1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Citizen involvement in the decision making process is not a new concept and
served, in part, to form the republic we recognize today. Societies have evolved as a
result of citizens’ desire to work together to create a built environment. In the United
States, the American Industrial Revolution of the early twentieth-century mechanized our
society and created an ease of movement across the nation. The growth that followed re-
defined the traditional definition of “community” (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck
2000). Many areas of the country witnessed progress beyond expectation, and urban
planners increasingly became less influential as development progressed (Jacobs 1961).
Additionally, this accelerated urban development introduced new problems in American
cities. Sprawl and gentrification became an issue in many metropolitan areas as the
associated growth threatened quality of life and ripped at the historic social fabric of
communities.
The research associated with this thesis will examine urban planning practices in
the decades following the First and Second World Wars as the automobile profoundly
altered the American citizen’s way of life. More specifically, it will offer insight into
how planning trends have influenced the movement known as New Urbanism and
explore the merits of the participatory planning process associated with this approach. To
2
gather data for this study the researcher will explore the charrette process as facilitated by
the Mississippi Main Street Association (MMSA) as they have applied principles of the
New Urbanism in communities throughout the State of Mississippi.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Incorporation of design principles outlined by the New Urbanist movement has
gained popularity in recent decades. As challenges associated with the process have
come to light practitioners began to question exactly what form and how much citizen
participation is necessary for the process to be effective and efficient (Irvin and Stansbury
2005; Konisky and Beierle 2001). Current debate is centered on two approaches of
community involvement and citizen participation (Konisky and Beierle 2001). One
allows for an open-forum charrette inclusive of all members of a community while the
other takes a limited-access approach to the process. The latter, the stakeholder-access
approach, seeks the contribution of key business leaders, political officials, and civic-
minded individuals within the community who may serve as active participants
throughout the charrette process (Lennertz 2009; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000;
Irvin and Stansbury 2005). In the former the number of people eager to participate has
the potential of creating a process where time, increased costs, and social gridlock in the
decision making process may occur (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Both methods present
advantages and challenges. Sanoff acknowledges the phenomenon and suggests that, in
many cases, the incorporation of the charrette in the design process often leads to
unexpected costs and inefficient use of allotted time (2008).
The purpose of this study was to examine the stakeholder-access approach to
charrette facilitation and discuss participant perceptions concerning the charrette process.
3
In an attempt to compare each approach a survey of stakeholders having participated in
community charrettes facilitated in coordination with the MMSA will offer data for
analyzing the charrette process. It is the hope of the researcher that the data will identify
characteristics which may be worthy of replication and address how stakeholders,
business leaders, and political officials communicate with the public-at-large to create an
effective, efficient, and time-wise process. Also, it will discuss how existing
relationships within communities influence the process and gauge the merits of the
process as prescribed by the Charter for the New Urbanism.
Various situations exist as each community has a diverse social capacity and no
two participatory planning events are exactly the same. Consideration must be given to
understanding the stakeholder-access charrette so that it may be compared to the
traditional method. The stakeholder-access approach has re-defined the charrette process
and has resulted in planning events where input from the “public-at-large” has become
limited to an opening (information gathering) and closing (feedback/response) session
(Leccese, McCormick, and New Urbanism 2000). Previous studies of the traditional
charrette process and other community building initiatives offer beneficial information
regarding charrettes held in an open forum setting. However, little research exists
analyzing the more limited stakeholder-access approach (Reed 2007). Also, dismissing
the public from the decision making process should not be taken lightly if practitioners of
the New Urbanism aim to create communities which strengthen people and their
surroundings by incorporating them in the participatory planning process (CNU 1996).
4
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The objective of this study is to add potentially useful information to the
somewhat limited body of knowledge within the discipline of landscape architecture
concerning the alternate, stakeholder-access approach to the charrette process. An
increased understanding of this alternate approach will provide the tools necessary for
charrette facilitators, and others closely aligned with the process, to promote effective,
efficient planning events in the future. In an attempt to gain a more complete
understanding of the stakeholder-access approach this study engaged participants of the
charrettes facilitated by the MMSA. This thesis has four main objectives. The first was
to offer a background discussion on the topics of Participatory Planning, New Urbanism,
the Charrette, and the events conducted by the MMSA and how each is related to modern
urban planning and design. The second objective was to understand participant
perceptions of the stakeholder-access charrette by collecting data using a web-based
survey with questions based on the research of Paul Mattessich and Barbara Monsey.
Their book, Community Building, What Makes it Work?, defines the characteristics for a
successful community building process. Third, an analysis of the collected data
highlights perceptions of active participants in the stakeholder-access charrette. The
fourth objective is to address opportunities for future research which are needed for the
creation of a balanced process.
1.4 Outline of the Study
The outline for this study included a web-based survey built on the research of
Paul Mattessich and Barbara Monsey. While director of the Wilder Research Center Paul
Mattessich, and research associate Barbara Monsey, focused on research related to
5
human service trends, programs, and policies (Mattessich et al. 1997). Their interest in
community planning efforts and involvement, as described in the book “Community
Building: What Makes it Work?” served as the foundation for questions directed at
participants of the MMSA charrettes.
The web-based survey employed questions in both Likert-scale and open-ended
format to explore perceptions of participants in the stakeholder-access charrettes. The
survey questions were derived from those characteristics described by Mattessich and
Monsey as being a necessity for creating a successful community building effort. These
questions were used to gather data from participants of the stakeholder-access charrettes
concerning their perceptions of the process. Surveys were electronically distributed to
key participants, public officials, and prominent stakeholders in each of the thirty-four
communities where charrettes have been conducted by the Mississippi Main Street
Association.
Analysis of the survey data provides insight into the process and may assist future
charrette facilitators as they strive to promote successful events in the future. As
landscape architects become increasingly involved in the process this information may
prove beneficial in developing a unique set of tools and techniques applicable to the
charrette process and worthy of replication in future events.
1.5 Background
Providing background information on the topics of participatory planning, New
Urbanism, the Charrette process, and the MMSA is important in laying the groundwork
for this study.
6
1.5.1 Historical Context of Participatory Planning
Public Participation is defined by Rowe and Frewer as “the practice of consulting
and involving members of the public in the agenda-setting, decision-making, and policy-
forming activities of organizations or institutions responsible for policy development”
and is not a new concept (2004). Evidence of participatory planning processes date as far
back as Plato’s Republic where freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the
right to vote, and the right to equal representation witnessed their establishment (Sanoff
2000). Early Americans exercised their new-found rights and became increasingly
involved in the practices of building community as populations expanded westward
(Sanoff 2000). Eventually, excessive growth undermined traditional participatory
practices as population became too large and it became “increasingly difficult for every
citizen to participate in community decisions” (Sanoff 1978). The solution for this
problem came in the form of the political system recognized in America today in which
“representatives” are selected by public election to serve as the voice of the people
(Sanoff 1978).
This trust in representative government did not suffice, however. The United
States witnessed insurmountable growth following the industrial revolution and the first
two World Wars. As a result, city and urban planners who were traditionally accustomed
to pedestrian-oriented development had to consider a society increasingly reliant on the
automobile. Simultaneously, public interest and awareness of the importance of their role
in the planning process increased. The public recognized a “sense of social responsibility
that constituted a new movement” (Sanoff 2000). Citizens become increasingly aware of
the social division between those living in communities and those making the decisions
7
affecting their daily lives. Poverty and lack of representation became key factors
influencing this division and the poor began “to define and implement their own planning
goals” in the communities they called home (Sanoff 1978). Moreover, citizen participants
became advocates within their communities. They became the voice of a movement, and
with the help of federally backed grants and funding, fought modern urban
redevelopment practices. The result was a participatory democracy based on the idea that
“planning of environment is more effective if citizens are active and involved in the
decision-making process instead of being treated as passive consumers” (Sanoff 2000).
This re-discovery of participatory democracy grew. The desire and willingness of
the general public to be included in the decision making process created an approach to
planning including both positive and negative effects.
Today, practitioners and critics are at odds defining the best approach. Some
critics even question the relevance of citizen involvement in the decision making process.
Both practitioners of New Urbanism such as Andres Duany and critics, like Cliff Ellis,
agree that participatory planning practices can be relevant to community design (2000;
2002). Most, however, remain at odds in defining exactly which form of participatory
planning is most appropriate.
1.5.2 An Overview of the New Urbanism
Andres Duany suggests that the basic concept of the New Urbanism lies on the
idea of the neighborhood acting as the “building block of healthy cities and towns”
(1992). Urban planners and architects who practice and promote these principles have a
common goal: create safe, walkable neighborhoods designed for the pedestrian, rather
than the automobile (CNU 1996). Other principles of the movement include
8
incorporating a variety of housing options, adequate public facilities, and multiple
options for transportation. These are but a few of the characteristics that fuel the design
process as practitioners of the movement strive to build a sense of community.
New Urbanism promotes a traditional approach to community design. Before the
rise of the automobile, planners designed communities based on walkability and spatial
proximity. New Urbanists take many of the principles associated with this Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) and apply them today to address the concerns
resulting from sprawl and other less responsive planning practices.
As New Urbanism gained popularity during the 1980s and early 1990s the leaders
of the movement recognized the need to create universal goals and objectives. In 1991
Andres Duany, Peter Calthorpe, Elizabeth Moule, and other leaders in the disciplines of
architecture and planning gathered at the Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite National Park.
Here they set out to address the problems and concerns associated with suburban sprawl
by defining the key principles for creating responsible, sustainable design standards
applicable to the New Urbanist movement (Urbanism 2012). The resulting document,
known initially as the Ahwahnee Principles, evolved into the Charter for The New
Urbanism and, in 1996, became the seminal text promoting their recommendations
regarding community planning and design (Leccese, McCormick, and New Urbanism
2000). Through the late 1990s and early 2000s, as the tenets of the movement were
applied, the Congress worked to promote and strengthen the principles set forth in the
original Charter. Since then the application of New Urbanist principles has garnered
much support, and criticism, and has been applied to development projects worldwide.
9
1.5.3 The Charrette
The “charrette”, derived from the French word for “cart”, has become the
common method used to gather information and feedback from citizen participants
involved in the participatory planning process. These carts, originally used by students at
the Ecole de Beaux Arts in Paris, signified the intense work effort many would
experience as a deadline drew near (Lennertz 2009). Much like this last minute scramble
the modern charrette exhibits an “intense burst of activity” as designers and stakeholders
participate in a multi-day planning event intended to address issues facing a community
while offering solutions for transformative change (Lennertz 2009). Practitioners of the
New Urbanism have applied the charrette to planning activities on various scales and
suggest that success requires “that everyone affected by the outcome be included in the
planning effort from the beginning” (Lennertz 2009). The inclusion of those so closely
associated with a neighborhood or community as ideas are generated to solve problems is
one of the key principles of the New Urbanist Movement.
Bill Lennertz of the National Charrette Institute and author of The Charrette as an
Agent for Change defines the charrette as “a comprehensive, intensive development plan
to bring transformative change to a neighborhood” (2009). Additionally, he offers nine
basic principles of the charrette process:
1. Work collaboratively
2. Design cross-functionally
3. Use design to achieve a shared vision and create holistic solutions
4. Work in detail
5. Constrain work schedules
10
6. Communicate in short feedback loops
7. Work for at least four to seven consecutive days
8. Work on site
9. Produce a buildable plan (2009)
The actual charrette, however, is only part of the process. Before the charrette
begins the project team must conduct research to educate themselves of the many
conditions and variables existing in and around the community. At the onset of the
project the team will hold a one-day meeting to discuss the actual charrette process,
identify stakeholders, develop schedules, and define the goals and objectives of the
charrette (Lennertz 2009). All of this is necessary and takes place behind-the-scenes as
preparation for the actual event. Following these preliminary steps the project team
gathers to conduct the charrette. In modern charrettes opening and closing sessions
typically involve the public-at-large and serve as opportunities to gather feedback from
the general populace. Stakeholders participate in more intense sessions and are often
divided into smaller teams to tour the community and meet with key individuals
(Lennertz 2009). Over the course of the next few days stakeholders and facilitators
develop tangible plans for addressing the goals and objectives set forth at the beginning
of the process and present them in a public forum on the last day of the charrette
(Lennertz 2009). After receiving feedback from stakeholders and the general public the
project team will often address any concerns, alter the plan as needed, and define an
implementation plan as the final phase of the charrette (Lennertz 2009).
This general approach is common among practitioners yet criticism of the process
exists. Proponents urge that the charrette process is adequate for solving complex and
11
controversial problems (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Critics argue that the
charrette process is only applicable in certain circumstances and “may not be adequate
for solving the problems associated with multifaceted projects with divergent or
conflicting views” (Sarkissian, Cook, and Walsh 1997). Proponents of the New
Urbanism are confident in their commitment to incorporate elements of participatory
planning in the design process and recognize how a properly coordinated charrette can
successfully address the issues facing a community (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck
2000).
The New Urbanist practitioner believes the inclusion of the charrette to be a key
principle and necessary for a successful community development (CNU 1996). This
belief has played a significant role in planning events worldwide and discussion of how
to best approach future application is at the center of debate among planners, landscape
architects, and critics of the New Urbanism (Ellis 2002). Practitioners have traditionally
applied the open-forum charrette as the primary tool for gathering information from key
stakeholders and community members associated with a development. Over time, and as
challenges presented themselves, the need to refine the process has been revealed. The
debate has shifted and proponents of the movement concerned with sustaining in an
environment where costs and time over-runs have become commonplace seek to identify
the best approach for creating the most efficient process (Ellis 2002). Practitioners of the
New Urbanism recognize the benefits associated with the charrette but identifying the
characteristics necessary for developing an effective, efficient process deemed successful
from the participants’ perspective is a topic in need of further research (Talen and Ellis
2003; Day 2003).
12
1.5.4 The Mississippi Main Street Association
The charrette proceedings conducted in part with the Mississippi Main Street
Association (MMSA) will serve to provide the data necessary for the completion of this
thesis. The MMSA originated as a historic preservation program and subsidiary of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation (MMSA 2010). In 1989 the MMSA joined
forces with the Mississippi Development Authority to form the Main Street Program, a
non-profit organization intended “to direct the revitalization efforts of downtowns and
surrounding neighborhoods throughout Mississippi’s cities and towns” (MMSA 2010).
During its existence the MMSA has evolved from a “historic preservation program into
one of the largest economic development programs in the United States” (MMSA 2010).
Outreach across the state has led to the creation of “50 active Main Street Programs and
more than 40 Network, Association Members and charrette communities” (MMSA
2010).
The MMSA offers a variety of benefits to member communities across the state
and services include staff hiring assistance, festival and event development, and charrette
services to name a few. Their mission is “to provide leadership, guidance and counsel to
Mississippi Main Street communities through organization, promotion, design and
economic development to make our cities and towns better places to work, live and play”
(MMSA 2010).
The Mississippi Main Street Association follows a unique approach in addressing
the revitalization of a member community’s commercial corridor or business district.
The MMSA uses the Main Street Four-Point Approach as a comprehensive methodology
aimed at addressing the issues and concerns facing a community. Organization,
13
Promotion, Design, and Economic Restructuring of the commercial core serve as the
four-points of the revitalization strategy promoted by the National Trust Main Street
Center. The MMSA emphasizes four main components aligned with the Main Street
Four-Point Approach in the planning events held throughout the state. They include:
1. Market Assessment to understand the economic development factors
affecting a community
2. Branding and Marketing to aid the community in communicating its
unique promotional messages in a compelling, consistent and effective
way
3. Design and Planning to enhance the physical appearance and function of
the Community
4. Implementation Strategies to ensure the recommendations of the plan
include a road map to turn them into reality (2010)
The National Main Street program suggests that the application of this
methodology has been “widely successful in helping build sustainable communities in
towns and cities nationwide” (MMSA 2010). The four-point approach has proven that
historic preservation of the central business district or corridor encourages economic
development within these once thriving areas. The MMSA continues:
“The Main Street Approach advocates a return to community self-reliance, local
empowerment, and the rebuilding of traditional commercial districts based on
their unique assets: distinctive architecture, a pedestrian-friendly environment,
personal service, local ownership, and a sense of community” (2010).
14
This unique methodology for revitalizing a commercial district hinges on a
community’s willingness and ability to adhere to key principles deemed critical for
bringing a commercial corridor back to life. First, a comprehensive plan taking a holistic
approach while offering incremental progression is necessary. In order to build
confidence within the community the public needs to see that “new things are happening
in the commercial district” and feel the excitement associated with this process (MMSA
2010). Second, local leaders must promote and gain the support of their constituents as
they work to create partnerships within the public and private sectors. Third, a
community must capitalize on existing assets and promote improvement in the
craftsmanship and quality of the projects taking place within the district. Emphasizing
“quality in every aspect of the revitalization program” is paramount (MMSA 2010). The
approach suggests: “from storefront designs to promotional campaigns to educational
programs, each element of the process must evolve from the highest of standards”
(MMSA 2010). Fourth, promoting change and implementing the ideas and designs
resulting from the comprehensive plan will offer visible results which garner positive
change among the residents in a community. It is noted by the MMSA that “small
projects at the beginning of the program pave the way for larger ones as the revitalization
effort matures, and that constant revitalization creates confidence in the Main Street
program and ever-greater levels of participation” (2010).
