Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation                         A Case of Delhi                            Submitted By...
CONTENTSCONTENTS ............................................................................................................
3.5   CASE STUDY OF BHAGIDARI IN DELHI ......................................................................................
5.3         RESOLUTION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSAMDA: Association of Municipalities and Development AuthoritiesB. Plan: Bachelor of Plan...
SPA: School of Planning and ArchitectureULB: Urban Local Body like Municipality, Municipal CouncilUNCHS: United Nations Ce...
DECLARATION This is to declare that the Thesis report titled “Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation- A Case of Delhi”...
School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi                                 (Deemed to be a University)                ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis thesis would not have been possible without the constant interactive supportsystem forged with many p...
ABSTRACTParticipatory planning is very sought after concept in the domain of planning in currentpractices. Delhi is a very...
सारसहबागगताऩणण ननमोजन भौजूदा तयीकों भें ननमोजन क ऺेत्र भें फहुत भाॊग है . ददल्री एक फहुत प्रगनतशीर शहय है         ू       ...
Dedication“This thesis is dedicated to my teachers and motivators who didn‟t accompany but their                   thought...
xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONDelhi is a large city-state with area of 1483 sq km and a population of 16.7 million wheremore than ...
the participation of the public in the plan making process so as to entertain theirgrievances and make them partner in the...
Arnstein often quoted article “Ladders of Citizen Participation” that “the idea of citizenparticipation is like eating spi...
central to local level, is regarded as vital for supporting pro-poor policies, improvedservice delivery, poverty reduction...
Now that planning and development is mostly done by a more democratic body like themunicipal corporation, the expectation ...
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONSThe scope would include studying the concept of participatory planning and its process.Study of t...
Second stage is an extended literature search. In this stage, various models to measureparticipation are looked at and a m...
CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMSHere, it becomes imperative to clearly ...
their lives. It involves people directly and actively in all stages of the management anddecision-making process” (Uganda ...
“Community participation is a process through which community groups help advancetheir interests and the greater opportuni...
"Participatory planning is the initial step in the definition of a common agenda fordevelopment by a local community and a...
other than residential and facility corridor shall be undertaken at the stage of Local AreaPlans."Local Area Planning is …...
“The bottom-up planning process involves extensive opportunities for communityparticipation, surveys, focus group convened...
Citizen participation can be viewed from the perspective of benefits to be gained andcosts to be borne. Some of the benefi...
(http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/benefits.html), the following are the mainbenefits that public participation...
Environmental issues can be addressed when valued by the public. It is important that aparty represents the interest of th...
Social, Environmental and Economic BenefitsIf the public is involved in the full decision making process, their concerns m...
2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONKurian Thomas and Ramkumar Bendapudi in their paper on participatory planning hassummar...
broadens the scope for consideration and verification of planning and projectdocuments thus, ensuring a social auditing of...
a complement to legal requirements, but cannot conflict with legal provisions in force, inparticular with ownership and us...
d) Plans should be people focused and empoweringe) Planning should start from vision and strength /opportunities not probl...
the recommended timeframe of the overall master planning for the town. Afterunderstanding the principle underlying the pub...
“It is much easier to change the behaviour of individuals when they are members of agroup than to change any one of them s...
b. Participatory planning encourages the poor to be more responsible for, involved      in and aware of their role in loca...
participation can be used as instrument for stability, educational tool for changing andmodulating attitude, supplementing...
and the sanitation team. This situation could discourage the team, and the       process could be stopped   c. In order to...
2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHESParticipatory planning processes can have many goals with a variety of communicationm...
Search-Oriented ApproachThe aim of planning as search for direction is not directly to prepare for an operationaldecision ...
Weaknesses of the technique are fewer than benefits. There is no formal powers; lackof binding decision accountability to ...
implemented. Weaknesses of the technique are that problems are defined by localauthority and only useful for problems in n...
into public opinion and helps useful input into public decision processes. Best suited toissues with options and about whi...
informed participants produces superficial discussion. Selection criteria can create biasin eliciting opinions. Limited nu...
inarticulate and perhaps disadvantaged groups. It is recommended when there is a pre-submission phase which allows the pub...
voters have equal influence. It can potentially involve all members of a local or nationalpopulation Results may not be re...
In context of urban development, we will use the tools and techniques adopted inMaster Plans and City Development Plans. T...
tried to evolve a framework for analyzing the effectiveness and extent of publicparticipation in planning process. The val...
and trained staff members to conduct participation. There should be provision forexternal consultant to monitor participat...
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

2,177

Published on

A graduate thesis on Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma from School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi

Published in: Education, Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
7 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,177
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
7
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

  1. 1. Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation A Case of Delhi Submitted By Shashikant Nishant Sharma BP/461/2008 Department of Physical Planning School of Planning and Architecture, New DelhiNew Delhi July 2012
  2. 2. CONTENTSCONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... iLIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... iiiLIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. iiiLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. ivDECLARATION .............................................................................................................................................. viCERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................................................ viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. viiiABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................... ixसाय................................................................................................................................................................. xCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 NEED FOR STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 6 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 6CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ..................................................................... 8 2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ...................................................................................... 8 2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 14 2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 18 2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................... 19 2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING .............................................................................. 20 2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING .............................................................................. 22 2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ................................................................... 25 2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHES .................................................................................. 27 2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATION ............................................................................ 28 2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC CHOICES................... 35 2.11 ADOPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 39 2.12 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 43CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING EXPERIENCES IN SELECTED PROGRAMMES............................ 44 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 44 3.2 CASE STUDY OF KERALA .............................................................................................................. 45 3.3 CASE STUDY OF NPUSV, DELHI.................................................................................................... 48 3.4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 51 i
