Urban Planing Term Paper
abdlla16
week7_mon_2015.pptxCommunicative Planning
URBS 300
March 2, 2015
James Ring Scholarships
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major
60 units completed by end of spring semester
Not a graduating senior
Essay of 500 words on how scholarship will help for career objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
Service activity in campus or community organizations
Due March 13, 2015 to Prof. Henrik Minassians
http:// www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/james-ring-scholarship-awards
California Planning Foundation Scholarship
$1,000
Excellent academic record
Senior in 2015-16 academic year
500 word essay why planning is important to you, how scholarship will help, short- and long-term career goals
2 letters of recommendation
Demonstration of financial need
Due March31, 2015
http ://www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/california-planning-foundation-scholarships
Railway Association of Southern California Scholarship
2 undergraduate scholarships or $3,000
Enrolled in Fall 2015 in degree program related to rail transportation industry
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Interest in profession in rail transportation industry
Need a letter of recommendation and personal statement
Due March 30, 2015
http:// www.railwayassociation.org/scholarship.html
WTS: Ava Doner Memorial Undergraduate Scholarship
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
Due in October, awarded in November
http://www.wtsinternational.org/losangeles//scholarships /
Association for Women in Architecture Foundation
$1,000
California resident or accredited California school
Probably due April 15 (this year’s is not out yet)
Application form, transcript, 2 sealed recommendations, personal statement, portfolio
Can be senior year
http://awaplusd.org/scholarships /
Pacific Water Quality Association
“Major of Study Related to Potable Water Quality Scholarship”
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Essay on usefulness of education and how money will help
Transcripts
Application
Letter of recommendation
http:// www.pwqa.org/images/shared/scholarship_application.pdf
Mail-in, must be received by April 1, 2015
Typology of Planning Theories
| Locus of Planning | |||
| Centralized | Decentralized | ||
| Mode of Planning | Rational | Applied Scientist: Rational Planning | Political Activist: Advocacy Planning |
| Non-rational | Confront Politics: Incrementalism | Communicator: Communicative Planning |
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning |
| Data Collection | |||||
| Data Analysis | |||||
| Forecasting | |||||
| Establish Goals | |||||
| Design Alternatives | |||||
| Test Alternatives | |||||
| Evaluate Alternatives | |||||
| Select Alternatives | |||||
| Implementation | |||||
| Monitor/Evaluate |
Rational Planning Steps
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning |
| Data Collection | X | Fundamental | X | X | |
| Data Analysis | X | Fundamental | X | X | |
| Forecasting | X | Fundamental | X | X | |
| Establish Goals | X | X | X | X | |
| Design Alternatives | X | Fundamental | X | ||
| Test Alternatives | X | Fundamental | X | ||
| Evaluate Alternatives | X | Fundamental | X | ||
| Select Alternatives | X | X | X | X | X |
| Implementation | X | X | X | X | X |
| Monitor/Evaluate | X | X (can always undo) | X | X | X |
Postmodernism
Postmodernism
Rejects modernism tenants of
Sense of order
Comprehensibility
Predictability
Rationality
Recognizes
Complexity of problems
Elusiveness of solutions
Chaotic nature of social, economic and political environments
Oppression by Modernism
Race
Culture
Gender
Time- and space-specific communities
Why postmodernism?
Fragmented power
Distrust of government and experts
Multiple discourses
New tribalism
Technology changing quickly
Planning in the Postmodern
Dark Side of Theory
Promote radical urban forms, institutions, and development practices
Assertively express local and particular interests of our constituents
Communicative Theory
Connect people and ideas
Create joint learning
Coordinate interests and players
Build social, intellectual and political capital
New methods to work on challenging tasks
Prepare for uncertainty
Communicative Planning
Communicative Action
Collective sense of meaning created by communications
Shared understanding
Communication is the essence of the planning process
Planners influence public’s perception through communications
Applegate Valley
500,000-acre watershed in SW Oregon
Historic gold-mining
BLM and Forest Service own 70% land
Large-scale timber harvest in late 1960s
Medford, Grants Pass, and White City grew
Timber revenue ½ of county revenue
Environmental opposition
Spotted owl
Marbled murrelet
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/wet/team-research/owl-res/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_Murrelet
Applegate Partnership
“The Applegate Partnership is a community-based project involving industry, conservation groups, natural resource agencies, and residents cooperating to encourage and facilitate the use of natural resource principals that promote ecosystem health and diversity. Through community involvement and education, this Partnership supports management of all land within the watershed in a manner that sustains natural resources and that will, in turn, contribute to economic and community stability within the Applegate Valley”
Led by Jack Shipley
Resident & Environmentalist
9 members
2 federal land managers
2 environmentalists
2 timber company employees
1 community organizer
1 soil & water conservation district employee
No staff
Applegate
5 months of unpublicized getting to know you meetings
Open to public and membership open
Represent perspectives rather than take positions
Focus on problem solving and collectively identifying alternatives
Make preliminary suggestions
Social and professional networks tested ideas
Field trips
Helped find agreement
New techniques identified
Expanded to private lands
Applegate Conclusions
Wide support
Some environmental groups did not participate
Wanted to stop all timber sales
Federal agencies still responsible for decision-making
Provided much data
Were actively involved
Questions
Would the process be different for rational planners?