15
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Citizen participation in the decision making process is important to the
democratic society in which we live. Participatory planning has taken many forms and is
integral in addressing the issues and concerns that arise as progress is made. Our
communities have evolved and are built on the collective effort of a group of people who
share a common goal to create a sense of place. Often, planning and design of the urban
realm depends on a society’s willingness and ability to reach consensus as neighborhoods
and cities advance. Offering insight and historical context of participatory planning and
how the process has evolved is a goal of this literature review.
This review of the literature will offer a foundation for the study as it will explore
the advantages and challenges associated with citizen participation; offer historical
context of, and address the criticism associated with New Urbanism; explore the
incorporation and evolution of the charrette; and discuss the stakeholder access charrettes
facilitated by the Mississippi Main Street Association.
2.2 Participatory Planning and Design
An increased interest in public participation is attributed, by some, to a decline in
the confidence that the public-at-large places in elected officials or individuals considered
16
experts in their respective fields (Rowe and Frewer 2004). In many ways the term
“public participation” is loosely defined as participation in a “number of different ways
or at a number of levels” (Arnstein 1969). Participation may be passive, it may be sought
out, or it may be active through public representation (Rowe and Frewer 2004). Arnstein
submits that citizen participation can be considered “citizen power” which, when
redistributed, “enables the have-not citizens who may be excluded from the political and
economic processes to be deliberately included in the future” (1969).
To better understand the principle of participatory planning and citizen
participation, as prescribed by the Congress for the New Urbanism, the modern history of
the concept must be examined. The review of the literature that follows examines the
participatory planning process and, specifically, how New Urbanists work to incorporate
citizen participants in the design and decision making process.
2.2.1 Modern Participatory Planning Practices
Modern practitioners define participatory planning, at a general level, as the
practice of consulting and involving members of the public in the agenda-setting,
decision-making, and policy-forming activities of organizations or institutions
responsible for policy development (Rowe and Frewer 2004). The newfound awareness
of the role of the citizen following the Industrial Revolution strengthened the historic
notion of the participatory democracy and reached an apex during the urban renewal
movement of the 1960s (Olsen 1982). Olsen suggests that this renewed interest in
community planning held by citizens “was a rediscovery of traditional democratic
philosophy” (1982). Sanoff describes the phenomenon of participatory democracy as:
17
Collective decision-making highly decentralized throughout all sectors of society,
so that all individuals learn participatory skills and can effectively participate in
various ways in the making of all decisions that affect them. Particularly crucial
in this conception of participatory democracy is the insistence that full
democratization of decision-making with all local and private organizations is a
necessary prerequisite for political democracy at the national level (Olsen 1982).
For a greater understanding of what is, and what is not, participation one may
look to Arnstein’s “typology of eight levels of participation” or “eight rungs on a ladder
of citizen participation” (1969). Here Arnstein describes the various levels at which
participants are involved with the process. Obviously a simplification, and though
limitations exist, Arnstein’s suggested typology offers a general definition and illustrative
model to help express the gradations of citizen participation.
18
A Ladder of Participation (from Arnstein 1969).
The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs
describe levels of “non-participation” that have been contrived by some to substitute for
genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in
planning or conducting programs, but to enable power-holders to “educate” or “cure” the
participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of “tokenism” that allow the have-nots to
hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by
power-holders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard.
But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded
by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-
through, no “muscle”, hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5)
Placation, is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to
advise, but retain for the power-holders the continued right to decide.
Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-
making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and
engage in the trade-offs with traditional power-holders. At the topmost rungs (7)
Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of
decision-making seats, or full managerial power (Arnstein 1969).
A driving force behind this concept of a participatory democracy and the typology
for participation in participatory planning often takes the form of the power struggle
19
between the “haves” and the “have-nots” (Arnstein 1969). Arnstein attempts to simplify
this sentiment, offering:
Citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution
of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political
and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the
strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared,
goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are operated, and
benefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In short, it is the means by
which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in
the benefits of the affluent society (1969).
As practitioners of the New Urbanism incorporate principles of participatory
planning into the design process problems have revealed themselves as solutions are
sought. The debate and divide among the social classes in a community have the
potential to hinder the process in many ways and will be discussed later in this literature
review.
Regardless the approach practitioners of the movement attempting the application
of New Urbanist Principles must consider the dynamics of the existing community as the
planning process evolves. Increasingly, traditional methods for the incorporation of the
public-at-large are being questioned (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Modern
practitioners of the New Urbanism recognize how existing community dynamics may
create gridlock and inefficiency, and realize the need to identify a more efficient process
(Irvin and Stansbury 2005).
20
2.2.2 The Debate of Participatory Planning and Design
The Congress for the New Urbanism acknowledges the desire of the general
public to be involved in the decision-making process regarding issues that directly affect
their lives. Understanding the social and spatial dynamics present prior to redevelopment
is also part of the process as planners and designers of the New Urbanism approach a
project. Success within a participatory planning process lies in having an informed group
of citizen participants who offer insight into the dynamics and inner workings of a
community – knowledge unknown to the charrette facilitators or design team (Irvin and
Stansbury 2005).
Criticism concerning the process of participatory design has become increasingly
common. Debate among proponents and critics has taken many avenues and the
relevancy of the participatory design process is sometimes questioned. Talen suggests
that opinions concerning the relevancy of participatory design among designers, planners,
political officials and the public show that “some favor while others discourage
participatory design practices” (2003). In theory, the concept of participatory design
seems captivating as the inclusion of this process seemingly has an underlying goal of
producing a solution aimed at creating the best outcome for the population as a whole
(Irvin and Stansbury 2005). In practice, however, relevancy is questioned as political
suasion and even designer elitism may result in an outcome that a time-wise planner
could have derived in a matter of hours rather than a matter of days (Irvin and Stansbury
2005). Arnstein suggests that designers, in an effort to substantiate their contributions
and skill, usually do not feel the need to declare otherwise, even if they may doubt the
relevance of the process (1969). Criticism of participatory planning and design takes
21
many forms and is often revealed in an attack on New Urbanism. Grant criticizes the
practices of the New Urbanist and says:
At the same time the New Urbanist offers a level of citizen participation,
however, its fear of local opposition to projects is palpable… In the charrette
process, the rhetoric of local control encounters the reality of slick graphics,
romantic watercolors, and celebrity designers. Difficult policy or environmental
issues are set aside as participants focus on design questions (Grant 2006).
Crewe offers: “to date the discussion of participation has been a one-sided
commentary, largely exhorting the participation process or deploring designer elitism”
(2001). In an effort to understand this debate the review of the literature that follows will
discuss the benefits and challenges of the participatory planning process.
2.2.3 The Benefits
Advantage in the planning process lies in having a knowledgeable group of
participants involved (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Educating the public, specifically the
citizens who may be directly affected, is important for communicating the goals and
objectives set forth at the beginning of a participatory planning event. Irvin and
Stansbury argue that education creates informed and involved citizens who become
citizen-experts who “see and understand technically difficult situations and can identify
holistic, community-wide solution (2005). Also, facilitators of the process can easily
communicate with participants if they are aware of the issues at hand, enabling them to
be more sensitive to any hot topics within the community.
The review of the literature that follows offers a variety of benefits associated
community involvement in the planning process. Community building, political suasion,
22
the empowerment of citizens, and a more efficient process are often products of citizen
involvement and influence the process in various ways.
2.2.3.1 Community Building
Varying levels of existing social cohesion and community strength are
characteristics capable of having great influence on the participatory process. Existing
societal characteristics have the potential to promote or weaken the participatory planning
event. On one hand a pre-existing strength in community may create ease of
communication during the process. On the other hand a lack of social cohesion has the
potential of creating gridlock and wasting time while trying to reach consensus.
Conversely, from the New Urbanist view, it is the goal of participation to increase and
strengthen the bonds within the community (Morris, Stewart, and Local Government
Management 1996). Morris offers that when people recognize a strengthened sense of
community they are more likely to respond positively to efforts to solve problems, and
will be willing to contribute their time and resources to meet community needs (1996).
As community is strengthened citizens form a sense of attachment with their
neighborhood and the people they encounter on a day-to-day basis. This attachment can
help to inspire action as people are motivated to protect and improve places that are
meaningful to them (Sanoff 2000). Attachment often leads to empowerment as more
residents identify with a community and become increasingly involved in the decision-
making process. Empowerment allows organizations and communities to have control
over their affairs (Rappaport 1987). Studies of empowerment suggest that such a power
is “achieved on the strength of interpersonal relationships among those working towards
a common goal” (Perkins and Zimmerman 1995). Sanoff concludes with the observation
23
that experiences in the participation process show that the “main source of user
satisfaction is not the degree to which a person’s needs have been met, but the feeling of
having influenced the decision” (2000).
2.2.3.2 Political Suasion
From local entities to national initiatives governments attempt to relinquish
various responsibilities to the general public throughout the decision-making process.
Debate occurs as the motives of government entities are questioned as they approach and
promote citizen involvement. Accusations of “routinized” citizen participation made
during the 1960s in response to urban renewal initiatives suggests that government
promotion of “public involvement comes from a need to obtain acceptance as a
prerequisite to successful implementation” of government initiatives (Irvin and Stansbury
2005; Thomas 1995). In some instances, as Irving and Stansbury note, the incorporation
of citizen participants merely serves as a marketing event aimed at “guiding citizens
toward decisions the administrator would have made in the first place (2005). Here,
political suasion becomes important. A network of residents who recognize a strong
sense of community and have a history of working together to promote their
neighborhood may uphold a heightened social influence relative to their political
counterparts. The views and opinions of those capable of the greatest social influence
have the potential to evolve into conflict and may become a debate of “the man” vs. “the
system” (Thomas 1995). In these instances community residents offering the greatest
social influence hold the power to sway the opinions of their neighbors. Regardless of
the motive, political suasion of citizen participants - particularly garnering the support of
socially influential community members – may help support ideas for or against a policy
24
to spread through the community and has the potential to promote or diffuse opposition in
the process (Howell, Olsen, and Olsen 1987).
2.2.3.3 Empowerment, Breaking Gridlock and Litigation Risks
As previously mentioned, empowerment of the citizen participant often occurs as
a result of the participatory planning process. The inclusion of local residents and
stakeholders has the potential to increase social cohesion within a community and, as
there is strength in numbers, may create an empowered group of citizen participants. The
result is a community where residents exhibit a strong willingness to participate in
community activities. Social connections are made and personal connections evolve into
a sense of pride for one’s neighborhood (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). The sense of
empowerment resulting from extensive social cohesion may side with the general
populace, or it may prove advantageous to political officials as they promote initiatives
that will affect the community. This is an example of political persuasion working in the
opposite direction. Community members holding social influence within the community
“may have regular contact with key government decision makers” who have the potential
to “persuasively convey their viewpoint in a non-confrontational atmosphere” prompting
their political agenda (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Some advocate public participation as
a means of creating “legitimate political players” out of “otherwise powerless citizens”
who interact with and influence other groups within the community (Fox and Miller
1995).
As interests in the participatory planning process gains momentum and more
citizens recognize the opportunity of involvement, problems arise. An increase in
participation combined with the ideas, opinions, and emotions of citizen participants has
25
led to gridlock in the participatory planning process (Irvin and Stansbury 2005).
Gridlock often occurs as views and opinions among participants differ. Typically,
gridlock will occur at the onset of the participatory planning process as “traditional
political discourse can disintegrate into obstructionist maneuvers” (Irvin and Stansbury
2005). Hindering gridlock and balancing input to promote a fair, efficient process
becomes critical and may lead to obtainable solutions (Reich 1988).
Occasionally, gridlock cannot be broken. Citizen participants may feel that their
involvement in the process is not viewed as relevant and may object to the decisions
being made. In some instances citizen participants may choose litigation as a means of
being heard. Litigation costs associated with planning or development for the public has
been an issue of concern in projects that do not include a proper participatory planning
process (O'Leary 1999). Incorporating a range of citizen participants into the planning
process is presumed cost effective because it potentially reduces the probability of
litigation associated with a deficient participatory planning process (Randolph et al.
1999).
2.2.4 The Challenges
As the incorporation of public participation as a principle of the New Urbanism
has evolved and gained popularity the question has shifted from the merits of the practice
to what type of citizen participation is best (Konisky and Beierle 2001). Modern
designers and practitioners of New Urbanism, as well as many critics, agree that
participatory planning is relevant to community design yet they still debate the
appropriate method for facilitation (Ellis 2002). To better understand the role of citizen
participation one must also explore the challenges and disadvantages associated with the
26
process. Irvin and Stansbury offer a number of topics discussing the challenges and
disadvantages of citizen participation. Exploration of the challenges that often arise will
offer greater comprehension of the positive and negative characteristics of the process.
2.2.4.1 Costs
Community planning utilizing citizen participants has the potential to become an
expensive endeavor. In many cases the costs associated with facilitation are often
omitted in the discussion of the value of public participation (Irvin and Stansbury 2005).
The participatory planning process typically involves a minimum time commitment of
one week for the charrette process itself, not considering the preparation and follow-up
time needed by the facilitators. Time is a major consideration as some advocate that the
outcomes of the participatory planning process result in the same suggestions that would
have been made by planners working alone – often derived during a relatively short time
period (Lawrence and Deagen 2001). Irvin and Stansbury introduce the fact that a single
administrator of a project may come to the same planning and design conclusions in a
short amount of time that may consume valuable time and resources for a citizen group
over the course of several days (2005). However, this does not consider that more
effective implementation may lead to better solutions (Irvin and Stansbury 2005).
Ultimately, the cost associated with any participatory process should be weighed against
the possible benefits of the outcome. Identifying methods and techniques aimed at
controlling costs while refining the process are currently the topic of much debate in the
realm of New Urbanism (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000).
27
2.2.4.2 Public Opinion and Complacency
There are many variables that influence public opinion and accepted views of the
issues facing a community. Media outlets including newspaper, television, and internet
sites play a large role in how the majority of society gathers the information needed to
make informed decisions. In larger communities where a relatively small group of
people involved in the participation process represent a significantly larger population
there are no guarantees that their influence will guide the population as a whole. Unless
these participants are part of a constituency or have the sense of empowerment necessary
to sway the decision-making process their influence may be overshadowed by public
opinion (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Citizens may find the tasks associated with the
participatory planning process burdensome and may become complacent. They allow
public opinion to affect their ideas and views on issue affecting the community.
Lawrence and Deagen note that “in communities where complacency is an issue, a top-
down administration tends to evolve for the sake of efficiency”, and often the
participatory process may be deemed unnecessary (2001).
2.2.4.3 Representation
In many situations the public-at-large consist of lower and middle class residents
– specifically targeted in New Urbanist planning processes – who do not have the means
to participate regularly (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Lack of adequate representation of
the general population in the participation and planning process becomes a disadvantage
in cases where the process is dominated by strongly partisan participants who “live
comfortably enough to participate regularly” (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). A study of the
citizen planning process by Smith and McDonough reveal that many citizens recognized
28
some level of inequality in representation (2001). Many of them describe the
participatory process as “unfair; feeling that the meetings were orchestrated and that their
input would not influence the outcome” (Smith and McDonough 2001). It has been
observed through practice that citizen-participation panels, when balanced, are adequate
in producing more effective decisions (Petts 2001). Administrators must be aware of
how the participatory planning process unfolds and not allow a small, elite group to
control the outcomes of the process.
2.2.4.4 Making the Wrong Decisions
In some cases the participatory process leads to outcomes that may not be the best
solution for the problem and, occasionally, public officials or experienced practitioners
may be aware of a more effective alternative. This is disadvantageous to the process if
practitioners feel that implementation of a more sound alternative will defy the decisions
of the citizen participants (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). As mentioned earlier the
participation process can act as a tool for breaking any gridlock that may occur. Again,
with respect to the New Urbanist movement, there must be a participatory process
involving a diverse group of stakeholders while balancing input on the goals and
objectives of the process.
2.3 Literature Review of the New Urbanism
The increased popularity of the New Urbanism as design theory has influenced
community design worldwide. Interest among designers, public officials and the public
at-large in creating walkable communities designed with the pedestrian in mind has been
a driving force behind the movement (Hanlon 2010). Leaders in architecture and design,
29
as well as government entities such as United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the United State Green Building Council have recognized the
benefit of traditional neighborhood development – a development pattern similar to that
of the era prior to the rise of the automobile. They have, in turn, adopted many of the
principles set forth by the Congress for the New Urbanism as development and
redevelopment occurs.
Principles of the movement have become increasingly popular in application, yet
debate remains as critics argue the credibility of the New Urbanists’ agenda.