  3. 3. 3.5 CASE STUDY OF BHAGIDARI IN DELHI ......................................................................................... 52 3.6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 54CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLAN PREPARATION IN DELHI .................................................. 56 4.1 STATUTORY PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................. 57 4.2 NON-STATUTORY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 57 4.3 CASE STUDY: OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN MASTER PLAN, DELHI .................................. 58 4.3.1 PROCESS OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTION ..................................................................... 59 4.3.2 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... 60 4.3.3 LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE OBJECTIONS/SUGGESTIONS......................................... 64 4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 66 4.4 A CASE OF OBJECTIONS/ SUGGESTIONS AND HEARING ON LANDUSE CHANGE FOR CIC .......... 68 4.4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 68 4.4.2 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 70 4.4.3 INFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 73 4.4.4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 74 4.5 CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN CDP, DELHI ....................................................... 75 4.5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 75 4.5.2 STAKEHOLDERS IN CDP ....................................................................................................... 76 4.5.3 PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................... 78 4.5.4 SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS .............................................................................................. 79 4.5.5 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...................................................................................... 82 4.5.6 MAJOR FINDING OF THE STUDY ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .................................. 84 4.5.7 INFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 85 4.6 PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING LOCAL AREA PLAN .............................................. 86 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 86 4.6.2 STATEMENT ON LAP IN DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS .............................................................. 86 4.6.3 STAGES OF PLAN PREPARATION AND SCOPE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................... 87 4.6.4 Base Maps ........................................................................................................................... 88 4.6.5 Mapping Of Secondary Data On Base Maps ....................................................................... 88 4.6.6 Draft Lap.............................................................................................................................. 88 4.6.7 Final Lap .............................................................................................................................. 89 4.7 INFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 89CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 90 5.1 INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 91 5.2 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................................... 93 ii
  4. 4. 5.3 RESOLUTION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING.................................................................................. 95 5.4 OUTCOMES AND INFLUENCES .................................................................................................... 96References .................................................................................................................................................. 97Annexure: .................................................................................................................................................. 103 LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given below ........................................................... 7Figure 2-1 Six Stages for effective Participation ......................................................................................... 36Figure 2-2 Four Stepped Analysis Technique .............................................................................................. 39Figure 3-1 Composition of proposed and actual Committees .................................................................... 50Figure 4-1 Process of Objection/Suggestions in Master Plan for Delhi ...................................................... 60Figure 4-2 Participation of various groups .................................................................................................. 61Figure 4-3 Nature of Consideration ............................................................................................................ 62Figure 4-4 Spatial Nature of the Objections and Suggestions .................................................................... 62Figure 4-5 Spatial attribute of the Objections and Suggestions ................................................................. 64Figure 4-6 Landuse Plan for Zone F and the location of CIC landuse change location ............................... 70Figure 4-7 Multi Stakeholders Consultation Mechanism in CDP, Delhi ...................................................... 76Figure 4-8 Details of the Primary Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 78Figure 4-9 Participants at CDP Workshop on 7 and 8 September 2006 ..................................................... 82Figure 4-10 Presence of Participants at the CDP Workshop ...................................................................... 82Figure 4-11 File photo of workshop on CDP, Delhi ..................................................................................... 83Figure 4-12 Stages of Local Area Plan in Delhi which is being followed ..................................................... 87Figure 5-1 Dimensions of the participation in Master Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan inDelhi ............................................................................................................................................................ 90 LIST OF TABLESTable 2-1 Comparative Tables for Various Techniques for Participation ................................................... 34Table 3-1 Major Findings of the various Case Studies ................................................................................ 55 iii
  5. 5. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSAMDA: Association of Municipalities and Development AuthoritiesB. Plan: Bachelor of PlanningBSUP: Basic Services for Urban PoorCAA: Constitutional Amendment ActCBO: Community Based OrganizationCIC: Chief Information CommissionCDP: City development PlanDDA: Delhi Development AuthorityFGD: Focus Group DiscussionGNCTD: Government of National Capital Territory of DelhiGOI: Government of IndiaIDSSMT: Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium TownsJMI: Jamia Milia IslamiaJnNNURM: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal MissionLAP: Local Area PlanMCD: Municipal Corporation of DelhiMDGs: Millennium Development GoalsMoUD: Ministry of Urban DevelopmentMPD: Master Plan of DelhiM.Plan: Master of PlanningMTA: Merchants and Traders AssociationsNCTD: National Capital Territory of DelhiNGO: Non-Government OrganisationNDMC: New Delhi Municipal CorporationNPUSV: National Policy for Urban Street VendorsPRI: Panchayati Raj InstitutionsRWAs: Residents Welfare Associations iv
  6. 6. SPA: School of Planning and ArchitectureULB: Urban Local Body like Municipality, Municipal CouncilUNCHS: United Nations Centre for Human SettlementsVCs: Vendors CommitteesZDP: Zonal Development PlanZVC: Zonal Vending Committee v
  7. 7. DECLARATION This is to declare that the Thesis report titled “Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation- A Case of Delhi” has been undertaken by the author in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning. The research work undertaken is original and authentic. Shashikant Nishant Sharma BP/461/2008 Department of Physical Planning School of Planning and Architecture, New DelhiDate: 12 July, 2012 vi
  8. 8. School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi (Deemed to be a University) CERTIFICATEThis is to certify that the Thesis titled “Participatory Planning in Practice- A Case ofDelhi” has been submitted by Shashikant Nishant Sharma in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning.RECOMMENDED BY: ACCEPTED BY:(Research Supervisor)Dr. Poonam Prakash Dr. Mayank MathurAssociate Processor and Thesis Coordinator Head of DepartmentDepartment of Physical Planning Department of Physical PlanningSchool of Planning and Architecture School of Planning and ArchitectureNew Delhi New Delhi vii
  9. 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis thesis would not have been possible without the constant interactive supportsystem forged with many people. In giving shape to the abstract ideas a form andpresenting it into writing needs a lot of interactions, deliberations and discussions withmany of the experts of the field and one who can genuinely help in streamlining theideas. I express my sincere thanks and deep gratitude to Dr. Poonam Prakash, mythesis guide and thesis coordinator and co-guide Ms Mona Chhabra Anand for theirtimely and valuable suggestions and guidance in streamlining my thesis in rightdirection from the inception to the finalization.I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Mayank Mathur (Head ofDepartment, Physical Planning), Dr. Rabidyuti Biswas and Ms Taru Jain for untiringefforts in giving feedbacks and comments, criticisms and suggestions at each and everystages of the thesis which made my work and efforts worthwhile.I am thankful to the officials of Urban Development Department of the GNCTD(Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi) specially Sri P. Minj, (ProjectOfficer of BSUP, Slums Housing, DUSIB);Sh. H.K. Bharti (Deputy Director, Master PlanDivision) Delhi Development Authority; Sri Kamal (ATP) Municipal Corporation of Delhiand various consultants (Sh. Sandeep Tyagi, Jamia Milia Islamia; Dr. Mayank Mathur,SPA; Sh. Prakash Narayan and Sh Suman Jha, Association of Municipalities andDevelopment Authorities) engaged in the preparation of Local Area Plans in Delhi.I express my thanks to my batch mates and family for their direct and indirect supportand cooperation at the crucial juncture of academic life. I extend my special thanks toBhavya Pasricha for helping in background study stuff, Sakshi Sedha for constantlyinteracting on the various aspects of the study and report during classes and ImranBasha Soudagar A.K for boosting morale.The constraint of space prohibits from mentioning the name and designations of all whohelped in one way or the other and hence they are sincerely acknowledged. (Shashikant Nishant Sharma) viii
