sic to the involvement (through the very act of participation) or instrumental (resulting from the opportunity to contribute to public policy). The planner's expectations are also important in that an effective public participation program can lead to a better planning process and product as well as personal satisfaction.
Well-planned citizen involvement programs relate the expectations of both the citizens and the planner. Arnstein's "ladder of citizen participation" can assist the planner in determining his or her perceptions of a program's purpose and compare this with the anticipated perceptions of citizen participants (see Figure A-2).
In successful citizen involvement programs, the disparity between the planner's and the participant's expectations in minimal. If expectations are different, conflict is probable. This conflict is damaging to the planning process (as well as the agency's reputation), and to the relationship between the participants and the planner. Often, it is avoidable because it's source is in conflicting expectations rather than conflicting demands (Cogan, et al., 1986, p 287).
Figure A-2. The Ladder of Citizen Participation
Clearly, citizen participation programs can increase costs and the amount of time a project takes. Further, as discussed above, there is a certain level of risk associated with citizen participation programs. However, Cogan suggests that citizen participation programs can make the planning process and planners more effective by:
Further, in certain polarized issues an effective public participation program may actually save time and money by insuring that the proposed solution is acceptable to all of the interested stakeholders.
Techniques of Citizen Participation
There are a variety of techniques available to
planners to solicit public input in the planning process. These range from basic open
meetings to more sophisticated techniques such as the Delphi and Nominal Group techniques
(see Appendix B for a more detailed description of these techniques). Cogan states
"with few exceptions, a successful public involvement program incorporates several
techniques" (Cogan, et al. 1986 p. 292). These techniques can be graphically
presented as a continuum that ranges from passive involvement to active involvement
(Figure A-3). Cogan provides the following description of each of the forms of public
involvement follows (Cogan, et al. 1986 p. 292-294). Not all techniques fit exclusively into one category. For example, a
public meeting may provide opportunities for education and interaction. A key point Cogan makes is that the number of citizens who can be
involved is inversely related to the level of active involvement. For example, public
relations efforts can reach a larger number of citizens, while public partnership limits
participation to a few (Cogan, et al. 1986, p. 293). One of the stated goals of the Delta Showcase Project is to develop
partnerships will individuals and groups. While this is clearly an achievable goal, the
previous discussion indicates that the number of partnerships developed during the project
will probably be small. Figure A-3. Public Participation
Not all techniques fit exclusively into one category. For example, a public meeting may provide opportunities for education and interaction.
A key point Cogan makes is that the number of citizens who can be involved is inversely related to the level of active involvement. For example, public relations efforts can reach a larger number of citizens, while public partnership limits participation to a few (Cogan, et al. 1986, p. 293).
One of the stated goals of the Delta Showcase Project is to develop partnerships will individuals and groups. While this is clearly an achievable goal, the previous discussion indicates that the number of partnerships developed during the project will probably be small.
Figure A-3. Public Participation Continuum
Building public support
Securing advice and consent
<----------------- PASSIVE ACTIVE------------------>
Criteria for an Effective Citizen Participation Program
Understanding that a