Collectively, most agree that creating an effective and efficient participatory planning
process is the foremost issue facing the movement today (Ellis 2002). Traditionally, the
New Urbanist incorporated an all-inclusive forum for obtaining community feedback on
a development or project. Andres Duany – considered the “Father of the New Urbanism”
- and his colleagues have recognized the need to streamline the process as they strive to
create a better process (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007).
Discussion of how to best approach future application is at the center of debate
among planners, landscape architects, and critics of the movement (Hanlon 2010).
Practitioners have traditionally applied the open-forum charrette as the primary tool for
gathering information from key stakeholders and community members associated with a
development. Over time, and as challenges presented themselves, the need for
refinement of the process was revealed. The debate has shifted and proponents of the
movement concerned with sustaining in an environment where costs and time over-runs
have become commonplace seek to identify the best approach for creating the most
efficient process (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007; Irvin and Stansbury 2005).
30
Practitioners of the New Urbanism recognize the benefits associated with the charrette
but identifying the characteristics necessary for developing an effective, efficient process
deemed successful from the participants’ perspective is a topic in need of further research
(Reed 2007). The process must be examined and the tools and techniques worthy of
replication must be identified. Less successful aspects must be pinpointed and addressed
in an effort to create a process that promotes balance among efficiency, effectiveness, and
perceptions of success.
2.3.1 Historical Context of the New Urbanism
The basis for the New Urbanism lies on the idea of the neighborhood acting as the
“building block of healthy cities and towns” (Duany et al. 1992). Andres Duany and
fellow planners, architects and designers have, over the past three decades, developed the
principles they deem necessary for constructing these blocks. Their primary goal is to
create safe, walkable neighborhoods built with the pedestrian, rather than the car, in
mind. A mix of housing options, expanded transit infrastructure, and sufficient public
facilities are incorporated into New Urbanist design in an attempt to evoke a sense of
community - a place where residents take pride in their homes and neighborhoods (CNU
1996). For a complete understanding of the New Urbanism one must consider the initial
driving forces behind the movement. The following pages offer a review of the literature
explaining the history, principles and applications of the New Urbanism.
2.3.2 Building the New Urbanism
New Urbanism, also commonly known as Transit Oriented Design (TOD) or
Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), is based on a set of well-defined design
31
principles and practices. Popularity of the New Urbanism has grown and during the last
two decades the application of the suggested principles by urban planners, architects, and
landscape architects has become increasingly common (Urbanism 2012). Through the
late 1980s and early 1990s the movement gained momentum and practitioners of the day
recognized the need to define the phenomenon. Andres Duany, Peter Calthorpe,
Elizabeth Moule, and others in the disciplines of architecture and planning who
recognized the need for change focused on identifying the characteristics of a successful
community. The group’s desire to address the problems associated with suburban sprawl
was the driving force behind this movement and throughout the late 1990s and early
2000s the Congress worked to promote and strengthen the principles set forth in their
original Charter (Hanlon 2010; Talen and Ellis 2003). Since then, the application of New
Urbanist principles has garnered much attention and has been applied, on varying levels,
to development projects from New Jersey to Dubai.
2.3.3 Principles of the CNU
The basic principles of the Charter for the New Urbanism organize development
into mixed-use neighborhoods that are diverse, compact, pedestrian oriented, and transit
friendly (Bohl 2000). The overarching goal of the New Urbanist is to create transit and
pedestrian oriented communities offering safe alternatives for residents to walk or bike to
the places they most commonly travel (Day 2003). Additionally, New Urbanists strive to
create diverse communities which offer a variety of housing options that target residents
of various income levels and include single-family and multi-family housing (Day 2003;
Steuteville 2001). The development of a defined space for social interaction and activity
is also a key design principle in New Urbanist communities (CNU 1996). The following
32
paragraphs offer a description of each of the five main principles outlined in the Charter
for the New Urbanism. These include: Mixed-use development, designing for diversity,
incorporation and inclusion of a neighborhood center, elements of pedestrian oriented
design, and the inclusion of citizen participants throughout the design process.
2.3.3.1 Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-use development is not a new idea. Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND), common before the rise of the automobile, was the prominent
design practice when citizens relied on non-motorized methods of travel. Typically, the
TND incorporated a neighborhood center of mixed-use facilities spatially arranged to
accommodate the needs of local residents in relation to their residential setting.
Proximity was important in a world devoid of motorized transportation. As America
witnessed a tremendous increase in automobile usage decentralization of neighborhood
centers led to sprawl and suburbanization. As a result the sense of place created in
traditional neighborhood centers began to deteriorate (Jacobs 1961). In “The Death and
Life of Great American Cities”, Jane Jacobs speaks of the importance of mixing land use
as it promotes a sense of community and overall social interaction (1961). When place of
residence is juxtaposed with places to work, shop, or recreate, social integration of
different incomes, races or ages is encouraged since people will tend to walk more and
drive less (Talen 2000). Incorporating mixed-use and a variety of business types within a
five to ten minute walk radius to one’s residence promotes a certain ease of use (Talen
2000). Development practices that support this type of spatial organization are important
to the New Urbanist agenda as the over-arching goal is to promote walkable
communities.
33
2.3.3.2 Designing for Diversity
Designing communities that promote a population of diverse residents is also a
defining principle of the New Urbanism. The Charter actively endorses the creation of
community design aimed at reducing concentrations of poverty and encouraging
neighborhood diversity (CNU 1996). In many areas this is accomplished by
incorporating affordable housing throughout the region, rather than in a centralized
location, and should occur in response to local job opportunities (CNU 1996). The CNU,
supporters, and practitioners passionately advocate increasing the diversity of
neighborhoods. Critics, however, suggest that although New Urbanists claim to
incorporate diverse populations in their developments the actual practice offers few
strategies directly supporting diversity (Day 2003). Furthermore, Day proposes that New
Urbanism merely encourages a variety of housing types and a range of housing prices
with the assumption that residential proximity will bring people of diverse ages, races,
and incomes into daily interaction (2003).
2.3.3.3 Neighborhood Center
Spatial arrangement and organization of community with intentions of
strengthening social fabric is also an objective of The Congress for the New Urbanism.
The Charter identifies the Neighborhood, the District, and the Corridor as the
recognizable areas within a community and often are the areas in which residents take
pride (CNU 1996). The neighborhood center is often a location that strives to create a
sense of place while offering opportunities for interaction on varying levels. Specifically,
it “provides a venue for chance encounters which serve to strengthen community bonds”
(Talen 2000). It also serves as a major node of activity and is the epicenter for shopping,
34
dining, services, and transit (Bohl 2000). In dense urban settings, the center is most
likely to focus on a commercial corridor at the edge of a neighborhood, with residential
areas fanning out in a roughly semicircular pattern away from the corridor (Calthorpe
1993). Development and design of the neighborhood center is reminiscent of pre- World
War II neighborhoods where residents relied less on motorized forms of transportation.
New Urbanists have adopted this traditional approach after recognizing the recurring
built patterns of hamlets, villages and towns over thousands of years which have
successfully evolved over time (Bohl 2000). These patterns have been “disrupted by
twentieth century zoning and subdivision laws” which, in part, have placed a strain on
society as we strive to meet the needs associated with the extensive infrastructure
requirements common with suburban sprawl (Bohl 2000). As the incorporation of New
Urbanist principles have become increasingly common designers have looked to cities in
the US and abroad offering historical reference for new planning practices. Cities of
relevance such as Annapolis, MD; Alexandria, VA; Savannah, GA; and Charleston, SC
have been viewed as precedents (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000). Increasingly,
developers are recognizing the benefits of incorporating the types of building forms, lot
configurations, streets, and public spaces found in these historic cities as they design and
build new neighborhoods and infill developments (Bohl 2000).
2.3.3.4 Pedestrian Oriented Design (POD)
New Urbanists also advocate design with the pedestrian in mind as one considers
the Neighborhood, the District and the Corridor. Pedestrianism reflects the extent to
which a neighborhood is designed for walking, the fostering of street-side activities, and
how people find their way. Kim suggests “comprising elements of location and distance
35
as well as the smells, sounds, colors, textures or other visual qualities that characterize a
given physical environment” help create a “sense of place” (2007). Elements common to
pedestrian oriented design are often found in New Urbanist communities and include
streetscapes, sidewalks, building arrangements, and setbacks all designed to create an
interesting space while promoting a sense of security. Box suggests that the central
theme in the New Urbanists vision is that ‘good’ cities are generally composed of
“clusters of mixed-use neighborhoods that give residents quick access to their daily needs
within a maximum five-minute walking distance” (2007). The CNU suggests, too, that
the social connectedness associated with pedestrian oriented design serves to strengthen
community bonds (CNU 1996). Physical elements such as building mass, building lines,
streetscapes, vistas, porches, and the street grid contribute to the livability and vitality of
neighborhoods and are often referred to as the “building blocks of communities” (Duany
et al. 1992; Kashef 2009). New Urbanists support the notion that reinstating the
traditional street and civic architecture will, in part, contribute to the restoration of those
communities where the “sense of place” has been lost as a result of sprawl and other
harmful planning practices (Kashef 2009).
2.3.3.5 Citizen Participation
Participatory Planning in the design process is also a defining principle of the
New Urbanist movement and serves as the primary focus of this study. The Charter of
the New Urbanism states:
We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector
leaders, community activists, and multi-disciplinary professionals. We are
committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the
36
making of community, through citizen based participatory planning and design
(1996).
Here, the Charter suggests that the inclusion of public participation is integral in
developing an effective, successful design. Specifically, the movement relies on the
Charrette Process as the tool for obtaining input and feedback from a group of residents
or public officials affiliated with a neighborhood or development.
2.3.4 Notable Projects
Since the movement began many neighborhoods and infill developments have
been established based on the design principles recognized by the Charter for the New
Urbanism. These communities reflect the design practices common prior to World War
II and are reminiscent of a time when pedestrian oriented design was the catalyst for
development. One may look to Andres Duany’s design and development at Seaside,
Florida as one of the first examples of New Urban Design (Mohney and Easterling
1991). Developments worldwide have adopted many of the principles of New Urbanism
on various scales yet Seaside, after thirty years, still remains a point of reference for the
movement. Conversely, there is also variety found in the perceptions of success as those
neighborhoods labeled New Urbanist communities are compared to the tenets of the
movement. Each community design, however, strives to create walkable communities
where resident’s reliance on motorized transportation is minimal. Specific sites worth
consideration in the New Urbanist movement include the aforementioned Seaside, FL;
Celebration, FL; Stapleton, CO; Holiday, CO and the Cotton District located in
Starkville, MS. Each of these communities display elements of New Urbanist Design
and are often viewed as precedents in the movement (Katz, Scully, and Bressi 1994).
37
The worldwide adoption and incorporation of New Urbanist principles is on the rise and
the inclusion of these practices in both the public and private sectors has garnered
recognition from proponents and critics alike. For an example one need only look to The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. In an effort to restructure
their approach to public housing HUD has adopted and incorporated many of the
principles of New Urbanist design in programs such as HOPE VI and the Choice
Neighborhoods program (MMSA 2010).
2.3.5 Criticism of the New Urbanism
New Urbanism has been at the forefront of much debate and criticism as the
movement has evolved and gained momentum. A review of the literature concerning the
criticism of New Urbanism offers an insight into the many opinions on the topic. From
the concept of sprawl to the inclusion of participatory planning in the process, skeptics
and critics have offered endless observations on the perceived successes and failures of
the movement.
Ellis proposes that the debate over the New Urbanism can be reduced to three
main areas: empirical performance, ideological and cultural issues, and aesthetic quality
(2002). In “The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals” Ellis states:
These categories are not hermetically sealed from one another; they are
interrelated. Empirical claims about the superiority of New Urbanist design with
respect to trip reduction, infrastructure costs, environmental protection and
housing affordability continue to be vigorously discussed. The New Urbanism
has also been swept up into ideological and cultural debates about the proper role
of historical patterns in city planning, the importance of a public realm that
38
reinforces social interaction and civic virtue, the political implications of different
urban forms, and the difference between false and authentic landscapes. These
issues are contentious and are not resolvable by statistical studies. Aesthetic
controversies also evade any simple empirical test (2002).
Sprawl, a by-product of suburban design practice in post-World War II
development, has been a chief focus of the movement. The growth associated with
modern planning practices has created a need for re-assessment (Duany, Plater-Zyberk,
and Speck 2000). Proponents and critics are vocal on both fronts. Ellis identifies one
type of critic as the “free-market enthusiasts” and suggests they reject meaningful urban
and regional planning (2002). These “free-marketeers” frequently defend sprawl with
arguments characterized by an “endemic short-term economic logic, a historical analysis
of urban problems, blindness to the distortions caused by concentrations of private
power”, and “excess faith in the virtues of markets without a corresponding sense of their
limits” (Feldman 1987; Kuttner 1997). Left unchecked, the problems associated with
sprawl – automobile dependency and an infrastructure stretched beyond capacity – hinder
the ability of creating safe, sustainable communities. Landscapes in these suburban areas
are openly hostile to pedestrians; transit service is minimal (Ellis 2002). In general they
are recognized as examples of poor urban design (Moudon 1987).
In another camp critics like Alex Krieger suggest that New Urbanism is, “in
application, a form of new suburbia, that its primary appeal is through nostalgia, that it
advances a rear-guard architectural aesthetic, and that there is nothing new, or even
urban, about it” (1998). Krieger speculates that the success of New Urbanism will
39
eventually be measured by comparing its achievements against its claims (1998). In
speaking to the founders of the New Urbanism he continues:
To date you have helped to produce: More subdivisions (albeit innovative ones)
than towns; an increased reliance on private management of communities, not
innovative forms of elected local governance; densities too low to support mixed
use, much less to support public transportation; relatively homogenous
demographic enclaves, not rainbow coalitions; a new, attractive, and desirable
form of planned unit development, not yet substantial in fill, or even better,
connections between new and existing development; marketing strategies better
suited to real estate entrepreneurs than public officials; a new wave of form-
follows-function determinism (oddly modern for such ardent critics of
modernism), implying that community can be assured through design; a
perpetuation of the myth of the creation and sustainment of urban environments
amidst pastoral settings; carefully edited, rose-colored evocations of small town
urbanism, from which a century ago many Americans fled not to the suburbs but
to the city (Krieger 1998).
Other critics attack the political and social outcomes of the movement. Some
argue that New Urbanism ignores the social and economic realities of the modern world
and that now “people prefer privacy over community, spatial separation over contiguity
and dispersed social networks over neighborhoods; elements offered by sprawl and not
by New Urbanism” (Ellis 2002). Duany and Speck contend that New Urbanists are
aware of global restructuring, social transformations, and the dynamics of the land
40
development process under late capitalism, but they are not in the position to single-
handedly rearrange those structural variables (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000).
Many critics share a passion for debating the successes and failures of the
movement yet fail to offer any viable alternatives to the criticism they offer. In the end,
New Urbanism cannot satisfy all of the critics because “they demand contradictory
changes” (Ellis 2002). Talen and Ellis also point out that those critiques often terminate
in “lofty abstractions with no connection to the day-to-day realities of land development,
finance and local politics” (2002). What can be said about the criticism of New
Urbanism is that it has definitely initiated conversation between many parties both
directly and indirectly associated with the movement. As more questions arise and more
projects are completed opportunities to better understand what works and what does not
will be presented and “New Urbanists have made it clear that they accept the challenge”
(Ellis 2002).
2.4 The Charrette
Various participatory planning techniques and methods of involving the general
public have been developed and have evolved as our societies have progressed.
Complexity of the participatory planning process requires the facilitator to judge and
gage the practice most beneficial for a thoroughly successful outcome (Sanoff 2000).
“Community surveys, review boards, advisory boards, task forces neighborhood and
community meetings, public hearings, public information programs, and interactive cable
television”, have all been used with varying degrees of success, depending on the
effectiveness of the participation plan (Sanoff 2008). For the purpose of the New
41
Urbanist movement the Charrette has been adopted as the primary method of
participatory planning (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000; Lennertz 2009).
The “Charrette”. (www.masterplanning.com)
The New Urbanist charrette is formally defined as “an intensive design-based
planning workshop where all required information and specialists are present to enable
relevant issues to be considered simultaneously and in an interactive way, with resultant
decisions on detailed design and planning options” (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007).
For the New Urbanist the charrette has been the primary vehicle for incorporating citizen
participation and is commonly used to facilitate citizen-based planning (Bond and
Thompson-Fawcett 2007).
42
Lennertz explains how the New Urbanist Charrette involves a specific three phase
approach:
Pre-charrette phase of information gathering, education, publicity and promotion
lasting two to six months;
The Charrette event, an interactive, multi-disciplinary design workshop held over
several consecutive days with a component of public or key stakeholder
involvement. Ideas and concepts are “tested” through the design of alternatives
against what is possible in terms of the geography, context, agency interests and
the public input. These are then synthesized into a preferred plan;
Post-charrette implementation phase, including further feasibility testing, public
review and plan refinement (2009).