  10. 10. ABSTRACTParticipatory planning is very sought after concept in the domain of planning in currentpractices. Delhi is a very progressive city and the city planners and administrators arevery active in adopting and implementing current best practices across the world. Thereare many practices in Delhi which is seen as a good example of participatory planningand the concerns arises when we want to replicate in other cities and towns then itbecomes imperative to look in detail the process and their allied pros and cons so that amore effective model can be adapted and adopted for implementation. For Delhi alsowe are in the process of preparation of „Local Area Plan‟ an initiative of MunicipalCorporation of Delhi to realize the provisions of Master Plan for a planned developmenttaking into account the existing ground realities. The thesis cum research project will beof great help in looking at the shortcomings of the participatory planning process andthe recommendations can give us an opportunity to strengthen the scope andeffectiveness of public participation in planning at local level. The author thinks that hisresearch work will be of some help in devising more efficient mechanism for publicparticipation and demand responsive planning by the local body of the national capital.The need of the study has arisen due to the combined effect of various factors like lackof awareness and understanding of the concept and applicability of the participatoryplanning processes. Sometimes it is called is of ad hoc nature in the practice ofparticipation that is taking place in the current scenario where people are awakening tothe need and demand for more participatory planning approach. Case studies ofdifferent practices in Participatory Planning arena viz. decentralized planning in Kerala,National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Bhagidari Scheme of Government of Delhihas showcased how the plan or scheme has been able to deliver or fail. Further, theauthor has developed a framework for analysis that will helps in judiciously consideringthe case of Participatory Planning in Delhi.The detailed analysis of the Participatory Planning mechanism used in the cases ofMaster Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan preparation in Delhi gives thepros and cons of public participation and the loopholes in the planning processes. Here,author feels he will be in a position to understand the virtues and shortcomings of thedifferent participatory practices and how they can be beneficially adopted and adaptedfor the preparation of Local Area Plan in a more effective participatory manner.Finally, author tries to evolve a realistic and implementable framework for effectivepublic participation in Local Area Planning which is undergoing its final stages. Hisinteractions with many consultants and planners engaged in this project can also be putforward for better comprehensibility and feasibility of the framework. ix
  11. 11. सारसहबागगताऩणण ननमोजन भौजूदा तयीकों भें ननमोजन क ऺेत्र भें फहुत भाॊग है . ददल्री एक फहुत प्रगनतशीर शहय है ू ेऔय शहय ननमोजकों औय प्रशासकों दननमा बय क भौजूदा सर्वोत्तभ प्रथाओॊ को रागू कयने भें फहुत सक्रिम हैं. ु ेददल्री भें कई प्रथाओॊ जो सहबागगताऩणण ननमोजन का एक अच्छा उदाहयण क रूऩ भें दे खा जा सकता है औय ू ेसभस्मा उठता है जफ हभ अन्म शहयों औय कस्फों भें दोहयाने क लरए सोचते है तो मह जरूयी हो जाता है की इस ेप्रक्रिमा को वर्वस्ताय से दे ख जामे औय उनक सॊफद्ध ऩेशर्वयों की सराह री जामे ताक्रक एक अगधक प्रबार्वी भॉडर े ेअनकलरत क्रकमा जा सक औय रागू कयने क मोग्म फनामा जा सक. ु ू े े ेददल्री भें बी ,जभीनी र्वास्तवर्वकताओॊ को ध्मान भें यखते हुए औय भास्टय प्रान क प्रार्वधानों को रागकय े ुमोजनाफद्ध तयीक से कयने क लरए ददल्री नगय ननगभ ने स्थानीम वर्वकास मोजना फनाने क प्रक्रिमा भें े े ेहै . मह शोधऩत्र सहबागगताऩणण जोजन की खालभमेओॊ को ये खाॊक्रकत कयने औय उनक तदऩयाॊत सझार्व हभें ू े ु ुस्थानीम स्टाय ऩय मोजना क प्रबार्वशीरता को भजफत कयने का अर्वसय प्रदान कय सकती है . रेखक का े ूभानना है क्रक शोध कामण याष्ट्रीम याजधानी क स्थानीम ननकाम द्र्वाया उत्तयदामी ननमोजन की भाॊग को ऩया कयने े ूभें अहभ बलभका ननबाएगी . अध्ममन की जरूयत सहबागगताऩणण ननमोजन प्रक्रिमा की अर्वधायणा औय ू ूप्रमोज्मता की अच्छी सभझ की कभी जैसे वर्वलबन्न कायकों क सॊमक्त प्रबार्व क कायण उत्ऩन्न हो गई है . कबी े ु ेकबी मह कहा जाता है की बागीदारयताऩणण मोजना फनाने की भाॊग को नाभ क लरए ही क्रकमा जाता है ऩय ू ेआजकर रोग सहबागगताऩणण मोजना क प्रनत जागरूक हो यहे है . ू ेबागीदारयताऩणण मोजना क वर्वलबन्न प्रथाओॊ क अध्ममन जैसे क्रक कयर भें वर्वकन्रीकृत ननमोजन, शहयी गरी ू े े े ेवर्विताओॊ औय ददल्री सयकाय की बागीदायी मोजना क क अध्ममन से सपरता औय वर्वपरता का आकरन े े ेक्रकमा जा सकगाइसक लरए रेखक ने एक प्रारूऩ तैमाय क्रकमा है लजसक आधाय . ऩे इनका भल्माॊकन े े े ूक्रकमा जा सकगा. भास्टय प्रानशहयी वर्वकास मोजना औय स्थाननम ऺेत्र मोजना क वर्वस्तत वर्वारेवण से , े े ृ..सभझने भे होगी मोजना क तयीको भें ननदहत आच्छाइमों औय खालभमों को भददगाय साजफत महाॉ, रेखक ेवर्वलबन्न बागीदायी प्रथाओॊ की आच्छाइमों औय कलभमों का अध्मन कयक उनक आच्छाइमों को अऩनामा जा े ेसकने मोग्म औय अगधक प्रबार्वीशारी औय अनकलरत कयने का प्रमास क्रकमा जा सकगा . ु ू ेअॊत भें , रेखक जो अऩने अॊनतभ चयणों क दौय से गजय यहे स्थानीम ऺेत्र मोजना भें प्रबार्वी सार्वणजननक बागीदायी क े ु ेलरए मथाथणर्वादी औय कामाणन्र्वमन मोग्म ढाॊचा तैमाय कयने की कोलशश कये गा. कई सराहकाय औय इसऩरयमोजना भें रगे हुए मोजनाकायों से भशर्वया कयक मोजना प्रारूऩ को औय बी मथाथणर्वादी औय कामाणन्र्वमन ेमोग्म फनामा जा सकगा . े x
  12. 12. Dedication“This thesis is dedicated to my teachers and motivators who didn‟t accompany but their thoughts will always guide in my future endevours.” “Think Global, Plan Local, Be Rational in Outlook and Approach” xi
  13. 13. xii
  14. 14. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIONDelhi is a large city-state with area of 1483 sq km and a population of 16.7 million wheremore than two third of its area as urban. Rest of the area is fast urbanizing. For a citylike this the planning process is challenging and magnitude of problems is enormous. Itshould be noted that Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated projects of preparation of„Local Area Plan‟ for 36 wards through various planning consultants to address planningissues and problems on identifying the ground realities. Development in Delhi is guidedby the Master Plan 2021 and various Zonal Development Plans. The increase in urbanpopulation as a whole and increased migration to Delhi has led to a number of planningand development issues as land are a scarce resource in Delhi bounded by other stateshaving their own development controls and guidelines. In order to counter the ill-effectsof urban problem diagnosis and rational planning model, the planners and policymakers of Delhi started to engage public in various states of planning and planimplementation in various forms and degrees. The engagement of public in planninghas stated long back in 1962 when the first Master Plan for Delhi was prepared. Evenafter 50 years of planning for people the planners and policy makers thought forevolving planning with people approach in planning and this culminated in Delhi in theform of concept of Local Area Plan. In 2005, pilot project for the preparation of LocalArea Plan got initiated and got completed and the result was not satisfactory and againin 2010 pilot project for the preparation of Local Area Plan started and by 2012 it gotcompleted. It should be noted that Delhi is one of the Indian city to have a Master Planand Zonal Plans for guiding and controlling the urban growth and development. Theneed of the people and demand for the development goes hand in hand and this lead to 1
  15. 15. the participation of the public in the plan making process so as to entertain theirgrievances and make them partner in the development.Public participation can be materialized only when the public is capable enough toexpress his views and empowered to participate in the working of the local governanceand this was envisaged by the policy planners long ago. In this direction, the enactmentof 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution is noteworthy. The amendments weremade to ensure decentralization of planning, planning at local level initiated to empowerlocal people to take action and participate in various stages of plan preparation and planimplementation. This very act led to the planning and development by local bodies bythemselves.Planning at lower level cannot be comprehensible before knowing about thedecentralization. Decentralization can be perceived as a process of devolution of power,responsibilities, functions and finances to the local bodies. The primary objective ofdecentralization programs is to improve resource allocation and service delivery bybringing decision making process closer to the citizens. Participatory planning is part ofthe decentralisation process and it aims to identify the critical problems, joint priorities,and adoption of various socio‐economic development strategies for the developmentand welfare of the community. As stated by Olthelen (1999), participatory planning isthe initial step in the definition of a common agenda for development by a localcommunity and an external entity or entities. Over the period, this initial step is expectedto evolve for the parties concerned towards a self‐sustaining development planningprocess at the local level. The great authors have presented their views on the need forgreater public participation and the nature of such participation for optimal utilization ofthe aspirations and the expertise of the local people for whom planning is being carriedon. 2
  16. 16. Arnstein often quoted article “Ladders of Citizen Participation” that “the idea of citizenparticipation is like eating spinach: no one is against it as it is good for you”. Butquestion arises whether citizen participation is serving some purpose or it is just forcustom in planning exercise. There is considerable confusion about what looks like inpractice, and little consensus about what exactly citizen participation is supposed to beaccomplish (Day, 1997). Kweit and Kweit (1981) assert this confusion is mirrored in theattempts empirically evaluate citizen participation programs. Furthermore, Catanese(1984) states that the problem with the public participation is that, it is difficult to knowhow to carry it out effectively because there are no specific goals. But I will take publicparticipation in one field say Urban Planning they it might be somewhat easy to devisesome mechanism for assessing the public participation.Participatory planning involves conducting planning with the involvement of a number ofpeople. These people can be a whole range of different stakeholders, and it obviouslydepends on the nature of the thing we are trying to develop or refine, and the context asto who should be involved. The role of the consultant in this process is that of facilitatorand coach. There is a general consensus for increasing public participation in theprocess of planning and development and this has been substantiated time and againby a number of national and international policy making bodies. In this regards we cansee the provisions of the Indian Constitution and United Nations sponsored MillenniumDevelopment Goals.Citizen participation is a part of our constitutional provisions and democratic heritage.People should share in decisions affecting their destinies. People participation, involvingthe constituents in the politico-administrative and planning processes, means theirneeds and aspirations are heard and mainstreamed in the development agenda.Empowerment of citizens and their involvement in the decision-making processes, from 3
