The document summarizes a case study examining the public participation process for the Carmelite Project in Haifa, Israel. It was considered revolutionary at the time for establishing a steering committee and involving the public early. However, the process was flawed in its execution and power dynamics. Literature suggests participation should include shared decision-making and a balancing of power between planners and the public. The Carmelite process involved the public but ultimate decision-making power remained with planners.

1. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning
Public Participation in Urban Planning Processes
Arza Churchman, Ph.D.
The Carmelite Project
By Daniel Louis Berkowitz
Introduction
Deemed a model for future public involvement for Haifa's planning projects, the Carmelite Project was
considered revolutionary at the time due to the founding of a special steering committee to create and
manage the participation process and involve the public at an early stage of the planning process.
This study examines the public participation process of the Carmelite Project finding primarily that the
process was flawed in execution and looks at areas for improvement in the planners’ model for public
involvement.
Literature Survey
Contemporary academics and planners in Israel and abroad have shown that the approach to public
participation used in the Carmelite Project does not necessarily produce the desired result of collaboration
in strategy, design, and implementation.
Deborah F. Shmueli, a planner and academic at Haifa University who has written about participation,
cultural sensitivities, and planning throughout Israel, analyzes the implementation of participation in the
strategic master planning system. Shmueli examines two cases involving public participation as an input
into the planning process and one that attempted a more collaborative approach. These projects were
similar to the Carmelite plan because they all provided public involvement processes at stages before the
plan was deposited to a planning commission, but lacked shared decision making with the participants. In
her analysis, she concludes that the framework fails to effectively integrate participatory processes due to
a lack of “voice, transparency, or a balancing of power during negotiations” (Shmueli, 2005). She notes
that while participation existed in these public processes, it did not yield “even significant influence on
decision making.” While the Carmelite Project summarized and published the views of the public, in
addition to that which was done in Shmueli's examples, its results where wholly similar to the projects
which she studied. The cases that she looked at were also firsts of their kind for public participation
processes, involved the public using a variety of participation methods and successfully educated the
public about the relevant project. Despite participants being involved on future development strategies
and in numerous stages throughout the process, because the public was not included at all stages of the
process and weren't assisted in giving developmental recommendations on the plan or the participation
process, Shmueli describes the level of participation in Arnstein's words as “degrees of tokenism” and
more specifically as “consultation”.
Nurit Alfasi, a senior lecturer at Ben Gurion University has written about planning theory, public policy
and public participation in the Israeli context. In her article on democracy and planning in Israel, she
supports Shmueli's argument and suggests ways in which Israel's planning system can be made more
democratic. Her recommendations include more formalized, strictly adhered to and managed participation
processes.

2. These findings are not unique to Israel. A report by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom, now known as the Department for Communities and Local Government, looks at how
public participation has been unable to represent England's diverse society. The report argues that top-
down “Decide, Announce, Defend” planning models led by a planning authority act as a “barrier to new
thinking and practices” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003). In addition to a breakdown of
communication within affected communities, this amplifies difficulties in resolving conflicts when the
public takes issue with plans. The report finds that there is a greater need for negotiation with public,
semi-public, and private bodies to promote collaboration and build consensus among key community
stakeholders. By stressing the need for this, particularly in areas with under-represented populations, the
report notes that participatory planning involves the unification of diverse groups, the mutual exchange of
information and the building of consensus through negotiations and identification of shared interests
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).
In Scotland, collaborative planning is similar to the participatory planning of the ODPM report, in that it
involves all stakeholders in the planning process to reach mutually agreed upon policies. However,
collaborative planning more narrowly defines the criteria of what it takes to be considered a project
stakeholder. Ashok Kumar and Ronan Paddison, professor and head of the department of physical
planning at India's School of Planning & Architecture and professor of geography at the University of
Glasgow, respectively, define a stakeholder as any individual, group, or organization that has an interest,
concern or influence in a planning area, system, or outcome, shares risks, costs, or benefits and has the
right to participate in the decision-making process to effect it both negatively or positively.
They explain that collaborative planning includes:
−An inclusive process for interaction in a friendly and supportive atmosphere.
−Comprehensibility, sincerity, legitimacy, and truthfulness in participation and engagement.
−Recognition of other stakeholders and realization that complete consensus on all issues may not be
reached.
−Respect and consideration for different perspectives.
−Critique and evaluation of beliefs and values.
−Policy documents which include discourses and systems of meaning of the stakeholders.
Kumar and Paddison find that the cases in the new joint structure Scottish system have high levels of trust
and then argue that trust and collaboration are mutually supportive. They define this high level of trust as
including “networks of social exchange, reciprocity and [the] protection of the area's interests, full and
frank information sharing, meeting of expectations from the Joint Structure Plan, desirable behavior by
planning authorities, a lack feelings of vulnerability, no misuse of shared information, and shared values
amongst the local authorities and the joint structure plan has proven successful in collaboration and trust
because it has endured for four years”. They conclude that stakeholders have a large amount of trust in
each other that reinforces continued collaboration and that brings them to set up behavioral control
mechanisms to enable them to ensure continued desired behavior by all stakeholders. In relation to the
Carmelite Project, treating all participating parties as respected and honored stakeholders would be a great
start to developing and maintaining trust between the participants and the entrepreneur.
While collaborative planning may have stricter guidelines for adherence than participatory planning, both
aim to turn the system of public involvement from an up-down system to a more laterally working
system, giving all interested parties decision-making powers.
Now that a background of the literature on public involvement in the planning process has been laid, we
move on to the analysis of the Carmelite Project's public participation process.