Accordingly, variations of the procedure rely on the nature and context of the
local application of the charrette process but the design “focus, intensity, interactive
multi-disciplinary nature and speed of the process are fundamental to the approach”
(Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007; Lennertz 2009). The New Urbanist Charrette is
complex and warrants a concrete explanation to separate it from other methods of
participatory planning. Lennertz continues by suggesting nine strategies that distinguish
charrettes from other participatory planning and design practices:
1. Charrettes work collaboratively with all participants
2. Use design to achieve a shared vision
3. Create holistic solutions
4. Design in detail
5. Apply reasonable pressure through a series of deadlines
43
6. Communicate in short, regular feedback loops
7. Work for at least four to seven consecutive days to accommodatefeedback
loops
8. Work on site
9. Produce an actionable plan (2009)
The rapid succession of the events of the charrette process lends to the final
design, and, with the inclusion of multiple disciplines, as well as the public, ideas are
exchanged and points of view from all sides are considered. In the charrette process the
forum is open, knowledge is shared and policies, attitudes, emotions and proposals of all
who have a stake in the future of the place are introduced and exposed (McGlynn and
Murrain 1994). McGlynn also comments on the legitimacy of the process stating that the
outcomes will be severely questioned without the comprehensive involvement and
commitment of all stakeholders (1994).
The charrette process has been applied in many contexts and is most commonly
used in the “planning process for specific new community or redevelopment projects”
(Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Because of the variety of contexts in which the
charrette is applied there are often differences in how the process evolves and different
circumstances may call for alterations to the standard process (Bond and Thompson-
Fawcett 2007).
2.4.1 A Critique of the Charrette Process
Not surprisingly, as with the general concept of New Urbanism, the charrette
process is the subject of much criticism among scholars and practitioners. At the
forefront of the critical debate is the lack of thorough understanding of the usefulness of
44
the charrette in solving conflict (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Proponents urge
that the charrette is adequate for solving complex and controversial problems (Bond and
Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Critics argue that the charrette process is only applicable in
certain circumstances and “may not be adequate for solving the problems associated with
multifaceted projects with divergent or conflicting views” (Sarkissian, Cook, and Walsh
1997). Proponents of the New Urbanism are confident in their commitment to
incorporate elements of participatory planning in the design process. Also, they
understand how a properly coordinated charrette can successfully address the issues
facing a community.
Critics also voice concern about the facilitation process and those who guide it.
During the charrette process the administrator, or team of facilitators, guide the
proceedings. Participants may identify these groups or individuals as experts in the field
of New Urbanism and may place tremendous faith in their guidance. Many critics
identify this as a fatal flaw and argue that a facilitator will guide the charrette proceedings
in a way that he or she sees fit (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). Many critics ask: “What is the
real aim of involving the public in the planning process?” if the facilitator, in their
opinion, is the one making the decision (Krieger 1998). Bond offers several possible
answers to the question:
One is that there is a genuine commitment to participatory involvement, but that
New Urbanists are not fully cognizant of the potential effects of the type of
process they have adopted. A second is that Urbanists seek only information or
local knowledge to inject into the project outcomes, rather than the more
transformative and often intangible outcomes advocated by many contemporary
45
planning theorists and practitioners with a strong focus on “bottom-up”
approaches, the outcomes of which include social learning, capacity building, the
generation of social capital, and the engagement of local people in decision
making that affects them. A third is that in controlling how they approach public
participation, New Urbanists ensure that they perpetuate their own tenets and yet
fulfill the increasing demands for public inclusion in planning processes (2007).
New Urbanists refute the notion that they merely function to serve their own
agenda and maintain that the charrette is integral to the design outcomes as it strives to
include those who have the most at stake (Bond and Thompson-Fawcett 2007). Still,
critics suggest that New Urbanist practices incorporate an exaggerated level of citizen
participation. Grant refutes: the “fear of local opposition to projects is palpable and
difficult policy or environmental issues are set aside” during the process as “participants
focus on design questions” (2006).
2.5 Mississippi Main Street Association and the New Urban Charrette
The Main Street Approach to Downtown Revitalization formed the foundation of
the Mississippi Main Street Association. In 1977 the National Trust for Historic
Preservation proceeded with a demonstration project for addressing the blight associated
with commercial buildings in cities across the Midwest (Robertson 2004). The resulting
establishment was a non-profit organization whose objective was “to direct the
revitalization efforts of downtowns and surrounding neighborhoods throughout American
cities and towns” (MMSA 2010). The organization evolved as their efforts proved
successful, and in 1980, with the support of a variety of government entities, led to the
creation of the National Main Street Center (Robertson 2004). Throughout the early
46
1980s the Main Street Approach expanded to include 31 state programs. Today, that
number has grown to 43. This growth and application of the Main Street Approach has
evolved into “one of the largest economic development programs in the United States”
(MMSA 2010). Interestingly, many of the research findings of the initial demonstration
project are common today (Robertson 2004). A key finding of the research suggests that
“the necessity of a full-time manager and a strong private-public partnership, as well as
the realization that a strong organization, effective promotions, a commitment to quality
design, and economic diversification needed to accompany historic preservation”
(Robertson 2004). The National Trust for Historic Preservation suggests that the Main
Street Approach “advocates a return to community self-reliance, local empowerment, and
the rebuilding of traditional commercial districts based on their unique assets: distinctive
architecture, a pedestrian-friendly environment, personal service, local ownership, and a
sense of community” (MMSA 2010).
In 1989 the Mississippi Main Street Association, originally a subsidiary of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, joined forces with the Mississippi Development
Authority to form a statewide Main Street Program (MMSA 2010). Through the 1990s
popularity and application of the approach increased. Between 1993 and 1998 the
number of Main Street Communities in Mississippi grew from sixteen to forty. Today,
outreach across the state has led to the creation of “51 active Main Street Programs and
more than 40 Network, Association Members and charrette communities” (MMSA
2010). The MMSA offers a variety of benefits to member communities across the state.
Services include staff hiring assistance, festival and event development, and charrette
services to name a few. Their mission is “to provide leadership, guidance and counsel to
47
Mississippi Main Street communities through organization, promotion, design and
economic development to make our cities and towns better places to work, live and play”
(MMSA 2010).
Since 2000 the Mississippi Main Street Association has promoted the facilitation
of more than 35 community design charrettes throughout the state (MMSA 2010).
48
Member Communities of the Mississippi Main Street Association
(www.msmainstreet.com).
49
Mississippi Main Street Communities having completed a charrette.
50
2.6 Research Method
2.6.1 Surveys and Self-Administered Questionnaires
Surveys have been used throughout history as researchers gathered information
from a population. Modern researchers commonly utilize the survey method for
collecting data from respondents as the process has become increasingly efficient and
readily available for populations to access. Today’s society, progressively intuitive with
internet and web-based applications, displays an eagerness to participate in social
networking like never before. Researchers today are armed with knowledge of the
traditional survey method formulated by Don Dillman in the 1970s and recognize the
benefits associated with utilizing the survey to gather information, especially considering
the ease of access to various populations via modern technology. E-mail, websites,
Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter, web-based applications, and multiple other forms of social
media allow for a greater connectedness among people the world over. Combining the
format of the widely accepted Total Design Method for surveys design by Don Dillman –
who claims has the ability to produce response rates of 70 percent - with the ease found
in today’s technology provides researchers a new tool for investigative questioning
(Dillman 2007).
These technologically advanced methods of survey distribution have been proven
time-savers as they are more readily accessible to the survey population; however, they
may offer a reduced response rate when compared with the traditional method (Schuldt
and Totten 1994). In many cases the response rate is dependent on the frequency with
which the survey population interacts via e-mail or other web-based application (Kiernan
51
et al. 2005). Questions of the process do arise as one considers validating accuracy and
reliability of the data received from the survey distributed via electronic mail.
The popularity of the survey is in part due to the usefulness and flexibility of the
tool as it may be adapted for multiple purposes and for a population ranging in size
(Schuldt and Totten 1994). Dillman, among others, has led extensive research endeavors
in an attempt to further assess the benefits of various survey methods. Dillman’s tailored
design “involves using multiple motivational features in compatible and mutually
supportive ways to encourage high quantity and quality of response to the surveyor’s
request” (2009). Dillman’s work serves as the seminal text for research involving
methodology and forms the framework of the study.
Milbun explains that all surveys share common characteristics and describes the
survey format common to the majority of designed surveys (1999). She suggests the
following format:
1. Definition of the Problem
2. Development of Methodology
3. Questionnaire Writing
4. Cover Letter: writing and packaging
5. Sample design
6. Pre-testing
7. Data collection
8. Data processing and analysis
9. Reporting results (Milburn 1999)
52
Babbie discusses the survey format by also recognizing the common
characteristics of all surveys while offering that the most important step in survey
preparation is the construction – including format and appearance - of the questionnaire
(2004). The evolution of typical questionnaire construction begins by selecting the type
of questionnaire, identifying what types of questions are to be utilized, identifying the
survey population, and selecting the appropriate mode of survey distribution (Milburn
1999; Dillman 2007). Additionally, Dillman offers that the method of distribution chosen
by the researcher is often the key consideration as survey construction evolves (2007).
Face-to face interviews, telephone surveys, mail surveys, and questionnaires are
various survey formats common today. Mail surveys often take the form of self-
administered questionnaires with the respondents answering questions on their own
accord (Babbie 1992). In recent decades advancements in technology have promoted the
ease of use and have resulted in the increase in web-based surveys and questionnaires.
Challenges and advantages exist with this form of distribution just as with other methods.
Speed of distribution and return, strength in reliability, lower costs, and the option of
anonymity are some advantages characteristic of the self-administered questionnaire
which often make it appealing as a viable survey method (Babbie 1992; Milburn 1999).
Limitations of the self-administered questionnaire exist as they may become vulnerable
to data entry and analysis error, low response rates or non-response rates (Dillman 2007;
Couper 2000). However, when weighed against other survey methods, the self-
administered questionnaire commonly becomes the preferred option.
Error also must be considered as a limitation to self-administered questionnaires.
Typically, as Dillman suggests, error occurs in four ways: sampling error, non-coverage
53
error, non-response error, and measurement error (2007). Dillman defines sampling error
as “the result of surveying only some, and not all, (randomly selected) elements of the
survey population” (2007). Non-coverage error “arises because some members of the
population are not covered by the sampling frame and therefore have no chance of being
selected into the sample”, has diminished the usefulness of the mail survey method
(Dillman 2002). Dillman describes non-response error and how it “stems from the fact
that some members of the sample population do not respond to the survey questionnaire”
(2002). Eliminating this error should be the focus for increasing the rate of return
(Dillman 2002). Measurement error, the fourth type, “refers to the discrepancy between
underlying, unobserved variables (whether opinions, behavior or attributes) and the
observed survey responses” (Babbie 1992; Dillman 2002).
Also important to the survey design and construction is the development of the
survey question type. Common among these are: open-ended, closed-ended, and Likert
scale questions. Each question type offers advantages and disadvantages and may be
constructed by the researcher to offer opportunities for varying forms of response. In an
open-ended question respondents are required to provide their own response to the
question in front of them. While beneficial for gathering more detailed information of
the survey topic open-ended questions are often difficult to code and are less likely to be
completed by members of the survey population (Babbie 1992). Closed-ended
questioning, the most common type, provides a list of options from which the respondent
may select the answer. Advantage lies in the researcher’s ability to easily code the
answers gathered in a survey utilizing closed-ended questioning (Babbie 1992). The
third type, Likert-scale questions, are also easily coded but may result in a false
54
representation of the sample population and are susceptible to non-response error as
respondents may not agree with the answers provided and choose an answer non-
reflective of their actual feelings or may refuse to answer at all (Babbie 1992).
2.6.2 The Tailored Design Method
Research conducted in the 1970s by Don Dillman and based on the theory of
social exchange led to the development of the Tailored Design Method (TDM).
Specifically focused on mail and telephone surveys, common during the period, the TDM
was to be a “one size fits all approach aimed at creating an increase in response rates”
(Dillman 2007). As the researcher prepares the survey for the population Dillman
addresses the concerns involving the response rate and suggests a specific approach to
distribution. Four appropriately timed “personalized mailings”, constructed following
specific instructions from the implementation to how one should fold the survey, formed
the TDM approach (Dillman 2007). This “open-minded” approach only considered one
theory and methodology for the construction and development of all surveys but it “may
allow the researcher to increase response rates and improve data quality” while
“decreasing error and bias” (Dillman 2007; Schaefer and Dillman 1998).
Dillman describes five steps in his approach to distribution of the self-
administered questionnaire intended to increase the response rate from the sample
population. They include:
1. Pre-notice letter
2. The questionnaire
3. Thank you postcard
4. Replacement Questionnaire
55
5. Final contact (2007)
Additionally, it is suggested that “sending a cover letter, keeping the
questionnaire short, providing an incentive such as a copy of the results, including a
stamped self-addressed envelope, and sending two follow-up mailings which include a
reminder letter and an additional copy of the questionnaire” will increase the rate of
response and are important to Dillman’s TDM (Milburn 1999; Milburn and Brown 2003).
Other researchers have tested the Tailored Design Method through use in studies of their
own. Modifications of the approach have also occurred and are encouraged by Dillman
who offers that the questionnaires be “refined for specific situations” (2007).
2.6.3 E-Mail and Web-Based Surveys
With the success of Dillman’s TDM and the advances in modern technology came
the increase in application of the web-based survey. Internet and e-mail usage increased
significantly during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and, progressively,
more research concerning the merits of electronic surveys is shedding new light on the
subject. Understanding how Dillman’s research during the 1970s and application of the
Dillman Method since, when applied in digital format, warranted further investigation.
In 1998 Dillman and Schaefer began research which used the TDM for postal
mail surveys in electronic mail surveys with the intent of developing a similar standard
methodology for electronic surveys (Schaefer and Dillman 1998). Utilizing the original
methodology the researchers surveyed a sample population of 904 faculty members at
Washington State University. The group was divided into four separate groups each
receiving the questionnaire via different modes in an attempt to compare the results of the
traditional method with the electronic method (Schaefer and Dillman 1998). Here,
56
Dillman and Schaefer focused on the “response rates, response quality and response
time” (1998). Each potential respondent received a pre-notice letter, the questionnaire,
thank you or reminder, and a replacement questionnaire (Schaefer and Dillman 1998).
The mixed-mode method was then applied and varied for each of the four groups. As
applied, “group 1 received all paper contacts, group 2 received all e-mail contacts, group
3 received a paper pre-notice letter with all three additional mailings made by email, and
group 4 all email contacts except for the third mailing which was the thank you/reminder
contact” (Schaefer and Dillman 1998). Results revealed the response rate for the e-mail
survey to be 54 percent while the response rate for the traditional method remained
slightly higher at 57.5percent, yet showed that e-mail surveys contained “more complete
returned questionnaires as 69.4 percent of those responding to the e-mail version
completed at least 95 percent of the survey, while only 56.6 percent of those responding
to the paper version completed 95 percent” (Schaefer and Dillman 1998). Also notable
was that responses to open-ended questioning were noticeably more complete than those
returned in the mail survey (Schaefer and Dillman 1998).
Response time, the third factor in the research, differed among the modes of
distribution. With a traditional mail survey the researchers found the response time to be
14.39 days while the e-mail survey response time averaged 9.16 days (Schaefer and
Dillman 1998). Final conclusions from the survey conducted by Dillman and Schaefer
suggested that e-mail surveys distributed to a population may be used as a low cost
means for data collection resulting in response rates greater than those found in
traditional mail surveys (1998).
57
Following their research Schaefer and Dillman were able to develop a
methodology for the distribution of web-based, or e-mail surveys as:
1. Utilize a multiple contact strategy much like that used for regular mail
surveys.
2. Personalize all e-mail contacts so that none are part of a mass mailing that
reveals either multiple recipient addresses or a listserv origin.
3. Keep the cover letter brief to enable respondents to get to the first question
without having to scroll down the page.
4. Inform respondents of alternative ways to respond such as printing and
sending back their responses.
5. Include a replacement questionnaire with the reminder message
6. Limit the column width of the questionnaire to about 70 characters in
order to decrease the likelihood of wrap-around text.
7. Begin with an interesting but simple-to-answer question.
8. Ask respondents to place X’s inside the brackets to indicate their answers
9. Consider limiting scale lengths and making other accommodations to the
limitations of e-mail to facilitate mixed-mode comparisons when response
comparisons with other modes will be made (1998).
Dillman adds that while these recommendations follow the original version they must
still be tailored “to accommodate each individual research study” (2007).
The design and implementation of the e-mail survey, much like the traditional
method, involves specific principles for fostering the greatest response rate. Dillman
identifies the following as design principles worthy of replication in e-mail surveys:
58
1. A brief, one page notice letter in e-mail format
2. Multiple contacts with shortened timing between mailings (two or three
days between pre-notice and initial questionnaire)
3. Progress bar to provide the respondents with a percentage of completion
4. Use the same visual principles as paper mail surveys (2007)
While results vary many of those having conducted research concerning the
merits of the e-mail survey suggest that they “are as effective as a mail survey in the
completion of quantitative questions that measure knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and
intentions” (Kiernan et al. 2005).