  17. 17. central to local level, is regarded as vital for supporting pro-poor policies, improvedservice delivery, poverty reduction, and the attainment of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs).The participatory role of civil society groups with government and planning agencies hasevolved over recent years. Citizens groups, Community based organizations (CBOs)and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become active participants innational and local development planning activities and the implementation, monitoringand evaluation of policies, programs, and projects. People participation should starts atthe grassroots level and should work in harmony for fostering needs-based localplanning activities.1.1 NEED FOR STUDYThere has been increasing demand and need for greater public participation in planningprocesses as discussed in the introduction i.e., devolution of power and finance to localbodies. Delhi Development Authority Act also emphasizes the need for greater publicparticipation. The civil society is getting active and people are willing to participate in theplanning process. The problem arises when we try to implement the public participationin the planning process. The limited understanding of the scope and viability of thepublic participation in the government officials hinders the smooth execution of theparticipatory planning.The current practices of public participation seem more or less customary or ad hoc innature. Public participation seems to be done to fulfill the bare requirement of the planand it is not used and implemented in true spirit of term. There seems to be someresistance by official for sharing information and power of planning with the generalpublic. 4
  18. 18. Now that planning and development is mostly done by a more democratic body like themunicipal corporation, the expectation for greater public engagement has raised. Theoutcome of democratic process at the various levels has made the general public awareof their rights and duties and they want to be a part of the development process which isevident from the greater turn out of citizen for voting and filing objections/suggestionagainst the development which they think is not conducive to them or the environment.The need of time and public must be taken into account for effective planning anddevelopment.1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDYLocal Area Plan is a project first time undertaken by a big Urban Municipal Corporationlike Delhi and its success and failure will be reflected in many ways. This will set anexample for other local bodies to initiate the local level planning. The public participationand involvement in the plan preparation becomes crucial to understand. The objectivesof the study are as follows: To understand the operationalization of Participatory planning. To assess current status of participatory planning in Delhi To identify issues related to participatory planning in context of Local Area Plan Preparation in Delhi To suggest the recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of Local Area Planning. 5
  19. 19. 1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONSThe scope would include studying the concept of participatory planning and its process.Study of the concept of participatory planning and participatory frameworks forassessing the public participation will be undertaken. Its applicability in our Local AreaPlan preparation is another thrust of the research. The general perception that publicparticipation is not up to mark, in the Local Area Plan preparation going on in Delhi, willalso be assessed. The research will finally come out with some concrete framework foreffective public participation in the planning process for LAP.This is an academic study and there is natural constraint of time and resources. Theconcepts studied are from western countries and case studies are from India thus, thereis natural variation in their applicability. The study is limited to case studies of urbanareas of Delhi. The data analyzed are mostly from secondary sources. Local Area PlanPreparation in still going on and thus limits its study in terms of outcome and influencesof participation.1.4 METHODOLOGYFor the research on the above mentioned topic, more or less the prevalent process willbe adopted. The entire study is divided into four stages. The first stage comprises ofestablishment of need of study and development of objectives. In this stage, literature isstudied to understand the concept of participatory planning- its need and its processes.Some case studies are looked at for their participation process, structure responsible forparticipation and factors responsible for participation. This literature review fulfills thefirst objective. 6
  20. 20. Second stage is an extended literature search. In this stage, various models to measureparticipation are looked at and a model to measure participation in the study is devisedthus fulfilling the second objective.In the third stage, a case study is chosen to apply the model devised in the earlierstage. Data from various sources and interactions with people and agencies involved inplan preparation various processes.Final stage gives recommendations for achieving effective participation in local-levelplanning based on the issues arising in the previous stage.Figure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given belowSource: Author, 2012 7
  21. 21. CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMSHere, it becomes imperative to clearly understand the different terms used to indicatesome form of participation of the public and their differences so as to use them in aproper context wherever it is used. The following paragraphs attempts to distinguishbetween commonly used terms in order to arrive at the appropriate term for the purposeof the study of participatory planning process in plan making.Public participation may be defined as "It is distribution of powers which enables thehave-not citizens presently excluded from political and economic processes to bedeliberately included in the future. It is a strategy by which the have-nots join indetermining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources areallocated, programs are operated and benefits like contracts and patronage areparceled out. In short, it means by which they can induce significant social reformswhich enables them share the benefits of the affluent society" (Arnstein, 1969). Here theauthor has stressed on the redistribution of power as participation enabling process.Now let‟s see some more definitions by some other authors and agencies."Participation is an active process by which beneficiary/ client group influence thedirection, execution of a developmental project in a view of enhancing their well-being interms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or any other value they cherish" (WorldBank, 1987). Here, participation leads to influencing the decision making process.“Empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather thanpassive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions and control the acts that affect 8
  22. 22. their lives. It involves people directly and actively in all stages of the management anddecision-making process” (Uganda Project Team, 2007). Here, empowerment of thepublic is sought after for making public efficient in taking decision and controlling theacts that affect them more often directly.“Participation is the process through which stakeholders influence and share controlover priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods andservices” (World Bank, 2000). Here, participation means taking a shared responsibilityfor controlling and influencing policy making which leads to proper resource allocationand access to serves.“Participation is a voluntary act that occurs when people become conscious of the valueof participatory action and deem it desirable to become involved in the different activitiesundertaken in participatory project or initiative” (Wiesenfeld and Sanchez, 2002). Here,authors feel that participation is a voluntary action and depends on them to decide towhat extent they should participate in the development initiatives.The term community participation had been in use for a long time and this refers to alimited number of participants ensuring efficiency of participation. Here, we will explorethe views of some of the authors and World Bank on the term community participation."Community participation as the process by which individuals, families and communitiesassume responsibility for their own welfare and develop capacity to contribute to theirown and communitys development" (Oakley and Marsden, 1984). Here, differentindividuals or groups on their own resume responsibility for the development of capacityand finally contributing to the development of the community as a whole. 9
  23. 23. “Community participation is a process through which community groups help advancetheir interests and the greater opportunity for it the greater the chance of makingimprovements in living condition” (Sandhu, 2005). Here, the author talks of a practicalapproach to the development initiated and advanced by the community themselves.“Community participation is a process through which stakeholder‟s influence and sharecontrol over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them”(World Bank, 2000). World banks talks of the sharing of the control over thedevelopment initiatives and decision making by the way of the involvement of thestakeholders.Participatory planning has been in practice for a long time in the field of the urbanplanning. There have been a number of interpretations of the same term by differentauthors and organization/authorities involved in policy framing. Here, we will explore thedifferent connotations of the term participatory planning as professed by variousauthors."Participatory planning is a set of processes through which diverse groups and interestsengage together in reaching for a consensus on a plan and its implementation" (RTPI,2001). The Royal Town Planning Institute of London sees participatory planning a set ofprocesses for consensus building.Collaborative planning is a method designed to empower stakeholders by elevatingthem to the level of decision-makers through direct engagement and dialogue betweenstakeholders and public agencies, to solicit ideas, active involvement, and participationin the community planning process (Innes, Judith, Booher and David, 2000). Modifiedform of the participatory planning is collaborative planning and it stresses on theengagement of various stakeholders for reaching at consensus. 10
  24. 24. "Participatory planning is the initial step in the definition of a common agenda fordevelopment by a local community and an external entity or entities" (Olthelen, 1999). Inthe article on Participatory Approaches to planning for Community Forestry, authordefines participatory planning as initial steps for deciding common agenda for thedevelopment.“Participatory Planning depends not on some virtuous „good planners‟ but on struggleand hard work, insight and imagination, moral sensitivity and political perception too”(John Forester, 1999). Here, authors feel that there is something more than the thinkingof virtuous planners which leads to the practice of participatory planning.Participatory planning can be defined as joint actions of local people and professionalswith the objective of formulating development plans and selecting the best availablealternatives for their implementation of the plan for the development of the communityand society at large.Participation of the citizen is enabled by the social and political system of the countryand the local bodies which are primary players of the game of the development. In thisregards the concept of the local self-governance becomes a ray of hope.“Local self-government is essentially the empowerment of the people by giving them notonly the voice, but the power of choice as well, in order to shape the development theyfeel is appropriate to their situation. It implies maximum decentralization of powers tothe elected bodies to function as autonomous units with adequate power, authority andresources to discharge the basic responsibility of bringing about „economic developmentand social justice” (Sen Committee, 2001).In 2007, the term Local Area Plans was included in the MPD – 2021 stating it as a planfor ward/sub-zone. Zonal Plans also stated in their preamble that indication of uses 11