3. The Carmelites
The Carmelites, specifically known as the Discalced (or Teresian) Carmelites, are a Catholic mendicant
order established in 1593 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discalced_Carmelites). They have 800
monasteries in the world, 12,000 adherents, and their headquarter is located in Rome, Italy
(http://carmelholyland.org/en/history/teresian-carmelites.html). The Stella Maris Monastery (or
Monastery of Our Lady of Mount Carmel) was founded in 1892 on the northwestern top of the Carmel
Mountain ridge, currently overlooking Haifa’s northern neighborhoods and coast below
(http://carmelholyland.org/en/our-communities/haifa/history.html). The order has a number of other sites
around Haifa that, like the monastery, are in poor physical condition and have not been able to cater to the
needs of visiting pilgrims (D.Z. Czamanski, Personal communication, January 16, 2011).
Land owned by the order in the area surrounding the monastery, had been previously leased to the Israel
Defense Forces until the mid-1990s when the lease was not renewed. This presented the Carmelites the
opportunity to raise money in order to restore their properties and buildings. With the appointment of
Brother Ernesto Ferrera Nitza as the head of the order in Haifa, it was decided that developing this land
would be the best way to seize this opportunity. The order set up an international team to prepare a
proposal consisting of architects, landscape architects and planners from the firms, HOK and Uzi Gordon
Ltd., a legal adviser and a local economic adviser (D.Z. Czamanski, Personal communication, January 16,
2011).
The Plan
The plan consisted of 7 main development spaces:
•a residential neighborhood and terraced apartments
•assisted living housing and a sanatorium (convalescent home)
•a hotel and vacation apartments
•parking lots and a commercial area
•landscaping of gardens and a promenade behind the monastery
•an amphitheater
•a landscaped public walking path going down the mountain to Elijah’s Cave
The image below shows the layout of the developer’s master plan for the project that was presented to the
public during the participation process.

4. Source: M. Vogl and R. Barringer, Skype communication, January 19, 2011.
Approval Process
1999 The planning and rezoning approval process began with meetings in Haifa and Rome, a
preliminary development of planning schemes and a presentation of those schemes to the Haifa
Municipal Department of Planning.
2000 A formal presentation was given before the planning department at the start of the year.
Thereafter, negotiations were held with the department and the mayor’s office, and a formal
public participation process coupled with continuous modifications to the plan began, lasting for
approximately 9 months.
2001 The participation process came to a conclusion in June 2001 with the publication of a booklet
summarizing the participation process and a presentation of the final plan before the municipal
government.
2003 In June 2003, the plan was approved by the sub-committee of the local planning committee.
2005 In August 2005, the plan was approved by the district planning committee. Following this
approval, 17 months were spent on dealing with public reactions and district committee hearings.
2007 The formal planning and rezoning was approved in early 2007. The plan has yet to be
implemented due to internal problems amongst the Carmelite Order.
(M. Vogl and R. Barringer, Skype communication, January 19, 2011)