Web-based surveys have also become a useful tool for gathering information from
a particular population. Typically, web-based surveys follow many of the same design
principles as mail and e-mail surveys and, considering the ease of use associated with the
format, web-based surveys have become the primary method for Internet surveying
(Dillman 2007; Solomon 2001). This format proves advantageous as it offers a reduction
in data entry error, costs, response time, it allows the researcher instant access to the data,
and can accommodate a large sample population (Solomon 2001). Disadvantages
associated with the web-based survey arise in the form of low response rates or error due
to lack of Internet access or Internet connection speed which may hinder the respondent’s
ability to complete the survey (Solomon 2001; Crawford, Couper, and Lamias 2001).
59
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Needs Assessment Survey
3.1.1 Survey Sample
Since 2005 the Mississippi Main Street Association has conducted a total of
thirty-four Charrettes across the state of Mississippi (MMSA 2010). Designated Main
Street Managers, Chamber of Commerce leaders, and political officials in each
community rallied the local populace to participate in these events and have encouraged
cooperation among the public and seasoned professionals with hopes of generating
designs offering holistic solutions. Each of the MMSA communities having completed a
charrette identified and invited key stakeholders to join their efforts and provide feedback
from a local standpoint while addressing the goals and objectives set forth early in the
charrette process. These selected stakeholders - those who participated beyond the
opening and closing sessions - served as the sample population for this survey.
Stakeholder’s contact information was gathered following correspondence with the Main
Street Manager or Chamber of Commerce contact in each community resulting in a total
of 623 contact e-mails. Obtaining a list of contact’s emails from the Main Street
Managers in the communities involved provided a sample population limited to those
who were active participants throughout the charrette process. It did not include contact
60
information for the general populace who are rarely present for the entire stakeholder-
access charrette.
3.1.2 Questionnaire Context
The questionnaire evolved from research conducted by Paul Mattessich and
Barbara Monsey. Their 1997 book, “Community Building: What Makes It Work?”
discusses their approach for developing criteria used to evaluate community building
efforts. Following in-depth research and evaluation of 525 studies Mattessich and
Monsey utilized findings from the forty-eight most applicable community building events
to identify twenty-eight key factors that influence success in the community building
process (1997). The research suggests that communities exhibiting a majority of these
factors are more likely to experience a successful community building effort (Mattessich
et al. 1997). Albeit a broad topic Mattessich and Monsey identified several areas of focus
to narrow their research. First, the authors defined the term “community” as those
“formed on the basis of where people live” (Mattessich et al. 1997). Second, emphasis
was placed on community strengths (as well as community building initiatives that
increase those strengths) aimed at improving living standards for residents (Mattessich et
al. 1997). Next they examine social capacity and discussed the internal potential of the
community to accomplish what it needs to (not focusing on task accomplishment itself,
only the potential to do so) (Mattessich et al. 1997). Lastly, they addressed the definition
of terms needed to make their analysis uniform across different studies.
After sharpening their focus and analyzing the forty-eight events Mattessich and
Monsey identified twenty-eight factors that influence the success of community building
efforts and divided them into three categories:
61
Characteristics of the Community – the social, psychological, and geographical
attributes of a community and its residents that contribute to the success of a
community building effort.
Characteristics of the Community Building Process – factors that make up the
process by which people attempt to build community, such as representation,
communication and technical assistance.
Characteristics of Community Building Organizers – the qualities of those
people who organize and lead a community building effort, such as commitment,
trust, understanding, and experience.
Utilizing a conglomeration of survey questions developed following the
exploration of the twenty-eight factors described by Mattessich and Monsey as those
necessary for successful community building efforts will provide a base of measure for
assessing the perceptions of efficacy and effectiveness held by charrette participants.
3.1.3 Questionnaire Construction
Due to the seemingly common setbacks and lack of a standard methodology for
the development of online questionnaires the Tailored Design Method suggested by
Dillman served as the foundation for the construction of the questionnaire used to gather
data for this thesis. The questionnaire design followed suggestions made by Dillman in
his Tailored Design Method for Mail Surveys and was selected because of its popularity
in traditional survey design. Schafer and Dillman suggest that the design principles of
the TDM are applicable to, and sufficient for use in the development of e-mail and web-
based surveys (1998).
62
Dillman’s TDM “involves using multiple motivational features in compatible and
mutually supportive ways to encourage high quantity and quality of response to the
surveyor’s request” (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). Reducing survey error,
developing a set of survey procedures, and encouraging positive social exchange are
three fundamental considerations Dillman offers as one approaches survey design
(Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009).
The researcher in this study followed Dillman’s suggestions for the design of the
questionnaire, tailored them to the survey, and included the following elements:
1. Simple introductory e-mail containing the survey link
2. Instructions and general time frame for completing the survey
3. Familiar visual design theme based on “Facebook”
4. Easy to read font type and size
5. Progress bar to track completion percentage
6. Related questions grouped on individual pages
7. Open-ended questioning placed at the end of the survey (Dillman, Smyth,
and Christian 2009)
3.1.4 Implementation of the Survey
Increased Internet usage in recent decades has also created additional challenges
not common in traditional mail surveys. Web based application, e-mail, and social media
are all sources that inundate our daily lives and have produced a technological society
cautious of providing personal information (Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009).
Understanding the challenges associated with the implementation of a successful
questionnaire is necessary and Dillman offers suggestions in the TDM that are applicable
63
to online and web-based surveys. He suggests five elements for improving the response
rates of the sample population:
1. Pre-notice letter
2. Questionnaire
3. Thank you postcard
4. Replacement questionnaire
5. Final contact (Dillman 2007)
For the purpose of this survey the researcher deviated from the TDM by
eliminating the thank you postcard common in traditional mail surveys. The researcher
took steps aimed at improving response rates and address potential concerns of the survey
population. The steps included: a concise introductory email containing the link to the
web-based survey, the survey was tailored to be easily completed in fifteen minutes or
less, addressed recipients using the blind carbon copy email to ensure anonymity, and
provided an incentive for respondents who completed the survey before the closing date.
The alteration of the TDM resulted in the following sequence of e-mail
distribution to charrette participants:
1. Initial Contact E-Mail containing a link to the questionnaire
2. Follow-up / Reminder E-mail
3. Final Reminder / Thank you E-mail
Implementation and distribution of the questionnaire utilized the web-based
software provided by SurveyGizmo which offers real-time data and response
information. The utilization of web-based software proves beneficial as it allows the
researcher to view the data as subjects submit their responses. Additionally, web-based
64
surveys offer a low cost option for distribution and often increase the speed and accuracy
of data collection while helping eliminate or reduce the threat of human error (Fleming
and Bowden 2009). Web-based software will often manage “the distribution of email
cover letters, built-in statistical analysis and reporting capabilities, and automatic tracking
of people who have responded” (Solomon 2001).
3.1.5 The Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of a total of thirty-six questions. It included five
open-ended questions, ten closed-ended questions, nineteen questions using the Likert-
scale, and two questions in which respondents were asked to rank characteristics in order
of importance.
3.1.6 Distribution Procedures
In the months prior to the distribution of the survey the researcher worked to
identify and initiate contact with the Main Street Managers in the communities where
charrettes had occurred. Additional correspondence with MMSA Director, Bob Wilson,
identified contacts within the Chamber of Commerce in communities lacking a
designated manager for the Main Street Program. Following the collection of contacts
the researcher distributed an e-mail requesting any existing contact information for
residents who were active participants in the stakeholder access approach. The resulting
lists identified 623 potential respondents across the state as a survey population for the
questionnaire.
To gather data for use in this survey the researcher implemented three separate
electronic mailings utilizing Survey Gizmo as the means for gathering anonymous
65
feedback. The first mailing included a description of the study, discussed the purpose
and importance to the discipline of Landscape Architecture, and offered a link to the
web-based survey. On November 28, 2012 the researcher delivered the email to the 623
potential respondents whose contact information was gathered from Main Street
Associations and Chamber of Commerce directors across the state. As mentioned
previously, the distribution procedures were altered from those suggested by Dillman
(2009). A series of three e-mails were sent to potential respondents and included: the
initial contact e-mail containing a link to the questionnaire; a follow-up/reminder e-mail;
and a final reminder/thank you e-mail.
In the days following the initial contact e-mail 253 addresses were returned as
either inactive or non-existent. Additionally, five potential respondents replied via e-mail
stating that the event in their community occurred so far in the past that they were not
comfortable providing a response based upon their inability to recall specifics of the
event. These contacts were eliminated from the mailing list prior to the distribution of
the second mailing. The second email, and first reminder, was sent to an updated list of
370 potential respondents on December 12, 2012. Again, the details of the survey and its
goals and objectives were explained and a link to the web-based survey was provided.
The third and final e-mail was distributed on January 2, 2013. It also included an
explanation along with a letter of thanks for those having already completed the survey.
At the close of the survey on January 16, 2013 a total of 100 people had followed the link
to the survey. Unfortunately, fifteen of those merely began the survey yet never
answered the questions. These non-respondents were dismissed from the final survey
count.
66
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The research of Paul Mattessich and Barbara Monsey as detailed in the book
“Community Building: What Makes It Work – A Review of Factors Influencing
Successful Community Building” served as the foundation for the survey. In their
research they identify twenty-eight key factors that influence success in the community
building process and suggest that communities exhibiting a majority of these factors are
more likely to experience a successful community building effort (Mattessich et al.
1997). For the purpose of this study Demographics, Characteristics of Community, the
Process of Community Building, Facilitation, and Perceptions of the Process were
identified as key variables. The results of the web-based survey are presented in the
following pages. Survey questions addressed factors deemed most appropriate by the
researcher for gathering perceptions of the stakeholder-access charrette process.
4.2 Response Rate
At the close of the survey 100 people accepted consent and followed the link to
the survey. After omitting the non-respondents eighty-five responses were deemed
suitable and produced a final response rate of 23 percent (85/374). This is significantly
lower than the suggested 70 percent response rate offered by Dillman in his TDM and is a
67
factor that must be considered in this and future research (Dillman, Tortora, and Bowker
1998; Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009).
Figure 4.1and Table 4.1 show the frequency of responses for the survey by week.
During the first two weeks twenty-seven people followed the link to begin the survey.
Over the course of the next three weeks, notably, during the holiday season, no one
followed the link to begin the survey process. Following the distribution of the final
reminder at the beginning of week six, thirty-two people began the survey. At the
beginning of week seven, as the closing date drew near, forty-one did the same.
Frequency of Responses by week.
68
Table 4.1 Frequency of Responses by week.
WEEK
Total Responses
1
25
2
2
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
32
7
41
Additionally, the researcher examined the fall-off rate, the rate at which potential
respondents were exiting the survey, following each page. The final survey consisted of
eight pages and Figure 4.2 shows when potential respondents decided to leave the survey
at the end of each page.
Fall-Off Rate: The number of people exiting the survey following each
page.
69
4.3 Demographics
Of the usable responses eighty-four (99%) people answered the question
concerning gender. Of the respondents forty-six (54.8%) identified themselves as male
and thirty-eight (45.2%) as female, with the majority (87.1%) claiming Caucasian
ethnicity (Figure 4.3). Ages of the respondents ranged from twenty-eight to eighty-three
with a mean of fifty-one years (Figure 4.4). The majority of participants ranged in age
from fifty to sixty-nine (52%).
Gender and Ethnicity of Survey Respondents
70
Age Range of Respondents
Questioning concerning the educational attainment of charrette respondents
resulted in a 96 percent response rate with the majority (47.6%) holding a bachelor’s
degree (Figure 4.5). Of the remaining, eighteen (22.0%) had obtained a Master’s Degree,
nine (11.0%) identified themselves as having “some college” experience, seven (8.5%)
had obtained a Doctorate Degree, three (3.7%) a high school diploma or GED, three
(3.7%) an Associate’s Degree, and three (3.7%) a Law Degree.
71
Educational Attainment of Survey Respondents
The overwhelming majority of the participants who responded to the survey
(88.0%) identified themselves as full-time employees. In this case eighty-three (98%) of
those who participated in the survey answered the question “In which profession do you
work?” Figure 4.6 shows that thirteen of the respondents (15.7%) work in the profession
of education and thirteen (15.7%) selected “other” as their professional status. Of the
remaining fifty-seven respondents, ten (12.1%) selected accounting/finance/banking as
their profession, eight (9.6%) selected management, six (7.2%) aligned themselves with
the professions architecture and design, and five (6.0%) chose sales/marketing and real
estate. Respondents associated with advertisement and the food/restaurant industry
72
consisted of four (4.8%) people, three respondents (3.6%) aligned themselves with the
news/information industry, and two (2.4%) were event planners. Conversely, one (1.2%)
respondent in each represented the fields of clerical, construction, customer service,
human resources, operations, production, and research.
Professional Background of Survey Respondents
This series of demographic questions at the beginning of the survey revealed that
the majority of respondents were Caucasian Males between the ages of thirty-eight and
73
sixty-two. Most had received a bachelor’s degree from a four-year university and now
work in the fields of Education or Sales/Customer Service.
The Mississippi Main Street association is active in fifty-one communities across
the state and many were represented in the responses of those surveyed. When
questioned, sixty-three (74%) of those surveyed identified the community in which they
were active participants with the majority (38; 60.3%) participating in the Columbus, MS
Charrette. Respondents from the Greenwood charrette responded with six (9.5%),
Eupora and Starkville with four (6.4%) each, Canton with three (4.8%), and Biloxi with
two (3.2%). Hancock County, Byhalia, Carthage, Gulfport, Pass Christian, and
Philadelphia each had one (1.6%) respondent complete the survey (Figure 4.7).
List of Communities and number of Respondents participating in the
Survey
74
In this case the researcher can only speculate the reasons for the significant
difference in the number of participants from Columbus, but assumptions can be made.
First, the Columbus charrette occurred more recently than a number of the other
charrettes facilitated by the MMSA. Held in 2009 the Columbus charrette may have been
recent enough, as a number of e-mail responses suggest, for respondents to easily recall
their perceptions of the process. It is plausible that since the event occurred in the not-so-
distant past the details of the process are still fresh on the minds of the participants.
Additionally, ones willingness to offer feedback may be influenced by the time between
the charrette and this study. Second, the researcher discovered that the Main Street
Manager in this community maintained a detailed list of charrette participants along with
their updated contact information. Because a complete list of participants existed (this
was not the case in any of the other communities) potential respondents from the
Columbus charrette totaled 380 and represented (61%) of the original survey population.
4.4 Characteristics of Community
Mattessich and Monsey describe Characteristics of the Community as the “social,
psychological, and geographical attributes of a community and its residents that
contribute to the success of the community building effort” (Mattessich et al. 1997).
Their research provides an outline of the twenty-eight factors they deem necessary for
successful community building efforts. For this study the researcher determined
community awareness, pre-existing social cohesion, motivation from within the
community, and flexibility and adaptability of citizens to be primary factors of
consideration in the questionnaire.
75
4.4.1 Community Awareness
For the purpose of this study community awareness is assessed in three ways.
First, the data explores how residents in each community were made aware of the
upcoming charrette. Second, - to determine if advertising initiatives within the
community prior to the event influenced attendance and diversity - the researcher
examined participant perceptions of awareness, education and advertisement before the
charrette. Third, an open-ended question was utilized to gather detailed responses
concerning participant perceptions of the charrette process prior to the event.
Potential respondents were asked to describe how they heard about or were made
aware of the upcoming charrette in their community. Sixty-four people (75%) responded
with the majority (52%) having been directly informed by a Main Street Manager or
Chamber of Commerce member within the community. Of the remaining respondents
fourteen (21.9%) selected “other”, thirteen (20.3%) were informed after reading the local
newspaper, and one (1.6%) learned about the charrette via local television. (Figure 4.8)
76
How did you learn of the charrette to be held in your community?
Here, the data reveals that more than half (52%) of the respondents said that they
learned of the event via word-of-mouth, not the conventional, more readily available
media forms of newspaper or television. Instead, Main Street Managers and Chamber
leaders were identified as the primary sources concerning charrette advertising and
promotion. Interestingly, too, none of the respondents selected social media as their
primary source concerning charrette information. Considering the current popularity of
social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter the researcher was curious that
neither of these were selected.
Mattessich and Monsey also suggest that residents must know about and be
aware of issues facing the community if a holistic solution is sought (Mattessich et al.
1997). Each community will experience various issues, and each may require a different
77
approach, but creating awareness aimed at generating buy-in from the community is
important as facilitators lay the groundwork for the process. For this study the researcher
hoped to gather information concerning the amount of advertising in the community prior
to the event. Potential respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction
concerning the amount of advertising dedicated to the charrette before it began. Here,
fifty-nine participants (69%) responded and the majority (52.9%) revealed that they were
satisfied with the amount of advertising that took place within their community prior to
the opening session. Figure 4.9 offers further detail concerning the remaining responses.