  25. 25. other than residential and facility corridor shall be undertaken at the stage of Local AreaPlans."Local Area Planning is … for addressing the unplanned and illegal urban development… By combining neighbourhood-level data with stakeholder participation … to reformDelhi‟s entire building byelaw system including procedural, planning and buildingperformance components” (USAID, 2009).“Local area plan is by definition a plan based on the local needs and characteristics.Thus, it requires framing area specific objectives” (MCD, 2005)."Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone to be prepared by the concernedbody” (Review of Draft MPD, 2007)."Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone of existing built up areas whereredevelopment/ renewal/ rejuvenation etc. are to be done with public participation toachieve the ultimate goal of planned development at the macro level” (DDA, 2008).From the above definitions of the local area plan it becomes clear that it is a local levelplanning by local urban bodies in a participatory manner. It has always been theresponsibility of top managers who prepare project proposals and plan interventions tothe stage of implementation, without consulting those whose very lives are to beaffected by such projects. As a result, such plans are usually considereddonor/government driven and hence the intended beneficiaries do not take fullresponsibility for the process and outcome. The communities do not feel part of theprocess, which leads to limited sustainability after the expiry of such projects orinterventions. 12
  26. 26. “The bottom-up planning process involves extensive opportunities for communityparticipation, surveys, focus group convened at neighbourhood level, active interest ofcity‟s youth, public hearings and public awareness campaign” (Wheler and Beatley,2004). Bottom up planning is a methodology that seeks to involve communities in theplanning process right from the inception of the project idea, risk assessment, andthrough proposal development to project implementation. Strategic planning is long termplanning. Closely related to the overall goals of the response and focusing on policypriorities. This concept of planning, given the fact that resources are scarce, requiresthat its priorities and objectives yield maximum benefit and impact.It is assumed that citizen participation is a desired and necessary part of participatoryplanning mechanism. As Spiegel (1968) noted, "Citizen Participation is the process thatcan meaningfully tie programs to people.” In time, many of the urban settlements beganto grow and expand, both numerically and economically. This made it increasinglydifficult for every citizen to actively participate in all community decisions. To fill this voidin the decision making process, people began to delegate their involvement to arepresentative, either directly or through a community group. Examples of thisdelegation were seen in the establishment of our system of selecting officials by publicelections, and the increase of volunteer associations and organizations. In spite of thefact that direct citizen participation has declined, ample opportunities for citizens to getinvolved in their communitys destiny. Let‟s understand: a) The importance of participation. b) The conditions under which citizens will participate c) The approaches to involving citizens in community improvement programs and projects. 13
  27. 27. Citizen participation can be viewed from the perspective of benefits to be gained andcosts to be borne. Some of the benefits that participation can provide are as follows: a. The citizen can bring about desired change by expressing ones desire, either individually or through a community group. b. The individual learns how to make desired changes. c. The citizen learns to understand and appreciate the individual needs and interests of all community groups. d. The citizen learns how to resolve conflicting interests for the general welfare of the group. e. The individual begins to understand group dynamics as it applies to mixed groups.Additional reasons could be cited to emphasize why citizens should participate incommunity decisions. However, the case is rested with these. In summary, decisionmaking that is delegated by others will not always be in the best interest of an individualand his or her neighbors. Community betterment is a product of citizen involvement.2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONThe benefits of public participation are many and it is not easy to categorise them. It isimportant to note that public participation suggests direct involvement of the public andtakes place, preferably, in an open discussion with decision makers. The author hastried to categorise some of the important benefits of public participation under variousthemes development, management, conflict resolution etc. after studying extensively. Ingeneral, a number of benefits can be listed which are given below for easyunderstandability of the pervasive impact of public participation in the plan making andplan implementation processes. According to an online source on public participation 14
  28. 28. (http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/benefits.html), the following are the mainbenefits that public participation can help in achieving if conducted in an effectivemanner.Sustainable DevelopmentThe Aarhus Convention (under United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligationsregarding access to information and public participation and access to justice(http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/boxes/sustainability.html).Sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of allstakeholders in an effective manner. Ultimately the users have a greater say in thedevelopment than a policy framer.Environmental ProtectionPrinciple 10 of the RIO DECLARATION recommended public participation to handleenvironmental issues:“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens,on a relevant level. On a national level, each individual should have appropriate accessto information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, includinginformation on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and theopportunity to participate in decision making processes. States should facilitate andencourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress andremedy, should be provided” (UNESCO, 1992). 15
  29. 29. Environmental issues can be addressed when valued by the public. It is important that aparty represents the interest of the environment in the public debate.Conflict ManagementAlthough conflicts cannot be avoided, they are made explicit in the public participationdebate and resolved through the process of dialogue and consultation with groups withconflicting interests. The statement of the World Bank Technical Paper 139-Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, are given below:"The purpose of taking the views of effected people into account is to improve projectviability. The Bank has found that where such views have been incorporated in thedesign, the projects are more likely to be successful. The Bank has not foundcommunity participation to be an impediment to project execution. On the contrary,projects in which effected peoples views have been excluded, suffers from morefrequent delays and poorer quality" (World Bank, 1992).Project Understanding and Reduction of Public OppositionThe better understanding of the benefits of the project can surely minimize theopposition by the local people. Very often the policy making and planning is done byexpert outside the local community which is a source of distrust and to overcome this,there is need for public consultation.“Public consultation, participation and involvement in the early stages of the project canprevent the dissemination of rumours and the rise of negative perceptions which arevery difficult to change once they take root” ((http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/boxes/sustainability.html). 16
  30. 30. Social, Environmental and Economic BenefitsIf the public is involved in the full decision making process, their concerns may be metearly on in the planning process when changes may be easier to make, rather than latein the process when even small changes may cost both time and money. This ispossible in a participatory planning making process. Local people need to be madeaware of the economic, social and environmental benefits of the project or programme.Effective Use of the Available DataAccording to Budd (1999), public participation and consultation is an opportunity tosolicit the "hidden" knowledge of the wider community and their key concerns. This ispossible in an environment of public participation and consultation in plan makingprocess. Local people are more aware about the planning and development issues andthey might have some form of indigenous problem solving skills which can be betterharnessed in a participatory planning process.Other BenefitsEffective community consultation, early on in the project cycle, creates ownership(shared responsibility, involvement) for the project. It provides the opportunity toaccurately convey the implications of a proposal to all interested parties, thus enhancingpolitical credibility. Additionally, it is a mean to ensure full mitigation of significantimpacts, including due consideration of possible alternatives (Budd, 1999).Acceptance of the public as a valued partner in the participatory process can inspire theco-operation between citizens, their government, and industries that is crucial to thesuccess of planning. The benefits of public participation are both for short term and longterm planning and development. Skill learnt in one programme or project can be utilizedin other developmental works either initiated by the government or themselves. 17