5. Goals of the Providers and Participants
The goals of the entrepreneurs to provide the participation were twofold, explicit and implicit.
The explicit goal, as expressed by the summary book published by the steering committee, was to
“provid[e] a response to the needs of the general public, without adversely affecting individuals and
different groups” and “...to find a balance between the various interests” involved in the planning process.
The implicit goal, as understood through interviews with the planners of the project, was to decrease
resistance to the plan and enable the approval process to go smoothly and speedily (M. Vogl and R.
Barringer, Skype communication, January 19, 2011).
Furthermore, through a second glance at the details of the participation process it became clear that the
providers wanted to receive informed views on the plan and the process from the public, and so, in order
to do so, they informed the participants and supplied forums to receive and record their views. Additional
goals of the participation process were to resolve public concerns and while doing so, gain a supply of
suggestions for changes to the plan that may be valuable and considered for implementation.
The goals of the participants were never explicitly stated or published in the summarizing book and seem
to have been formally disregarded in this process. However, it can be deduced from the concerns
expressed by the participants that their aim was to preserve and protect a status quo with regard to
residential property values, apartment vistas, and local traffic volumes. NGOs that participated also
desired to preserve the status quo, however, with different emphases. The most noted NGO having
representatives participating were environmental, and their goal was the protection and preservation of
natural resources and land that, while being part of the Carmelites' property, had never been built on. An
implicit goal of the participants, as deduced through their willingness to participate in the process, was
that they wanted to have their voices be heard, their views understood and concerns taken into account by
the entrepreneurs and government as well as make a concrete impact on the plan. It is not apparent that
these goals were met, however, this will be further discussed under: Power Relations Between Providers
and Participants.
Resources
Resources used by the entrepreneurs in the process were both physical and non-physical. The physical
items included fliers, public posters, notices in newspapers, questionnaires, to-scale 3-dimensional model
of the plan, and a booklet summarizing the process and views of the public. The non-physical items were
advertisements on television and radio stations, renting out halls and meeting rooms to hold public
meetings and focus groups, and the recruitment of the members of the steering committee for public
participation.
Participant Characteristics
The definition of the “public” was never clearly or explicitly defined, therefore, an implicit definition can
be deduced from analysis of the way in which the process was conducted. Having multiple target
audiences, the process had a specific hierarchical priority:
a.The Hebrew-literate residents living adjacent to the site, and were in their neighborhood during the
period when fliers were distributed.
b.Residents and passersby in the four neighborhoods in the area of the site.
c.Passersby of announcements posted on public bulletin boards on numerous streets in Haifa.
d.Hebrew-literate members of the public who are privy to local news media in Haifa.
e.Visitors to Haifa's community centers, public libraries, city hall and the city engineer's office.

6. f.Readers with an interest in planning and development matters of Hebrew newspapers “Yediot Achronot”
and “Ha’aretz”, and Arabic language, “Al Altichad” and Russian language, “Vesnik Haifa” newspapers in
Haifa.
g.Computer and Hebrew-literate members of the public at large with internet-access.
Stages of the Public Participation Process
According to the summary book of the public participation process, the process consisted of 6 stages.
However, in terms of levels of participation, there were 3 stages (Public Meetings, Focus Groups and
Response of the Entrepreneur) to the process that involved a total of 9 sub-stages. The following is the
structure of the process:
A.Creation of public awareness of the plan and public participation process.
I.Publication in the local media, postings in public buildings, publication of a special informative
website, and distribution of fliers to community members.
II.Announcements publicized through local and national newspapers, as well as one Arabic and one
Russian newspaper for the week before the public meetings (October 27 – November 3), and on local
television and radio stations.
III.Fliers distributed by hand to residents of 4 nearby neighborhoods, to environmental organizations and
posted inside local community centers, public libraries, on local bulletin boards and on local street posts.
IV.In an attempt to inform a wider audience, announcements were posted in Haifa's City Hall, in the City
Engineer's office, and on a website created to publicize the project to the Hebrew-literate throughout the
world.
B.Informing the public of the plan's details, and reception and response to public feedback to the plan
I.Two public meetings were held (November 4 and 5, 2000) with residents, representatives of the
entrepreneurs, representatives of the municipal government, and members of the public participation
committee. Each meeting was conducted in the same manner:
a.Presentations of the views of the entrepreneur, government and committee.
b.A guided discussion session consisting of questions and comments by the public to the representatives
and answers, when possible, supplied in return
c.Distribution to and returning of filled questionnaires by participants
II.Five focus groups with 100 participants
a.Creation of awareness of the groups to members of the academic, professional, and NGO communities
as well as to youth activists and social workers.
b.In-depth review together with stakeholders – participants included residents, members of NGOs,
professionals, government representatives and academicians.
The five discussion groups were in a location that the summary paper does not
disclose and it is further assumed that they were held only in Hebrew, together with
representatives of environmental organizations, professional planners, architects, and
engineers, and relevant academicians.
C.Analysis of public feedback
A document summarizing the project, participation process, public positions and responses
brought up during the public meetings, discussion groups and from the questionnaires was
published in Hebrew, as well as partially in English.
D. Response of the entrepreneur to public feedback
I. Entrepreneur offers suggestions for revisions based on the public response that are publicized
to the public
II. A revised project gets presented to the Steering Committee and governmental bodies
III. Significant revisions are publicized to the public