Respondent’s satisfaction of advertising efforts prior to the event.
78
The data gathered from this question shows that participants were seemingly
satisfied with how well the charrette was advertised in the community prior to it taking
place. However, when asked what they might suggest for improving future participatory
planning events 31 percent said increased awareness, education, and advertising before
the event would be beneficial to the community.
To gather specific responses concerning perceptions of the charrette prior to the
start the researcher included the open-ended question: “Prior to the event how was the
charrette perceived among residents in your community?”. For this question thirty-six
(42%) respondents offered feedback. Each response was then categorized and coded into
one of six categories. The list that follows examines each category and offers examples
of the responses:
1. Just another community study (4; 11% Figure 4.10)
a. “As just another study.”
b. “Another exercise.”
c. “Many felt it was just another community exercise that we would do
then put on the shelf.”
2. Unfamiliar with the purpose (9; 25%)
a. “Confused as to what it was about and what was supposed to be
accomplished.”
b. “Uncertain. Unknown Process.”
c. “I don’t think they understood what a charrette was – so they were
waiting to see what it would be.”
3. Skeptical of the process and intentions (4; 11%)
79
a. “With question.”
b. “Cautiously optimistically.”
c. “More important to get business here and not spend money on this.”
4. The Community was not aware (6; 17%)
a. “No knowledge of it.”
b. “Not perceived, heard nothing about it.”
c. “Most knew very little about them, as the participants were invited and
represented the same ole list of people.”
5. Positive and Optimistic (9; 25%)
a. “Very good.”
b. “Well-perceived.”
c. “As a unique experience to get outside advice on planning.”
6. Unknown (4; 11%)
a. “None.”
b. “Unknown.”
c. “n/a.”
80
Responses to the question: “Prior to the event how was the charrette
perceived among residents in your community?”
Data uncovers several trends when respondents discuss their perceptions of the
charrette prior to the start. As noted above, half of the respondents stated that residents
within the community seemed positive and optimistic before the charrette and were eager
to be involved with the process. Equally as many offered responses that revealed a lack
of awareness concerning the charrette, a lack of understanding concerning the purpose of
the event, and perceived it as “just another study”. This data also suggests that few
people in the community were seemingly informed or educated of the process
beforehand. Since “advantage lies in having a knowledgeable group of participants
involved” it seems that advertising the event and, at the very least, education initiative
prior to the event would strengthen the process (Sanoff 2008). A gap in the literature
exists and a study assessing the effects various forms of advertising may have on
81
community buy-in and the charrette process is warranted. Also, the data suggests that the
proper amount of advertising and education needed before the charrette be identified.
This may be a topic worthy of consideration if organizers seek sufficient buy-in from the
community and wish to create a group of participants who represent the diverse
population.
4.4.2 Pre-existing Social Cohesion
Pre-existing social cohesion – the “strength of the interrelationships among
community residents”- is a key factor of a successful community building process
(Mattessich et al. 1997). Stability of a population is cited by Mattessich and Monsey as a
key characteristic of communities having been involved in successful community
building efforts (1997). Following an analysis of the demographic data two trends
discussed by Mattessich and Monsey were revealed. They are also applicable in this
study. First, they discuss social cohesion and how it may be influenced by the length of
time a person has spent as a member of a community. Data gathered from the eighty-four
(99%) total responses revealed that fifty-five participants (65.5%) had been members of
their community for ten or more years, thus representing the majority. Additionally,
nineteen participants (22.6%) have been members of their community for five to ten
years, five (6.0%) for three to five years, and five (6%) for less than three years (Figure
4.11).
82
Responses to the question: “About how long have you been a resident of
your community?”
A comparison of the survey data with the findings of Mattessich and Monsey
suggest that this group could, potentially exhibit a greater sense of social cohesion since
many of the respondents have lived in their community for five years or more. This
assumed level of social cohesion could, potentially guide the process and influence the
perceptions respondents have concerning the overall process.
Pre-existing social cohesion within a community may also be measured by
discussing the frequency with which residents participate in civic, religious, or other
social groups (Mattessich et al. 1997). To identify if and with what frequency
83
community residents are actively involved in their community they were asked to
indicate how often, during the course of a week, they participate in religious, volunteer,
professional or other organizations. Figure 4.12 presents the results from this question.
Here, eighty-four (99%) people responded and twenty-three (27.4%) of those stated they
participated at least twice a week, and twenty-one (25%) at least once a week. Of the
remaining respondents sixteen (19.1%) were active at least three times each week, ten
(11.9%) five or more times weekly, eight (9.5%) four times, and six (7.1%) did not
participate in any form of weekly community activity group.
Responses when asked: “Please indicate how often each week you
participate in religious, volunteer, professional, or other organization within
your community.”
84
The data suggest, too, that community members and charrette respondents active
in the stakeholder-access process have, and already maintain, a certain level of pre-
existing social cohesion within the community. Through the charrette process the pre-
existing social cohesiveness, or lack thereof, has the potential to influence both the
process and the perceptions of success in the community building effort (Mattessich et al.
1997).
4.4.3 Motivation from within the Community
Successful community building is more likely to occur when motivation among
community residents is self-imposed (Mattessich et al. 1997). Willingness among
residents to participate in community building efforts is important as representation from
a diverse group of citizens influences solutions for the issues facing the community as a
whole (Mattessich et al. 1997). Mattessich and Monsey found that participation of a
concerned citizen base, motivated to generate ideas for the improvement of the whole is
important if successful community building efforts are to occur (1997).
Previous research suggest that communities with an active citizenry who are
seemingly motivated may have had “prior positive experiences with community building
efforts are more likely to succeed with new efforts” (Mattessich et al. 1997).
Additionally, community support prior to the event suggests a certain level of pre-
existing motivation. To better understand perceptions prior to the charrette respondents
were asked to rate the level of satisfaction they held concerning support from within the
community before the commencement of the opening session. Examining this data will
allow the researcher to make certain assumptions concerning how community support
and motivation influences the process.
85
Figure 4.13 shows that of the fifty-eight (68%) responses, thirty-three people
(56.9%) responded positively, fifteen (25.9%) had neutral feelings, and six (10.3%) were
dissatisfied. Four (6.9%) responded not applicable. This result suggests that the majority
of respondents felt that fellow participants and community members were motivated and
eager to participate prior to the charrette. Mattessich and Monsey’s claim that successful
community building efforts occur when residents are motivated is supported by this data.
Informing and educating residents prior to the charrette may potentially generate
increased buy-in, support, and motivation from within the community.
Respondent perceptions concerning community support for the charrette
prior to the event.
86
Potential respondents were also asked their perceptions concerning the eagerness
and willingness with which their fellow stakeholders were involved during the charrette.
Of the sixty-one (72%) participants who responded forty-six (75.4%) agreed that the
charrette participants were eager and willing to offer input during the meetings. Figure
4.14 displays the overall results including the remaining respondents.
Responses to the comment: “Community members involved in the charrette
were eager to participate.”
This data proposes that the majority of respondents were in agreement and that
charrette participants were eager to be involved in the process. This also supports the
findings of Mattessich and Monsey suggesting that success lies in self-imposed
motivation from within the community (1997). That is, residents realize the opportunity
87
to address the issues of the whole, recognize the potential for social pay-off, and,
seemingly possess the self-motivation and drive to make it happen.
4.4.4 Flexibility and Adaptability
Flexibility and adaptability in problem solving and task accomplishment among
residents is identified by Mattessich and Monsey as a characteristic of community
necessary for successful community building efforts to occur (Mattessich et al. 1997). In
their research they determine that community members “who are open to change”, who
have the “ability to switch tasks, goals or objectives if necessary”, and who are willing to
accept alternative approaches serve to promote a successful process (Mattessich et al.
1997). Respondents were asked their perceptions concerning the flexibility and
adaptability of charrette participants. Here, sixty people (71%) offered feedback and the
results show that forty (66.6%) responded positively when asked if participants were
flexible and adaptable as ideas were presented. Of the remaining respondents ten
(16.7%) were neutral, two (3.3%) disagreed with the statement, one (1.7%) strongly
disagreed, and seven (11.7%) responded with “not applicable” (Figure 4.15).
88
Responses to the comment; “Participants were flexible and adaptive as
ideas and concerns were presented.”
Data derived from this question suggests that participants in the stakeholder-
access charrettes were seemingly flexible and adaptive. For example, many of the
respondents expressed how the ease of communication and adaptability of participants
during the charrette seemingly helped strengthen the social cohesion, thus the process.
Additionally, they identify buy-in from the community (followed closely by open-
communication and flexibility of leadership) as the most important variable for creating
an effective charrette.
The final question concerning characteristics of community asked respondents to
rank the characteristics in order from most to least important. Respondents were asked to
89
consider the following characteristics and rank them: flexibility and adaptability; ability
to discuss, reach consensus and cooperate; pre-existing social cohesion; existing
identifiable leadership; motivation from within the community; and community
awareness of the issues. Here, forty-nine participants (58%) ranked these characteristics
in order of importance. Table 4.2 details the results.
Respondent’s Ranking of Characteristics from least to most important in
producing a successful process.
Total Score
Overall Rank
Motivation from within the community.
216
1
Community awareness of the issues.
192
2
Ability to discuss, reach consensus, and cooperate.
186
3
Existing identifiable leadership.
156
4
Pre-existing social cohesion.
142
5
Flexibility and adaptability of those involved.
137
6
Total Respondents - 49
4.5 The Process
Mattessich and Monsey define Characteristics of the Community Building
Process as the “factors that make up the process by which people attempt to build
community, such as representation, communications, and technical assistance”
(Mattessich et al. 1997). Utilizing the web-based survey the researcher attempted to
examine the characteristics of the stakeholder-access charrette process to gauge the
perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness associated within. Ideally, as suggested by
Mattessich and Monsey, as more of these “factors are present in a community building
process, the greater the likelihood of success” (1997).
90
Potential respondents were asked questions concerning the process by which the
charrette evolved. The series of questioning addresses the following characteristics of the
community building process: widespread participation, a good system of communication,
minimal competition in pursuit of goals, benefits to many residents, progression from
simple to complex planning activities, and community control of the decision making
process.
4.5.1 Widespread Participation
Widespread participation in the planning process strengthens the community
building effort by offering increased diversity. Inclusion of a diverse population helps
create a process in which the participants are capable of representing the community as a
whole (Mattessich et al. 1997). In the past, charrette organizers utilized a less formal
approach which, as previously noted, risked creating gridlock, time delays, and cost over-
runs. The stakeholder-access charrette seeks an alternate approach aimed at managing
time and costs by controlling the number of active participants involved in the majority of
the process. For this study the researcher developed a series of questions to gather
information concerning perceptions of widespread participation.
Perhaps most notable, and relevant when discussing participation, is demographic
data gathered from the survey. In this case the data suggests a significant lack of
diversity among survey respondents participating in the MMSA charrettes. When
questioned, 87.1% of survey respondents identified themselves as Caucasian. (Figure
4.16) This suggests that diversity in representation, a key principle of the New
Urbanism, may not have been a reality in the MMSA charrettes. Seemingly, following
an analysis of the data, charrette organizers and facilitators in MMSA charrettes are
91
lacking adequate levels of minority involvement considering that African-Americans
account for 37.3 percent of the population within the state. (Figure 4.15)
Survey Respondent’s Race and Ethnicity
92
Mississippi Population by Race - 2010
In an attempt to gage respondent’s perceptions of diversity the survey asked them
to consider other participants in the charrette process. Respondents were asked if those in
attendance represented a population of diverse individuals. This question received sixty-
two (73%) total responses and a majority (59.7%) responded positively, expressing their
satisfaction regarding the diversity of those involved in the charrette. Of the remaining
respondents, eleven (17.7%) were neutral on the matter, eight (12.9%) disagreed, and six
people (9.7%) responded not applicable. (Figure 4.18)
93
Responses to the statement: “The diversity of charrette participants
represented the community accordingly.”
It is interesting to note that the data derived from this question represents an
interesting trend in the MMSA charrettes. Although the majority of the survey
respondents (87.1%) identified themselves as Caucasian there is still, seemingly, a
perception among those involved in the process that diversity was sufficient.
Practitioners and facilitators recognize the benefits of, and challenges associated
with, increasing diversity among charrette participants (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck
2000; Lennertz 2009). Attempts to create an efficient and effective process in a short
period of time, however, have proven difficult in traditional charrette proceedings (Irvin
and Stansbury 2005). The stakeholder-access approach to facilitation is an attempt to
94
better manage when and to what extent citizens participate. The goal of the stakeholder-
access charrette is to regulate participation while limiting obstacles that threaten time and
costs (Lennertz 2009). Conversely, one must not forget that the stakeholder-access
charrette evolved as a direct result of the chaos associated with uncontrolled widespread
participation in traditional charrette proceedings. Based on this alone one may feel that
there is merit in exploring this approach. Ultimately, however, more research is
warranted exploring the application of the variables needed to create balance throughout
the process.
In an attempt to better understand perceptions of efficiency concerning this topic
the researcher asked participants if the inclusion of more people in the charrette would
lead to a more effective process. In this instance sixty-two participants (73%) responded
and Figure 4.19 shows that the majority (36; 58.1%) felt that including more community
members would result in a more effective outcome.
95
Responses to the comment: “The inclusion of more participants from
within the community would lead to a more effective process.”
The data derived from questions concerning inclusiveness suggest that
respondents did not believe there was adequate representation from within their
community. Respondents seemingly recognize the benefits of having a diverse group of
people involved and feel that encouraging participation by more residents would be
beneficial to the charrette and the community.
The Charter for the New Urbanism identifies the inclusion of citizen participants
and public involvement as key principles of the movement (CNU 1996). Although the
stakeholder-access charrette is not open-forum style it does retain many aspects of the
traditional approach. One similar characteristic is the inclusion of an opening and closing
session encouraging citizens to participate. During the opening session charrette
96
facilitators seek insight regarding the issues and concerns of community members in an
attempt to guide and direct the charrette process (Lennertz 2009). Equally, the opening
and closing sessions offer members of the community greater opportunity to provide
feedback and discuss the outcomes and suggestions made during the charrette. To better
understand perceptions of participation during these sessions potential respondents were
asked to rate their level of satisfaction concerning the number of community members in
attendance. Here, fifty-eight (58%) of those who accessed the survey responded. Figure
4.20 shows twenty-seven people (46.5%) said that they were satisfied with the turnout
during these sessions. Of the remaining respondents, eleven (19%) had neutral feelings
on the matter and eleven people (19%) were dissatisfied with the number of community
members in attendance.
97
Respondent perceptions concerning the number of community members in
attendance at the opening and closing charrette sessions.
A discussion of the variables affecting attendance rates would be based on pure
speculation but is worthy of further investigation. However, after an analysis of the data
one may submit that increased advertising efforts prior to the event may, potentially,
promote an increase in the rate of attendance in future charrette proceedings.
Further data concerning the open and closing sessions reveals that respondents
felt that more members of the community should be present. While nearly half of the
respondents (46.5%) felt comfortable with the turnout in the opening and closing
98
sessions, supplementary data shows that a large majority (72.9%) agree that the entire
charrette should be open to members of the community. (Figure 4.21)
Respondent perceptions of the comment: “The entire charrette should be
open to members of the community.”
The results of this study suggest that inclusiveness is important to charrette
participants and methods for promoting and managing participation may be a topic
worthy of further exploration. As Figure 4.21 above shows, forty-three people (72.9%)
offered a positive response when asked if the charrette process should be open to all
members of the community. Of the remaining respondents seven people (11.9%) were
neutral on the matter, six (10.2%) responded not applicable, and three (5.1%) of those
who responded disagreed completely.
99
4.5.2 Good System of Communication
Open communication during the charrette process was the topic for the next series
of questions. Mattessich and Monsey discuss the merits of having a good system of
communication and suggest that it “fosters community residents’ awareness, motivation,
participation, innovation, and problem solving abilities” – which helps promote
successful community building efforts (1997). For the purpose of this study the
researcher addressed the topic of open communication by asking potential respondents to
rate their satisfaction concerning the ease of communication they experienced during the
charrette process. Of the eighty-five surveys fifty-eight participants (68%) offered
feedback. The majority of respondents (42; 72.4%) agreed that there was a comfortable
ease in communication among the charrette participants and those leading the facilitation.
(Figure 4.22)
100
Respondent satisfaction concerning the ease of communication between
charrette participants and facilitators.
Additionally, when discussing communication, Mattessich and Monsey suggest
that goals and objectives of the charrette be made clear early in the process to ensure that
participants are made aware of what the group wishes to accomplish (1997). To further
examine perceptions concerning communication charrette participants were asked if the
goals and objectives of the charrette held in their community were made clear early in the
process. Here, sixty participants (71%) responded and forty-seven (78.4%) agreed with
the statement. Of the remaining respondents five (8.3%) were neutral, two (3.4%) were
in disagreement, and six (10%) responded not applicable. (Figure 4.23)
101
Respondent perceptions of the statement: “Objectives of the charrette were
made clear early in the process.”