  31. 31. 2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONKurian Thomas and Ramkumar Bendapudi in their paper on participatory planning hassummarized the purpose of participatory planning as follow:(1) Identification of the felt needs of the people(2) Bringing forth consensus(3) The empowerment of local disadvantaged groups(4) Integration of local knowledge systems into project design(5) Two‐way learning process between the project and local people(6) Political commitment and support(7) Accountability in local governancePublic participation serves various purposes in planning and coordination the combinedefforts of a number of stakeholders. It plays an important role in increasing awarenessand mutual recognition of interests of different stakeholders and reaching at consensusafter meetings and deliberations. It further helps in gathering information and enhancingknowledge base of the community and experts. It has been found that increased publicparticipation leads to improved provision of goods and services to the community. Itstimulates involvement in decision making and in implementation processes of variousplans and projects. It leads to enhanced acceptance of policies, plans and operationsundertaken by experts and planners. It enhances the transparency and accountability indecision making process which used to be solely in the hand of experts. Participationhelps in better identification and management of conflicts and resolution of issues andproblems in a fair and equitable manner. Increased participation of the citizens 18
  32. 32. broadens the scope for consideration and verification of planning and projectdocuments thus, ensuring a social auditing of the development projects. Participation ofthe public serves a noble goal of education public about the development and makingthem capable to participate general in planning processes and further strengthening theroots of democratic values in the general public. Public participation can ensure legalprotection for the experts from the government if it violates some planning provisionsand serves the greater interest of the public. The most important purpose that theparticipation of the public serves is that it ensures greater acceptance of planningprojects and ease of their implementation.The nature and purposes of public participation cannot be wholly disregarded, however,even when thinking more about methodology and mechanics than about its politicalsignificance, because the purpose of public participation has a direct influence on itspractice (Acland, 2009).2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPublic participation has diverse nature and the diversity of its nature and interpretabilityhas made it popular for the policy planners and authors alike. Public participation is aninclusive rather than exclusive process as more and more stakeholders are involvedwhere only a few planners used to make plan for the multitude of population.Moreover, a number of studies have determined that the majority of those who chooseto attend hearings actually represent organized interests with significant economicstakes in the outcome (Fiorino, 1990). Although public participation is voluntary butoften is guided by the motives of the interest groups except where a legal requirementspecifies otherwise for the initiation of the process and to the implementation. It may be 19
  33. 33. a complement to legal requirements, but cannot conflict with legal provisions in force, inparticular with ownership and user rights.As Kenney (1999:498) expresses: “While local governments and stakeholders are oftentangentially involved in these programs through mandatory public participationprocesses, many of the most salient regulatory programs channel decisions almostexclusively through federal agencies and, eventually, through federal courts where theinfluence of national interest groups is paramount.”It is fair and transparent to all participants and follows agreed basic rules applicable toall. It is based on participants acting in good faith for the betterment of the community atlarge. It does not guarantee or predetermine what the outcome will be as it involves agreat degree of consensus building and persuasion to common agenda. Afterunderstanding the nature and forms of the public participation, now let‟s look at thebasic benefits associated with public participation process and exercise.2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGThe principle underlying participatory planning has been explored over time and here,we will discuss them in brief. According to the Parish/Ward Planning Manual of Ugandathe key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based oninclude:a) Inclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process andpromote gender equityb) Plans need to be realistic and the planning process must be for projects which can beimplemented using available resourcesc) Planning should not be a one-off exercise, but a continuous process 20
  34. 34. d) Plans should be people focused and empoweringe) Planning should start from vision and strength /opportunities not problemsf) Plans should be comprehensive covering all sectors (holistic) and integratedg) Planning should promote mutual accountability between community and publicofficersh) Plans should be flexible, simple and learning orientedi) The scheduling of planning activities at the lower local council levels should put intoconsideration the recommended timeframe of the overall planning.The key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based oninclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process andpromote gender equity in sharing of the benefits of planning and development. Plansneed to be realistic for involving public and the planning process must be for projectswhich can be implemented using available resources and augmented by the localexpertise. Planning is a continuous process and thus for a fruitful result participationstarts. Participation of public will be greater if the plans are people focused andempowering in nature. Planning starts from vision and strength /opportunities of an areaand them it tries to sort out the threats and weaknesses through the use of expertiseand participation of the users. Plans that are comprehensive covering all sectors andintegrated entails more public participation as people view this as an opportunity fortheir redemption. Planning which promote mutual accountability between communityand public officers leads to increased participation of the stakeholders. Publicparticipation is feasible where plans are flexible, simple and learning oriented. Thescheduling of planning activities at the lower local levels should put into consideration 21
  35. 35. the recommended timeframe of the overall master planning for the town. Afterunderstanding the principle underlying the public participation, it would be fruitful to seehow planners and policy makers have used public participation in different forms likeplanning with people approach.2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGCitizen participation is widely viewed as a key component in the planning process, and,for the most part, planners accept the notion that participation is important to producingenduring plans. Almost, all people agree that public participation is good but to whatextent and how we can ensure that the participation taking place should be in good faithof the people and this very responsibility lies on the shoulders of a competent planner.Participation mandates created and proposed by a competent planner and policy makerdo affect local government attention to citizen involvement. Administrators needguidance for crafting citizen involvement requirements that will result in broad publicparticipation in planning. Over time, the planners also stressed the need for betterrepresentation of the interests of disadvantaged and powerless groups in governmentaldecision making. As stated by Diane Day (1997) collective decisions are more easilyaccepted by the individuals, and a sense of belonging in the community will be fostered.Burke (1968) asserts that citizen participants are sources of information and collectivewisdom, the probability of public interests being served is achieved through publicparticipation.“The act of participation is held to be a form of citizen training, in which citizens workingtogether to solve community problems not only learn how democracy works but alsolearn to value and appreciate cooperation as a problem solving methods” (Burke, 1968). 22
  36. 36. “It is much easier to change the behaviour of individuals when they are members of agroup than to change any one of them separately. Secondly, individuals and groupsresist decisions which are imposed upon them. They are more likely to support adecision and, equally important, more likely to assist in carrying it out if they have had apart in discovering the need for change and if they share in decision making process”(Burke, 1968). Thus, public participation can act as a behavioral change mechanism forinclusion of public in decision making.Public participation can be an effective tool in supplementing the workforce in planmaking and plan implementation process. There are many experts in an area and theirknowledge and energy can be tapped efficiently if public involvement is carried outrationally and judiciously.Cooption as a technique in public participation will help in harnessing the existing citizengroups for sanctioning the planning goals and objectives through absorbing newelement or potential obstructions in decision making process.It can be seen that many strategy for public participation can be tried to ensure effectiveand increased participation. There might be a need for adapting the various prevalentstrategies according to the demand of the situation or the working environment.Some of the benefits of the public participation can be enumerated as follows: a. It can enhance the quality of planning by creating processes that are more democratic and equitable. The poor often have little, if any, voice in government decisions. Consultation and dialogue between local government and interest groups representing the poor can give the latter more voice and influence over decisions. 23
  37. 37. b. Participatory planning encourages the poor to be more responsible for, involved in and aware of their role in local governance. It can help reduce potential conflict and build local people‟s feeling of ownership in the government‟s plan. c. Participatory planning can result in programmes that are better and more efficient. By consulting the poor and giving voice to their concerns and needs, the resulting actions are more likely to be relevant and appropriate to the conditions they face. For instance, simply consulting people about their daily schedules can help government provide services at times when people are likely to make best use of them. d. Participatory planning can increase the transparency of governmental decision making. This allows citizens to understand how and why the local government is making certain decisions. It is also a way of holding government members accountable for what they planned to do. It can improve mutual understanding and trust between the poor and local government. e. User involvement raises awareness and is particularly important to enable an “informed choice”, and for the proper operation of on-site systems, as neglecting their needs and preferences can result in the non-use of the system with users reverting to open defecation. f. Working with a participatory planning approach improves motivation, learning and self-realization, feelings of ownership and self-esteem, and the possibility that the identified problems and solutions will truly reflect the felt needs of the stakeholders.Citizens can be used as instrument for the attainment of specific end of developmentand in other we can say that public participation can be an strategy for mobilizing thegovernment in framing or sanctioning development projects. Sometimes, public 24