7. However, through interviews made with parties involved in the process, it is questionable whether the
publication of the entrepreneur's feedback to the public and any revisions made to the plan actually
occurred, since members of the steering committee had no such recollection or documents.
Power Relations
The power relations that existed between the entrepreneur and participants can be characterized as
decision-maker and those for whom decision are made. However, in addition to having the right to object
to the plan, as stipulated under Israeli law, the entrepreneur gave the participants the opportunity to
educate themselves in the details of the plan, form an organized voice and have that voice made clear
through formal documentation.
Nothing in the framework of the process gave the participants actual planning tools or required the
entrepreneur to supply alternative plans based on the views of the participants. The summarizing book
said this of what was expected of the entrepreneur's responsibility to the participants, “If it so desires, it
will prepare an answer and suggestions for amendments”. Because of this non-binding language, the
participants remained wary of their efforts having had any significant impact on the plan. This can be seen
from recorded comments and questions in the section of the book called “How much can the public
influence?” where participants voiced concern over the relation of power that they had with the
entrepreneur, “it's unclear to what extent they will consider the views of the residents”, and participants
were quoted as saying that they felt “helpless” when it came to making actual changes to the plan.
Additionally, the question, “What are the 'teethe' to our views as residents?” was asked by some of the
participants. This means that it was not made clear to some of the participants to what extent their views
would impact the planning process, if any. The reason for such sentiment among the participants was
because there really were no “teethe” given to make their views into concrete planning material.
Method
The model that was implemented as the method for this process consisted of four principles:
1.Create transparency and clarity in the planning and decision-making process.
2.Enable the reception of information by the public at an early stage in the process and have it easily and
equally accessible to all.
3.Enable interested parties to participate in the planning process.
4.Emphasize planning authority accountability to citizens through explanation and clarification of
decision-making rationale.
Conclusions
No longer considered an ideal form of public involvement, the Carmelite Project stands in the history of
Israeli public involvement in planning as a step in the right direction towards a more collaborative public
involvement process. The real reason that this process seemed revolutionary was because it was
implemented by a special committee that been established especially for the purpose of managing the
public participation process and it involved the public at a relatively early stage in the planning process,
informed them, asked for their views and offered to pass those views on to the entrepreneur. This made it
seems as though the public's views were valuable and that the entrepreneur and government officials
wanted to give them power to act as interested and respected parties to the planning process. However, in
the end, because there was nothing put into this framework forcing the entrepreneur to act on the public's
input, all was for naught and the entrepreneur went about its way, as if the whole participation process had

8. been but a dream. In order for democracy and true egalitarianism to flourish within planning processes,
not only must the public be given a proper education on the plan and process, but they must be given
decision-making power and their views must be considered as equally important as those employed to
manage the project. Furthermore, it is the author’s hope that this work can help shed light on how future
public participation processes should be defined and implemented.
Bibliography
Alfasi, N. (2003). Is public participation making urban planning more democratic - The Israeli
experience. Planning Theory & Practice, 4 (2), 185–202.
D.Z. Czamanski. (2011, January 16). Personal interview.
Discalced Carmelites. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discalced_Carmelites
History. Carmel Holy Land. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from http://carmelholyland.org/en/our-
communities/haifa/history.html.
Kumar, A. and Paddison, R. (2000). Trust and collaborative planning theory: the case of the Scottish
planning system. International Planning Studies, 5 (2). 205-223.
M. Vogl and R. Barringer. (2011, January 19). Skype interview.
Mendicant orders. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_order.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2006) Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities:
International experience in mediation, negotiation and engagement in making plans. Retrieved
January 15, 2012 from
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/participatory-planning.pdf.
Shmueli, D.F. (2005). Is Israel ready for Participatory Planning? Expectations and Obstacles.
Planning Theory & Practice, 6 (4), 485-514.
Steering Committee for Public Participation in Urban Planning in Haifa. (2001). Summary Document of
the Public Participation Process in the Carmelite Project. Haifa, Israel.
Teresian Carmelites. Carmel Holy Land. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from
http://carmelholyland.org/en/history/teresian-carmelites.html.