An analysis of this data concerning the ease of communication and a clear
definition of goals suggests that MMSA charrettes offered participants a process
promoting clarity and many felt it was a success. Also, the information gathered
following the analysis of the data raises questions concerning the existing social cohesion
within the community. Specifically, understanding how this phenomenon influences the
ease with which residents communicate as ideas are shared is a topic requiring further
exploration. As previously mentioned in the demographics section, survey data shows
that most respondents have lived in their community for a significant amount of time and
were seemingly active in various social and professional organizations. This suggests the
102
likelihood of a certain pre-existing social cohesion within the community prior to the
event which may potentially influence communication among participants during the
process. A greater understanding of how existing social cohesiveness influences
communication among charrette participants is worthy of further discussion.
Seemingly, the data reveals that many of the respondents felt the ease with which
participants communicated and the clear definition of the goals and objectives helped
strengthen the process.
4.5.3 Minimal Competition in Pursuit of Goals
Gridlock and time management issues have the potential to hinder the process and
often occur when there is active competition in pursuit of goals during the participatory
planning process (Irvin and Stansbury 2005). In an attempt to identify if this occurrence
was a trend in the MMSA Charrettes the researcher asked respondents if participants
promoted their personal agenda during the process. Of the total survey population sixty-
one participants (72%) responded and Figure 4.24 details the results. Here, twenty-five
people (39.3%) agreed that some participants seemed to be promoting a personal agenda
during the charrette process. Of the remaining respondents, thirteen (21.3%) disagreed,
17 (27.9%) were neutral, and seven (11.9%) felt that they could not respond to the
question.
103
Respondent perceptions of the statement: “Participants promoted their
personal agenda during the process.”
This data raises questions concerning focus and approach during a charrette.
Mattessich and Monsey discuss alternate agendas and the potential they have for
hindering the process having found that “successful efforts tend to occur in communities
where existing community organizations do not perceive other organization or the leaders
of a community building initiative as competitors” (1997). The data also suggests that
this was a topic of concern among participants of the MMSA charrettes as many (39.3%)
were seemingly displeased with the perceived intentions of some of the stakeholders.
104
4.5.4 Benefits to Many Residents
Following their research findings Mattessich and Monsey determine that
“successful community building efforts occur more often when the community goals,
tasks, and activities have clear benefits to many residents in the community, and when
these benefits are visible” (1997). When asked if the charrette process focused on
generating solutions for the concerns facing the community fifty-nine participants (69%)
offered response. The majority (40; 67.8%) said that they agreed that focus during the
charrette process was placed on generating holistic solutions beneficial to the community
as a whole. Of the remaining responses six (10.2%) were neutral on the matter, five
(8.5%) disagreed, one (1.7%) strongly disagreed, while seven (11.9%) responded not
applicable. Figure 4.25 gives the results.
105
Respondent perceptions of the statement: “The charrette process focused on
generating solutions for concerns facing the community as a whole.”
The data shows that charrette participants perceived interests from all in seeking
holistic solutions for addressing the issues facing the community. From an analysis of the
data one may conclude that stakeholders felt that they were making recommendations
focused on the well-being of the community as a whole. It should be noted, however,
that the data not examine perceptions held by the general population concerning these
recommendations.
4.5.5 Progression from Simple to Complex Activities
Findings from the research of Paul Mattessich and Barbara Monsey describe how
progression of the process may be influential in promoting a successful event. They
106
recommend a progression from simple to complex activities, stating that success is more
likely when this takes place (Mattessich et al. 1997). To determine if this was a
characteristic present in the MMSA charrettes the respondents were asked their
perception of how the process evolved. Here, fifty-six participants offered feedback.
Based on responses, thirty-seven (66.1%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the
charrette evolved in this manner. Of the remaining respondents eight (14.3%) were
neutral on the matter, five (8.9%) disagreed, and six (10.7%) responded “not applicable.
(Figure 4.26)
Respondent perceptions of the statement: “The charrette evolved from
simple tasks to more complex activities.”
107
Although some respondents were concerned with the agenda of fellow
participants the majority felt that the actual process – the charrette – followed a
comfortable rhythm. Data gathered from the survey proposes that respondents felt the
process moved from simple to more complex planning activities.
4.5.6 Community Control over the Decision Making Process
Mattessich and Monsey discuss the importance of the community retaining
control of the decision making process and suggest that “successful community building
efforts are more likely to occur when residents have control over decisions, particularly
over how funds are used” (Mattessich et al. 1997). For this study the researcher needed
to determine if participants in the MMSA charrettes were maintaining control of the
decision making process. Respondents were asked to share their perceptions and fifty-
five people responded. Here, twenty-four (43.7%) participants agreed that existing
community leaders did, in fact, emerge as the decision makers in the charrette. Of the
remaining respondents twelve (21.8%) disagreed, eleven (20.0%) were neutral, two
(3.6%) strongly disagreed, and six (10.9%) failed to offer a response. (Figure 4.27)
108
Respondent perceptions of the statement: “Existing leaders in the
community became the decision makers in the charrette.”
Even considering perceptions concerning the ease of communication present
during the process, and the eagerness with which stakeholders seemingly participate, it is
interesting that the consensus of participants suggests that existing community leaders
ultimately retained control of the decision making process. It seems as if those who have
been in control in the community prior to the charrette become citizen leaders during the
charrette. Left unchecked this has the potential to alter the process and the outcomes
associated with it. Further exploration of this topic is necessary for a greater
understanding of how this may be addressed in future charrettes.
109
To gain a greater insight of how stakeholders viewed the process the researcher
included a series of questions focusing on perceptions of overall effectiveness, efficiency,
and success of the charrette. Participants were presented three questions and were asked
to rate their level of overall satisfaction concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, and
perceived success of the charrette in their community. For each question fifty-eight
(68.2%) total responses were gathered and Figure 4.28 shows the results.
Respondent perceptions of the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and success
of the charrette held in their community.
110
Here, the data suggests that, all things considered, the majority of the participants
were generally satisfied with the charrette in their community. Results show that thirty
people (51.7%) offered positive feedback concerning their satisfaction with the overall
charrette process. Additionally, thirty-eight (67.8%) were seemingly satisfied with the
efficiency of the process while thirty-three (58.9%) felt the same when considering the
effectiveness of the event. Research data from this study also reveals that, when asked,
71.2 percent of respondents said that they would participate if a future charrette was held
in their community. (Figure 4.29)
Responses when asked if they would be willing to participate in a future
charrette.
111
4.6 Facilitation
When discussing the characteristics of community building organizers, charrette
facilitators in this case, Mattessich and Monsey discuss how “every community building
effort has individuals who design, implement, and manage the effort” and may live
within or outside of the community (1997). For this study the researcher examined the
characteristics described by Mattessich and Monsey as those which promote successful
facilitation of the community building process. These include: understanding the
community, sincerity in commitment, a relationship of trust, the level of organizing
experience, and the ability of the organizers to be flexible and adaptable. To gage the
importance of these characteristics participants were asked to rank them in order from
most to least important based on their experience with the charrette process. Table 4.3
details how participants ranked these characteristics.
Ranking of Characteristics important to facilitation.
Total Score
Overall Rank
Understanding the issues facing the community
189
1
Level of Experience
140
2
Sincerity of Commitment
140
3
A relationship of trust
129
4
Ability to be flexible and adaptable
122
5
Total Responses - 48
In this case the data suggests that the most important factor to charrette
participants concerning the facilitation of the process is that those leading the charge fully
understand the issues facing the community. Previous research describes how this
112
characteristic becomes important in the evolution of the community building process.
Mattessich and Monsey note how understanding a community’s “culture, social structure,
demographics, political structures, and issues” strengthens the capacity of the facilitation
team to offer holistic solutions (1997). This data suggests that facilitator awareness of
the dynamics within a community prior to the event is important to, and likely an
expectation of, charrette participants.
Next, respondents ranked level of experience and sincerity of commitment as
second and third most important characteristics they seek concerning characteristics of
facilitation. A facilitator’s commitment to the well-being of the community and
experience in guiding the process are characteristics important to participants as the
process evolves and trust, the fourth most important characteristic, is built (Mattessich et
al. 1997; Reed 2007). Finally, flexibility and adaptability completes the ranked list of the
characteristics of the facilitation deemed necessary for a successful event.
An analysis of this data allows the researcher to discuss characteristics of
facilitation and understand which are more important to the charrette participants.
Increased exploration and understanding what is expected of organizers and facilitators
may be beneficial in future events and charrette proceedings.
4.7 Additional Feedback
Open-ended questions at the end of the survey addressed perceptions and asked
for suggestions which may prove beneficial to future charrettes. These were included in
hopes of obtaining more detailed, personalized feedback from charrette participants
concerning their experience with the charrette process. To accomplish this, the
researcher developed four questions aimed at identifying specific responses from those
113
who participated in the survey. The responses for each question were categorized and
coded into one of six categories. (See appendices F-I for a complete list of responses)
The questions for this series included:
1. What factors do you feel most important in creating an effective, efficient
charrette process?
2. What were your greatest takeaways from the charrette in your community?
3. What suggestions would you recommend for improving the charrette
process for use in future charrettes?
4. What advantages/disadvantages would there be in conducting a charrette
open to all residents from beginning to end?
The following paragraphs examine each question, describe the coded categories,
and offer examples of the responses.
When asked to describe which factors you feel most important in creating an
effective, efficient process thirty-three participants (39%) responded. The results were
coded into the following categories and are shown in Figure 4.30.
1. Community Buy-in / Involvement (11; 33%)
a. “Buy-in from the community.”
b. “Getting the buy-in of appropriate people. Keeping politicians
completely out if possible.”
c. “Getting every aspect of the community involved in the process. There
were a lot of small business people that were not involved in the process.”
2. Open Communication / Adaptability (6; 18%)
a. “Openness and adaptability.”
114
b. “Ability to listen and compromise.”
c. “Being able to recognize the opportunities and taking things one
reasonable step at a time.”
3. Commitment and Flexibility of Leadership (6; 18%)
a. “Open-mindedness and commitment on behalf of leadership.”
b. “Willingness among the politicos to take a back seat. Less of me and
more of us. Experienced facilitation is essential.”
c. “Leadership and the ability to show the community how the charrette
will improve the community economically.”
4. None (5; 16%)
a. “Pointless.”
b. “Unknown.”
c. “Nothing”
5. Unbiased Feedback (3; 9%)
a. “Open and honest feedback that isn’t self-motivating/beneficial.”
b. “Outsiders insight into the community needs and an insightful/tactful
presentation to address those needs.”
c. “The focus groups providing open, honest feedback to the team and
community leaders willing to allow them to do their job without wanting
to weigh in too heavily on what should be done.”
6. Education of the process (2; 6%)
a. “Communicate the purpose of the charrette.”
b. “Prior communication and understanding of the process involved.”
115
Coded responses concerning the question: “What factors do you feel most
important in creating an effective, efficient charrette process?”
Here, buy-in, communication, and commitment from leadership emerged as
common responses when participants were asked what was most important to the
process. Being aware of these characteristics and how they influence the process is
important in the development of future charrettes. The data suggests that facilitators and
organizers familiarize themselves with successful methods of generating buy-in and
maintaining clear lines of communication throughout the process. Data also highlights
the importance of the commitment demonstrated by community leaders and charrette
116
facilitators and supports claims made in the research of Mattessich and Monsey that this
is necessary for a successful community building effort to occur (1997).
In the next open-ended question charrette participants were asked to identify what
they considered the greatest take-away following the charrette held in their community.
Of the participants thirty-six people (42%) responded when asked to describe what they
or the community gained most from participating in the charrette. The responses were
coded into six categories and are detailed in the following list as shown in Figure 4.31.
1. A tangible plan / Collective vision (9; 25%)
a. “Designs, logo ideas and a plan.”
b. “The actual plan map which caused motivation of business owners to
improve their property façade.”
c. “Concept for solutions.”
2. Identification of future opportunities (9; 25%)
a. “Identifiable and doable projects that could help move the goals
forward.”
b. “Opportunities for improvement of the community.”
c. “Some specific short-term opportunities that would be undertaken and a
sense of the long-term opportunities available to the community.”
3. Importance of community buy-in and willingness to implement plans (8;
22%)
a. “People who are willing to fight the agendas to bring on needed
change.”
117
b. “Community members felt they could do something about some of the
issues revealed and discussed.”
c. “We need cooperation.”
4. Diversity of New Ideas (4; 11%)
a. “Diverse ideas for alternate solutions from a more objective audience.”
b. “New Ideas.”
c. “Ideas to make the quality of life better in the community.”
5. None / Unknown (4; 11%)
a. “Unknown.”
b. “Don’t know.”
c. “N/A.”
6. Importance of leaders’ commitment (2; 5%)
a. “Has to be follow through from elected officials.”
b. “Leadership, even before funding, is necessary to move a project like
this forward. Leadership is challenged in this community.”
In this case the data reveals that the majority of respondents (18; 50%) felt that a
tangible plan for the community and the identification of specific opportunities
concerning future implementation were the greatest outcomes of the charrette.
Conversely, the data supports the notion discussed in previous research that a collective
vision and a clear plan for the implementation of future projects is a key characteristic of
a successful community building process (Mattessich et al. 1997; Reed 2007). Of the
remaining responses 22 percent revealed that their greatest take-away from the charrette
was an understanding of how important buy-in from the community became as the
118
charrette evolved. Additional responses identify the development of new ideas (4; 11%)
and the importance of commitment from leaders (2; 5%) as learned characteristics
following the event.
Coded responses concerning the question: “What was your greatest take-
away from the charrette in your community?”
Next, the researcher utilized open-ended questioning to ask potential respondents
to provide recommendations or suggestions for improving future charrettes. Here, thirty-
119
two people offered feedback resulting in a response rate of 38 percent. The responses
were coded into six categories and are detailed in Figure 4.32.
1. Awareness / Education / Advertising Prior to the Event (10; 31%)
a. “Advertise more prior to.”
b. “ More education of the process.”
c. “More information needed to be out there in the state so others may be
willing to participate.”
2. Don’t know / No recommendation (6; 19%)
3. Community Involvement / Diversity (5; 16%)
a. “More effective outreach and involvement from key demographic
areas.”
b. “Get as many people involved as possible.”
c. “Wider participation.”
4. Increased organization and communication (5; 16%)
a. “It would be great if we could stream the “war room” so that all
members of the community could be part of the design/work process.”
b. “The process was good.”
c. “Some of the graphic design seemed a bit generic. Spend more time
communicating the plan.”
5. Commitment from leaders (3; 9%)
a. “Gain strong support from community leaders.”
b. “Need more commitment from those facilitating charrette for
communities.
120
c. “Get leaderships’ formal commitment to the process.”
6. Follow-up / Funding (3; 9%)
a. “I think a follow-up meeting with community leaders regarding
execution of the suggestions.”
b. “Follow-up is needed for implementation of the things we decided on.”
In this case the data reveals that increasing awareness, education, and advertising
prior to the event is the number one suggestion made by charrette participants following
the event. Seemingly, respondents feel that the dissemination of information educating
citizens on the process and making them aware of the goals and expectations of the
charrette is important for future events. The results also suggest that open
communication and diversity of participants are also concerns and must be considered
and addressed in future proceedings.
121
Coded responses concerning suggestions for improving the charrette
process for use in future events.
When discussing widespread participation previous research discusses including a
diversity of participants and promoting the event to include as many people as possible
(Mattessich et al. 1997). The researcher also learned over the course of the study how an
open-forum setting has the potential to do more harm than good as a charrette evolves.
There are both advantages and disadvantages associated with increased inclusiveness of
the charrette process. Identifying and understanding how they influence the process is
necessary if the discipline wishes to create a balanced, efficient charrette.
122
In an attempt to gather more specific information concerning perceptions of
inclusiveness charrette participants were asked to discuss their views concerning this
approach. The researcher petitioned respondents to discuss what they see as possible
advantages and disadvantages associated with a charrette which is open to the public-at-
large from beginning to end. There are both advantages and disadvantages associated
with increased inclusiveness of the charrette process. Identifying and understanding
these and how they influence the charrette is necessary if the discipline wishes to create a
balanced, efficient charrette. This time, forty people provided feedback resulting in a
response rate of 47 percent. Responses to the open-ended question are grouped into six
categories; three concerning advantages and three concerning disadvantages. The
category “unknown” resulted in six (15%). The following list of categories describes
individual responses and Figures 4.33 and 4.34 show the respective results:
Advantages
1. Adequate Representation (5; 13%)
a. “Gives a voice to all.”
b. “Opportunity for those who may have something good to bring
to the tables and were not invited.”
c. “True democratic process.”
2. Community Buy-in / Social Cohesion (8; 18%)
a. “Buy-in from all.”
b. “Level of ownership would increase considerably promoting a stronger
community.”
c. “More possible motivation to buy-in to the suggestions.”