  38. 38. participation can be used as instrument for stability, educational tool for changing andmodulating attitude, supplementing staff, cooperation for development.After having gone through the various benefits and the rationale for enhanced publicparticipation in planning process, it will be wise to study some of the negative aspects ofthe participatory planning process from the next section.2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNINGEven those who are most sympathetic towards participatory planning have pointed outsome shortcomings of the process. High degree of citizen mobilization will heightenpolitical conflicts rather than consensus (Grant, 1994).As stated by Day (1997) there is the problem that the outcomes of participatoryprocesses will not truly reflect the aggregate of citizen preferences as few people takethe advantages of the opportunities for participation that do exist. Also Grant (1994)explains that participation is a luxury in modern societies because it requires skills,resources, money and, time that many citizen do not have. People tend to becomeinvolved in planning issues only when they perceive that the issue is in their immediateand tangible interest (Catanese et al, 1984). Sometimes, objectives of participation arethose of experts and being possessive of their ideas often planners and policy makersare unwilling to admit nonprofessional interference in decision making. Some of theshortcomings of the participatory planning can be enlisted as follows: a. The participative approach has not been yet validated in real case studies, therefore its actual application is still unknown b. To start each of the steps, a set of technical and non-technical requirements need to be met, which in many cases might not be in the hands of the planner 25
  39. 39. and the sanitation team. This situation could discourage the team, and the process could be stopped c. In order to carry out such a process, it is necessary to train the community workers in participatory techniques d. To carry out a participatory decision making process, it is necessary to continuously involve the stakeholders and organize meetings for discussion. This will need the availability of sufficient funds and time e. There is the risk of concentrating the decision making process only on those stakeholders who have a technical background (such as sanitation experts) and the authorities, leaving the end users out of the processThus, we can see that participatory process is not a fool proof mechanism for planning.It can be seen that the need of public participation arises due to two main reasons so faras I can perceive and they are either the plan/planning is inadequate to serve thepurpose of the general public or we want to share responsibility or to counter thebureaucracy and political stalemate. This also reflects that planners‟ expertise in interestarticulations fails and then the need for greater participation arises. In society, thereexist far greater differences than assumed equality of resources, access to information,capacity to articulate and present issues, capacity to organize into groups that forms theconceptual foundation upon which participatory methods and processes are built(Beatley, 1994 et al). Participation is often skewed in the interest of the influentialclasses or some powerful groups active in decision making. If few groups participatethen it is sure to get skewed plans and if many groups participate then it becomeunmanageable and sometimes it take a lot of time in arriving at consensus or commonagenda. 26
  40. 40. 2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHESParticipatory planning processes can have many goals with a variety of communicationmodes, as well as the decision- making actions taken by stakeholders during such aprocess. Parties involved in a planning process have their own goals based on political,cultural and economic factors that are relevant for them. The overall challenge is todefine how to support these processes. One approach to tackle this challenge is tomake a careful definition of the needs of the intended audience. These needs can beroughly divided into three main orientations that are described below (Geertman, 1996,Wachowicz, 2002).Decision-Oriented ApproachThe central paradigm in this approach is that planning is a process of choice in asituation of uncertainty. This uncertainty is present in the knowledge of the planningenvironment. In this case, one is not sure about the physical and socio-economicstructure of the environment and its response upon the actions of actors. The goal ofplanning is mainly to inform actors about future decision- making and make futureoperational decisions interpretableAction-Oriented ApproachIn this approach, planning is defined as the result of actions between actors, which arepart of the socio-spatial system. Their actions need to be compliant to and embedded inthe society. Decisions are based upon interactions among actors. This means that thefocus of planning is not per se on a critical evaluation of the spatial organization itself,but on the analysis of the intentional actions and knowledge of the actors involved inplanning. 27
  41. 41. Search-Oriented ApproachThe aim of planning as search for direction is not directly to prepare for an operationaldecision given a well-defined problem, but to reveal alternatives and new solutionsoutside the direct scope of the observed problems. It is meant for actors to learn andbecome wiser (Kleefmann, 1984).2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATIONThe following paragraphs will discuss some of the prevalent tools and techniques usedin the participatory planning process being undertaken by various authorities across theworld. Public participation has a vast theoretical and practical tools and techniques.Let‟s look at some of the tools and techniques for public participation discussed in thedocument of (European Union Water Directors‟ Meeting, 2002).Citizens Jury/ Citizen Advisory CommitteeGroup of 12-20 randomly selected citizens, gathered in such a way as to represent amicrocosm of their community, who meet over several days to deliberate on a policyquestions. They are informed about the issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-examine them. They then discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach a decisionthrough consensus.Strengths of this technique are many It creates informed, active, engaged citizenry andpromotes common good as a societal objective. It promotes self-transformation anddevelopment and provides opportunities to introduce new perspectives and challengeexisting ones. It helps in consensus building and promotes communication betweengovernments and governed. It also brings legitimacy and democratic control to non-elected public bodies 28
  42. 42. Weaknesses of the technique are fewer than benefits. There is no formal powers; lackof binding decision accountability to act upon decision /recommendation. It is exclusive -only a few individuals participate. Potential problems lie in initial stages of preparation(i.e., jury selection, agenda setting, witness selection) - these have to do withrepresentation (who participates?) responsiveness (what jury is asked to do); andinformation transfer (how jury is informed?)The technique can be recommended for use when sponsoring organization are clearabout what issues it wants to address, how much it can spend on process, and whetherit can follow through on the advice. It is better for focused questions about concreteissues, than on large scale issues and should be part of a wider public involvementstrategy. The development of the agenda should be overseen by an advisory boardmade up of key stakeholdersPlanning Cells/CommitteesThis technique is similar to a citizens‟ jury in form and function. It is sponsored by localor national governing authorities to help with the decision making process.Discussions/deliberation takes place in Cells of about 25 participants in size. Resultsare articulated in a report that is presented to the sponsor, the media, and any otherinterested group. Local/national sponsor has to agree to take decisions intoconsideration.This technique is good for small size of individual cells and its non-intimidating natureallows for innovative ideas and active participation. Participants represent all citizensand not special interest groups. Anyone in the population has a chance of beingselected to be a part of this process. It makes decision makers more accountablebecause they have to defend their position resulting decisions are frequently 29
  43. 43. implemented. Weaknesses of the technique are that problems are defined by localauthority and only useful for problems in need of unique decisions. Decisions not alwaysfeasible and it becomes hard to keep bias out of information dissemination process. Itcan be used when other methods fail to resolve a conflict. It is best in situations thatrequire a quick response to an urgent issue where there are a number of possibledecisions that can be made.Workshops and SeminarsThe authority or the consultants invites the stakeholders. Usually 2-6 hour workshop isheld. The authority or the consultants talk about their plans and proposals and seek theopinion of the participants in writing or oral. Strengths of the technique are that it can beused effectively for communicating information about the plans and proposals. It isuseful method for obtaining informed opinions from stakeholders. Weakness of thetechnique is that it is exclusionary process as selected participants are invited for theworkshop or seminar. There is ambiguity in the process of selection of stakeholders andparticipant for the workshop. It is recommended as a tool for encouraging discussionand deliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problemsassociated with it.Deliberative PollingIt builds on the opinion poll by incorporating element of deliberation. It involves largernumbers than citizen‟s juries and may involve less time. It measures what public wouldthink if it was informed and engaged around an issue. Strength of the Technique is thatit provides insights into public opinions and how people come to decisions. It helps inseeking informed opinions, does not force people to reach consensus. Weakness of theTechnique is that it requires a lot of preparation time. Although sample size is large andrandom, ensuring representativeness is difficult. It is recommended for drawing insight 30
