development strategy for the South East: Public consultation. SERP 400, SERPLAN.
SERPLAN (1998b). A sustainable development strategy for the South East. SERP 500, SERPLAN.
The Reading Globe Alliance (TREGA) (2000). Local government and the consultative process. Reading Borough Council, Reading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doak, J. (2009). Fora, Networks and Public Examinations. In: Coenen, F.H.J.M. (eds) Public Participation and Better Environmental Decisions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9325-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9325-8_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9324-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9325-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)