123
3. Increased input from the majority (3; 8%)
a. “Broader input from all.”
b. “The advantage would be that you would get broader input into the
process.”
c. “More community input the better.”
Disadvantages
4. Too many agendas jeopardizing effectiveness (13; 33%)
a. “Would just be too many agendas.”
b. “Too many opinions often leads to ineffective decisions, which
impeded progress.”
c. “Would be input of too many personal agendas vs what is best for the
community.”
5. Difficulty maintaining focus (4; 10%)
a. “More people makes it difficult to manage the process.”
b. “It becomes hard to drill down and focus on the issues”
c. “Too many people will make focus of specific topics difficult.”
6. Increased difficulty of communication. (1; 3%)
a. “Communicating the goals to a larger number of people may prove
difficult and inefficient.”
124
Perceived advantages of conducting a charrette open to all residents from
beginning to end.
125
Perceived disadvantages of conducting a charrette open to all residents
from beginning to end.
Results derived from these questions show that many of the participants (8; 18%)
view an increase in buy-in and social cohesion within the community as the greatest
advantage of conducting an open-forum charrette. While this form and approach to
charrette facilitation has been the traditional method for involving the public-at-large
difficulties in managing the time and costs associated have, at times, threatened the
process. Conversely, when asked to describe the disadvantages of an open-forum
charrette thirteen people (33%) said they were concerned that the inclusion of more
people would create a process in which the participants carry far too many agendas.
126
These agendas consume valuable time and seemingly have the potential to reduce
efficiency, effectiveness, and perceptions of success concerning the process. These
participants recognize how having more people involved may result in a more holistic
plan but acknowledge the threat of gridlock that may result from having too many
agendas.
127
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
The results of the web-based survey helped the researcher examine how the
stakeholder-access approach to charrette facilitation is perceived by those who are active
in the participatory process. By gathering and compiling data addressing the
characteristics and variables associated with successful community building efforts the
researcher was able to gain an in-depth view of this alternate approach. This chapter will,
identify how the data gathered from the web-based survey may be used within the
discipline of landscape architecture, identify the assumptions and limitations, discuss
recommendations made by the researcher, and offer suggestions for future research
concerning the charrette process. An exploration of the participant perceptions of the
charrette process will identify variables important in creating a process focused on both
effectiveness and efficiency applicable to future charrettes.
5.2 Assumptions
Several assumptions were made throughout the course of the study. First, the
researcher developed a survey tool focusing primarily on the charrettes facilitated by the
MMSA. Residents who participated in the MMSA charrettes were easily accessible and
the researcher assumed that feedback from these individuals would be representative of a
128
broader population. Second, it is assumed that the research method, based on Dillman’s
TDM, was most appropriate for this study. The researcher assumed that following
Dillman’s’ TDM would produce adequate response rates sufficient for making
assumptions regarding survey respondents. Third, it is the assumption of the researcher
that participants who responded to the survey provided truthful answers and gave honest
feedback concerning their experience with the charrette process.
5.3 Limitations of Study
Multiple limitations were revealed during the course of this study. First, and
foremost, involves the survey implementation. The survey utilized to gather the data for
this thesis was reliant on a sample of convenience, rather than a random sample, and the
results may not be suggestive of participants in other charrette proceedings. Lists of
contacts gathered from the Main Street Managers and Chamber of Commerce Directors
served as the primary method of identifying the active participants in each community. It
should be noted, too, that official records of those in attendance were not kept for most of
the communities that have held a charrette. This made it difficult for the researcher to
properly identify stakeholders active in many of the towns. As previously noted the
majority of respondents (60.3%) participated in the Columbus, MS charrette and created
a scope more limited than the researcher had hoped. Also, following the distribution of
the survey tool 253 email addresses of potential respondents were returned as invalid or
non-existent and resulted in response rates much lower than those suggested by Dillman’s
TDM.
Second, the survey population was limited to participants in charrettes designed
and facilitated by the MMSA. While the MMSA follows the charrette facilitation
129
recommendations of the National Charrette Institute it cannot be assumed that their
approach is the same as other entities operating on the recommendations of the NCI.
Third, many of the MMSA charrettes occurred four to eight years ago. Several
emails were received from potential respondents addressing their concern regarding their
ability to remember specifics of the event they attended. These respondents felt that the
event occurred too far in the past for them to offer useful feedback for the purpose of the
survey and they opted out. The survey data and reactionary emails suggest the possibility
that length of time since the charrette may, potentially, influence the rate of response as
well as the respondent’s ability to provide accurate feedback.
Finally, it is to be noted that the research examines only Mississippi
Communities, many of which are considered rural areas. The societal structure and
social dynamics found in a rural Mississippi community differs greatly from that of an
urban metropolitan area.
5.4 Recommendations
Seemingly, there were many positive outcomes following the MMSA charrettes
and the stakeholder-access approach is successful in promoting an effective, efficient
process. The data suggests that, overall, respondents were satisfied with the charrette
process and that most perceived it as a success. They seem to recognize how a
participatory planning event may prove beneficial for their community as they plan for
future growth and identify opportunities focused on the whole. It, too, is the opinion of
the researchers that from this perspective the charrettes conducted by the MMSA have
been successful. Community leaders and charrette facilitators have successfully engaged
130
key members of the community and petitioned them to reach consensus in identifying a
formidable plan for future growth.
More importantly, however, this study has highlighted notable short-comings and
identified characteristics of the stakeholder-access charrette process which may require
greater scrutiny as facilitators seek the best approach for charrette facilitation. Namely,
there is a significant lack of diversity among charrette participants which potentially
threatens the development of holistic solutions for the issues facing the community.
Though the process itself may be deemed successful data shows that methods for
promoting inclusion and diversity of charrette participants should receive greater
consideration as facilitators seek the best approach for future participatory planning
events. The recommendations of the researcher address this disconnect while discussing
the topics of diversity, the difficulty of balancing inclusion and efficiency, and alternative
methods for participation. Also, these recommendations discuss the importance of
developing social capacity within the community before and during the event and
maintaining it afterward.
The data gathered from surveys distributed to participants of the MMSA
charrettes has allowed the researcher to make the following recommendations for future
participatory planning events:
Increase media advertising prior to the event in an effort to raise
awareness of the upcoming charrette.
Offer educational opportunities prior to the upcoming charrette for
residents to become familiar with the process: its history, application,
purpose, goals, and objectives.
131
Develop plans for increasing the diversity of charrette participants in both
the stakeholder-access portion and the general sessions, helping ensure
community control during the decision making process.
Utilize various social media outlets in an attempt to connect, educate, and
gather feedback from community members.
Develop surveys specific to the MMSA charrettes so that participant data
may be gathered before, during, and immediately after a charrette has
occurred.
Track and maintain contact information for charrette participants in both
the stakeholder-access and general sessions.
Data gathered from the survey revealed that participants involved in the MMSA
charrettes felt that there was a significant lack of advertising within the community
before the event took place. Many of the survey respondents (46.9%) said they learned
about the process from a local Main Street Manager or Chamber of commerce member.
Interestingly, traditional media (newspaper or television) only accounted for 21.9 percent
and was not the primary method for informing the public prior to the opening session.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the researcher that organizers and facilitators
develop methods for increasing the awareness of the event in the weeks leading up to the
opening session. An exploration of how to best utilize local media outlets to promote
advertising is necessary as community leaders and charrette facilitators seek buy-in from
motivated, well-informed individuals.
When asked what suggestions they would make for future charrettes, 31 percent
of the respondents felt that increased education, primarily before the process, would be
132
beneficial. Data from the survey reveals that prior to the charrette few people seemed to
understand the charrette or the intentions of the process. Based on participant concerns,
the researcher recommends that community leaders and charrette facilitators develop a
system for offering educational opportunities discussing the history, application, purpose,
goals, and objectives associated with this process.
Third, data shows 87.1 percent of survey respondents of the MMSA charrettes
were Caucasian and did not represent a diverse population. Although demographic data
gathered for this survey may not be suggestive of a larger population it is important to
note the lack of diversity here. If charrette organizers are promoting the process based on
the principles of the New Urbanism then this must be addressed. It is the
recommendation of the researcher that organizers develop plans for including a diversity
of charrette participants in both the stakeholder-access portion and the general sessions so
that holistic solutions may be identified.
Next, as mentioned above, an analysis of participant responses revealed that
word-of-mouth was the primary media source for informing potential participants of the
upcoming charrette. This made the researcher question both the inclusiveness and missed
opportunities for informing and inviting participants into the process. Today, the ease of
communication associated with current technology and the popularity of social media
outlets allow members of our society to connect like never before. Surely, charrette
organizers and facilitators recognize the potential in utilizing this technology to promote
the charrette process. After analyzing the data the researcher recommends that other
options for charrette participation be considered and explored in an attempt to connect,
educate, interact with, and gather feedback from community members.
133
As research into the participatory planning process evolved the researcher
experienced difficulty in obtaining information concerning any similar study or survey of
participants in charrettes of this type. Very little information exists concerning both the
traditional, open-forum charrette, and the alternate stakeholder-access approach. It is the
recommendation of the researcher that future charrettes held by the MMSA, or any other
entity hoping to gather useful feedback concerning the process, include surveys as the
process occurs. Gathering information during the process will allow charrette organizers
to immediately identify trends among the participants or the process, some of which may
be time sensitive. Considering the gap in information related to the charrette process, and
if facilitators truly seek solutions for the well-being of the whole, research focused on the
process must evolve as part of the process.
Finally, the researcher recommends that organizers and facilitators address the
fact that very few of the communities having held a MMSA charrette maintained records
of the event. Gathering contact information for charrette participants proved difficult
because many of the communities did not compile a list of those involved nor did they
maintain contact information for participants. If future research is to prove beneficial,
those in charge must strive to maintain awareness of and information concerning who
was in attendance. Tracking and maintaining contact information of participants in both
the stakeholder-access and general sessions is important for the validity of future
research.
Based on the data compiled following the survey the researcher presented these
recommendations to the MMSA as suggestions for promoting advertisement and
education before the process, increasing diversity during the process, and identifying
134
other methodologies for promoting an inclusive approach focused on creating an
efficient, successful charrette.
5.5 Implications Concerning the Profession
The Landscape Architect has a unique opportunity to practice the principles of
New Urbanism, build relationships with local residents, and participate in the community
building process. Having a knowledgably informed citizen base is beneficial to the
participatory planning process (Arnstein 1975). The Landscape Architect, as steward of
the environment motivated to create resilient communities, holds the responsibility of
promoting diversity within and educating those involved with the process. Moreover, the
landscape architect offers the experience necessary for the development of an informed
design. He or she considers the variables present, and the variables that may be
manipulated, to create a sense of place based, in part, on community feedback. Consider,
for example, how participants responded when asked to describe what was gained as a
result of the charrette. Many of them said “A tangible plan built on a collective vision”.
Understanding the participatory planning process - specifically, how to engage
participants so that a “collective vision” is the result - becomes important for the
landscape architect as a tangible plan emerges. Additionally, understanding social
capacity and having the ability to recognize and apply the variables necessary for
conducting an efficient process influences how the landscape architect designs.
The landscape architect often develops a holistic approach based on research
informed design. Landscape architects are trained to conduct an analysis of existing
features and elements present within a community prior to any development or re-
development. This should be no different when considering the social capital and social
135
capacity present in a community before, during, and after a participatory planning event.
Just as research of circulation patterns may identify transportation solutions research
concerning the participatory process, and how to keep it efficient, ultimately, influence
the design. Understanding the variables that constitute the proper form of charrette
approach for use is necessary for the designer who, at the very least, creates visual
representations of the suggestions made during the process.
The role of the designer is molded as trust is built with the participants in the
charrette (Duany et al. 1992). Mattessich and Monsey describe the importance of
experienced facilitators and how communities witnessing strong leadership in facilitation
tend to show an increase in successful community building efforts (1997). Knowledge
within the discipline concerning the most efficient process gives landscape architects the
tools for strengthening their leadership abilities. Additionally, the landscape architect has
the opportunity to forge a bond with charrette participants while organizing and creating
a visual representation of the ideals they have suggested. In turn, a plan evolves as trust
is strengthened.
5.6 Opportunities for Further Research
This study has identified several opportunities for future research concerning the
charrette process. The following is a discussion of opportunities focused on identifying
best practices for application and replication in the charrette process.
First, and foremost, further research aimed at collecting feedback before, during,
and immediately after the event is needed. The researcher found little information or
previous research concerning the charrette process as it evolves. The data collected in
this survey suggested that respondents may be less apt to participate if they were involved
136
in participatory events further in the past. It is the opinion of the researcher that the
length of time between the charrette and the survey reduces participant’s willingness and
ability to participate in the study. Here, a study addressing the timeliness of the survey
may prove beneficial. Conversely, gathering feedback from participants immediately
following the charrette process will allow them to address concerns which may be more
time sensitive. Data gathered from surveys completed prior to the event may identify
variables influencing how participant perceptions change from the beginning of the
process to the end. Research of pre and post-charrette perceptions may identify key
characteristics necessary for strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of the process.
Understanding these variables and how they are perceived prior to and immediately
following the actual event may offer advanced methods for creating a more inclusive
process while simultaneously maintaining efficiency.
A second opportunity for further research would examine input from the public-at
–large who participate in the general opening and closing sessions. Surveying these
participants will provide future researchers a greater understanding of how the general
public perceives the stakeholder-access charrette. Principles of the New Urbanism
suggest that the plans recommended at the conclusion of the charrette concentrate on
addressing issues facing the community as a whole. A study examining the perceptions
of the public-at-large may prove beneficial in determining if, in fact, the outcomes
suggested by the stakeholders and facilitators are accepted by the majority within the
community. Understanding if, and to what extent, the general public feels that the
stakeholder-access charrette promotes a successful process is worthy of exploration.
137
Third, opportunity and information lies in a comparison study of both the open-
forum and stakeholder-access approach to charrette facilitation. Performed
simultaneously, the researcher may apply similar survey methods to both forms of
charrette facilitation. The results would allow researchers to make sound comparisons of
the similarities of and differences between the two approaches.
Next, a study specific to the stakeholder-access approach for charrette facilitation
should develop methodologies for generating interest and promoting inclusion and
diversity in the participatory planning process. Data suggests that there is little
advertising or education prior to the event and lack of interest or knowledge may lead to a
reduction in the rate of participation. Identifying a plan for increasing participation and
promoting diversity of charrette participants is an opportunity worthy of exploration.
Finally, research exploring alternative options and methods for participation
would be an opportunity for future researchers as they strive to create the most
successful, efficient charrette process. In recent years advancements in technology and
the popularity of social media outlets have altered the way Americans communicate and
share information. These advancements offer an ease in communication like never
before and have potential in research involving the participatory planning process.
Future research focused on developing these technologies to promote involvement and
increase diversity is warranted. Management of information gathered utilizing multiple
avenues of feedback will help ensure fair representation and offer real time data
associated with the charrette process. It is the opinion of the researcher that further
research in these areas is needed so practitioners may identify sound methodologies for
charrette facilitation.
138
5.7 Summary
It is to be noted that the results of this study do offer insight of how survey
respondents perceived the whole process. Overall, those who offered response felt that
the lack of the diversity should be addressed in future application of this form of
participatory planning process. It is the opinion of the researcher that diversity within,
and education of, the process are the two main obstacles facing teams of charrette
facilitators today. In current practice the MMSA, seemingly, is not creating a process
promoting the incorporation of a diversity of participants. The fact that 87% of the
survey respondents were Caucasian, that 58 percent of them felt that increased inclusion
would create a better process, and 72 percent felt that the entire charrette should be open
to the community is of great concern and supports the need for an examination of how to
best approach the process. Identifying alternate methods and developing and utilizing
social media outlets will arm future charrette facilitators with the tools they really need in
future endeavors. Advertising, education, and communication are only a few of the
issues that may be easily addressed by utilizing various media outlets aimed at generating
buy-in and promoting a more diverse base of participants. If the goal is to produce
solutions focused on a holistic approach then buy-in of the majority is important. The
MMSA, certainly, should be interested in identifying various methods for gathering
feedback if the intent of the organization is to strengthen communities and truly offer
holistic solutions based on their four-point approach.
As mentioned previously the researcher identified the inability to efficiently
gather contact information from charrette participants as a major limitation and a variable
to be considered when discussing the response rate of 23 percent. It should be noted that
139
only one community, Columbus, maintained a seemingly complete, up to date, list of
contacts who were involved in the charrette. It should be noted, too, that while many of
the other communities offered a list of contacts they usually consisted only of local
political figures or key business leaders. The main street manager in Columbus presented
the information in an organized manner and was accommodating to the needs of the
researcher. The system of organization utilized in Columbus should be examined and,
possibly, replicated in communities either having held or hoping to conduct a charrette in
the future. A well maintained list of participants will allow future researchers the ability
to more accurately measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the process. Conversely,
considering that these events are funded by federal and state grants, these lists should be
maintained for public record.