  44. 44. into public opinion and helps useful input into public decision processes. Best suited toissues with options and about which the public is not knowledgeable.Citizens PanelsIt consists of statistically representative sample of residents in a given area. Mostcomprise several thousand citizens who represent the general population of an area.Panel views are regularly sought using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, telephonesurveys). It is an expensive and effective way to learn about citizens‟ needs andpreferences. Panel data can be analyzed for multiple purposes and disaggregated forsub-level analysis (i.e. ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic, geographic area). Weaknessof the Technique is that there is exclusivity of participant selection process. Consultationagenda determined by decision-making body (i.e. top down) and under-representationof hard-to-reach groups who refuse to participate. Due to the expense as well as thedesign, the panel is best suited for the development of major community wide policydocuments. Limit to new policy areas, where community opinion and policy directionhave yet to be determined and mobilization has not yet occurred.Focus GroupsIt is a onetime discussion of a particular topic. It involves 6-12 individuals selected tomeet specific criteria in order to broadly represent a particular segment of society. One-time face-to-face meeting structured to be informal to encourage open discussionamong participants. Successful focus group may lead to consensus and feelings ofenrichment among participants. It provides good venue for learning about needs of aparticular group. It remains largely informal, so participants can discuss issues inrelaxed atmosphere. It is a good way to gauge the opinions of the public. Lack of 31
  45. 45. informed participants produces superficial discussion. Selection criteria can create biasin eliciting opinions. Limited number of participants limits representativeness ofopinions. There is always potential for ideas expressed to be influenced/shaped byinteraction/exchange with others. It can be a tool for encouraging discussion anddeliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problemsassociated with it.SurveysThis is a process of soliciting information from a given representative sample of citizensthrough questionnaires. Same questions are asked of ever individual surveyed. Thereare a variety of survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone. It helps in solicitinginformation from representative sample of citizens. Same questions are asked of everindividual surveyed and thus results represent the ground realities. There are a varietyof survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone. The lists may not be representative orcomprehensive. Questions need to be somewhat simple and straightforward. Surveyresults are often not comparable. The effectiveness of surveys is affected by the ratesof response. Fundamental decisions have to be made before the survey begins whichlimits the scope. As it is a time consuming process, it is not a good method if quickresults are required. It can be used during the beginning phases of a study (useful indetecting issues that need to be addressed).Public HearingsIt is a form of public meeting limited in size. It tends to involve only interested citizensand usually experts. It has great potential to inform citizens and potential for improveddecision making. It helps in minimizing the conflicts. It may be dominated by specialinterest groups and feed-back obtained from this format needs to be treated carefullybecause it may not be representative of the community. It leads to exclude the 32
  46. 46. inarticulate and perhaps disadvantaged groups. It is recommended when there is a pre-submission phase which allows the public time to become familiar with the issues. Thisprocess has been used more frequently as the number of the complaints are increasingday by in the public offices for various planning projects. The expert members are betterequipped to handle such hearings.Open HousesThe public is invited to drop by at any time at a set location on a set day(s) and times.They can speak with staff, view the displays set up in the room and break into smalldiscussion groups. The technique provides a relaxed atmosphere for discussion anddebate. It enables staff to tailor responses according to the needs/questions of thepublic There is potential for lack of clarity in purpose and it is staff-resource intensiveexercise which needs trained facilitators to co-ordination the various conflicting interestgroups and helping them reach for consensus after the deliberations and discussions.Citizen Advisory CommitteeIt can be made up of a variety of different organizations (e.g. from governmental topublic). It is intended to represent the broader public. If committee is balanced,deliberations can be fruitful. Their advice should influence decision making process.Informed citizens can boost trust in institutions and reduce conflict. It may not be arepresentative group of people but comprises of the expert members of the communityand the government agencies undertaking planning process.ReferendaIt is a process wherein an issue is put to popular vote. It can be initiated bygovernmental or other organizations, or sometimes the citizenry. Results may or maynot be considered binding. It incites discussion and interest in public. It is a way to learnpublic views and way to get citizens directly involved with the legislative process. All 33
  47. 47. voters have equal influence. It can potentially involve all members of a local or nationalpopulation Results may not be representative if there is low voter turnout Limitednumber of times you can use it. It has potential for undue influence if one organizationhas greater resources than another when campaigning for or against a proposedreferendum.Here is the recapitulation of the important points regarding the various tools andtechniques of public participation in the table given below.Table 2-1 Comparative Tables for Various Techniques for ParticipationSource: Compiled from European Union Water Directors‟ Meeting, 2002The above table no. 2.1 gives us some details on the level of participation, their majornature and character of participation process and finally authors has suggested theiruses at various stages of public participation processes like informing, consulting andresolution of the differences i.e. consensus building. The choice of the various tools andtechniques of the public participation depends on various factors like nature of theparticipation, scale of the planning, understanding of the needs, expertise and capacityof the authority and agency undertaking such initiative, provisions of the guidelines andthe willingness of the authority to engage public in what manner. 34
  48. 48. In context of urban development, we will use the tools and techniques adopted inMaster Plans and City Development Plans. This will form the basis for our study andfurther adaptation for Local Area plans. Hence, we will discuss the following tools andtechniques will be dealt in greater details in the succeeding chapter. a) Objections and Suggestions b) Stakeholders Participation c) Workshop Based MethodsIt has been a great experience exploring the various terms and definitions related topublic participation and the minor distinction among them. From the definitionsdiscussed above we have reached to a consensus that participatory planning a processof engaging various stakeholders and empowering them so as to make them an integralpart of the process of information sharing and decision making through the process ofconsensus building and other forms of consultations.While discussing the various methods of the public participation which evolved overtime and which had been popular during some period of time under the prevailing socio-economic and political conditions. For the purpose of plan preparation, we have come toconclusion that the prevalent techniques and tools that can be effective used and whichis being used in various planning exercises like open house discussion, workshops andseminars, invitation for objection and suggestion and stakeholders‟ consultation withexperts are more relevant.2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC CHOICESFor testing a hypothesis or comparing different types of qualitative data need a rationaland generally accepted frame of reference which can be deducted through the study ofvarious techniques and tools or adopting and modifying the existing one. Here, we have 35
  49. 49. tried to evolve a framework for analyzing the effectiveness and extent of publicparticipation in planning process. The valuation technique can be credited to Samuel D.Brody, David R. Godschalk and Raymond J.Burby in their article Mandating CitizenParticipation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Choices published in American Journal ofPlanning Association in 2003. The framework for analysis has been further developedafter the study of different techniques and necessary adjustment was made.Figure 2-1 Six Stages for effective ParticipationSource: 11. Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and Burby Raymond J.(2003)Let‟s discuss them in somewhat detail to get what we really indent to get and evaluate.And simultaneously make a checklist of intended objectives for various stages or stepswhich we are going to use for evaluating the effectiveness and extent of publicparticipation in planning.Program AdministrationThere should be specified level of resources committed to public participation. Theexhaustive guidelines for Citizen Participation have to be developed. There should beidentification of probable groups. Clearly defined opportunities to express their interests 36
  50. 50. and trained staff members to conduct participation. There should be provision forexternal consultant to monitor participation.Program administration is a vital stage where a planner or a policy maker can intervenefor ensuring public participation. The capacity building of urban local bodies for suchparticipation exercise in needed in many small and large towns. The ineffective conductof participation exercise may be of no importance. The purpose of the participationshould be transparency and two way feedback mechanism.Communication to Target GroupsThe method of communicating to the target groups should be defined. The duration andfrequency of informing the public or participants has to be defined.Communication to the target groups become the deciding factor in public participation.Inefficient participation may lead to an unjust and biased planning giving advantage tosome and making others disadvantaged. Unbiased and transparent mechanism ofcommunication will serve the purpose. But it is the duty of planners to ensure that thosewho can give positive inputs to the plans must be there and those who can‟t vent offtheir issues and problems are given adequate opportunity to do so. Enough time shouldbe provided with adequate information so that people can know well before on whattopic or issue they have to talk.Stages of Public InvolvementAt what stages participation desirable or opted and when the first participation shouldstart has to be framed well in advance. In general, scholars believe that to ensuremeaningful stakeholder involvement, it must occur “early, often, and ongoing”(Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000, p. 103). Early participation injects community knowledgeand expertise into the planning process when it is most needed, before policies are set 37

×