Would advocacy planning worked better for Applegate?
Types of Information
Technical
Experience
Stories
Intuition
Types of Communication
| Type | One-Way | Two-Way |
| Face-to-face | ||
| Non-verbal face-to-face communication | X | |
| Meetings | X | X |
| Front counter | O | X |
| Casual conversation | X | |
| Internet/Electronic | ||
| X | O | |
| X | O | |
| Written | ||
| Formal plans and reports | X | |
| Memos | X | |
| Voice: Phone calls | O | X |
Note: X – Strong Form, O – Weak Form
Four Characteristics of Good Communication
Comprehensible
Sincere
Legitimate
True
Information
Historically studies are ignored
Not value-neutral
Experts disagree
Most influential when part of assumptions and policy definitions
People frequently cannot explain what information caused the decision
Institution and process changes
Process Change: Human Rights
1970s law to require human rights reports
Law could not be rescinded by Reagan
Three changes
Training how to find out and interpret data changed actions
Created advocacy on behalf of foreign officers
Human rights was a concern of most meetings and incidents
Process Change: California Environmental Quality Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
Require reporting of environmental effects of development
Allows court cases for poorly prepared reports
Requires feedback from the public
Change is up-front as developers try to prevent court cases
Only based on information
Doe not require protecting environment
Unemployment index
Took 20 years to fully develop
Unemployment rate became identical to unemployment
Ingrained in society – people fought to keep it
Predictive models
Legislation integration
Understanding of economy
Planners Communicative Responsibilities
Prevent and correct false promises
Correct misleading expectations
Eliminate unnecessary dependency
Create and nurture hope
Spread policy and design questions to those affected
Nurture dialogue
Communicate genuine social and political possibilities
Planners roles
Initiators
Start a consensus-building process
Finders and presenters of information
2-way communication requires revisions
Find experts of alternative viewpoints
Written documentation
Minutes, issue reports
First drafts of negotiating documents
Mediators and facilitators
Shuttle diplomacy
Represent stakeholders
Advocacy vs Communicative Planning
Mediated negotiation
Should use to address power imbalances
Useful when
Involves many issues
Trading to find mutual gain
Diverse interests rather than fundamental rights are at stake
Consensus Building
All stakeholders present
Common information for all
Interests of each stakeholder identified
Agree on facts, create options, develop criteria to chose, make decision if agree
Consensus Building: San Francisco Estuary Project
5-year project
50 stakeholders (developers, agriculture, water agencies, environmentalists)
Salinity level was indicator of choice
Communicative Checklist
All stakeholders present
Equally informed
Empowered to discuss
All claims and assumptions must be able to be questioned
Sincerity and honesty
Credentials and experience
Comprehensibility
Factually accurate
Group must seek consensus
Contributions of Communicative Action
Focus on communicative aspects of planning
Planners effect the future
Planners can help rebalance power and end inequities
New methods for developing plans
Mediated negotiation
Consensus building
Dispute-resolution
Group decision-making techniques
New research opportunities
Typology of Planning Theories
| Locus of Planning | |||
| Centralized | Decentralized | ||
| Mode of Planning | Rational | Applied Scientist: Rational Planning | Political Activist: Advocacy Planning |
| Non-rational | Confront Politics: Incrementalism | Communicator: Communicative Planning |
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning
Rational Planning Steps
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | ||||||
| Data Analysis | ||||||
| Forecasting | ||||||
| Establish Goals | ||||||
| Design Alternatives | ||||||
| Test Alternatives | ||||||
| Evaluate Alternatives | ||||||
| Select Alternatives | ||||||
| Implementation | ||||||
| Monitor/Evaluate |
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | X | Fund. | X | X | X | |
| Data Analysis | X | Fund. | X | X | ? | |
| Forecasting | X | Fund. | X | X | ||
| Establish Goals | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Design Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | ? | ||
| Test Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Evaluate Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Select Alternatives | X | X | X | X | X | ? |
| Implementation | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Monitor/Evaluate | X | X (can always undo) | X | X | X | ? |
