This item has the following downloads:
1 AN EVALUATION OF PUBLIC PA RTICIPATION TECHNIQUES USING ARNSTEINS LADDER: THE PORTLAND PLAN By SHAYNA DEBRA GERSHMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Shayna Debra Gershman
3 To my grandfather, Arthur Ginsburg
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my Chair, Dr. Richard Schneider, and my Co-Chair, Dr. Paul Zwick. Their continuing guidance and ad vice gave me confidence in my work and my abilities, and I am honored to have had the oppor tunity to learn so much from them over the past three years. Dr. Zwick, thank you for teaching me no t to be comfortable, but to be creative. Next, I would like to thank my friends fo r helping me through this process. This would not have been possible without our fre quent Skype sessions and phone calls that always gave me a boost when I most needed it. Specifically, I need to thank Sarah Benton and Josette Severyn, the best thes is accountability buddies anyone could ask for. I would also like to thank my family for their constant love, support, and faith. I know that this process has made me a str onger person, and I appreciate their role in helping me see it through to the end. Finally, thank you to my Pop-Pop, Arthur Ginsburg. I love you a bushel and a peck.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS ..................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................7LIST OF FI GURES..........................................................................................................8LIST OF ABBR EVIATIONS.............................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................10CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION ....................................................................................................12Why Portland? ........................................................................................................13Research Q uestions ...............................................................................................14Organizati on...........................................................................................................142 LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................16History of Public Participat ion.................................................................................16Open Govern ment..................................................................................................16Academic Di scourse...............................................................................................17Cultural Ba rriers...............................................................................................18Lack of Res ources............................................................................................20Digital Div ide....................................................................................................24Participatory Practices and Existing Inst itutions...............................................25Public Participation and Geographic Information Syst ems (GIS).....................28Arnsteins Ladder of Cit izen Participation...............................................................31Description of the Rungs on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation............34Criticisms of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Part icipatio n....................................353 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................374 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ....................................................................................40Backgroun d.............................................................................................................40visionPD X...............................................................................................................41Brief Explanation of the Portl and Plan ....................................................................42Phase 1...................................................................................................................43Public Participation Goals fo r the Portland Pl an Proces s.................................45Phase 1: Successes and Areas for Improv ement.............................................46Evaluation of Approaches Ut ilized in Phase 1 of Portland Plan Outreach........48Phase 2...................................................................................................................50
6 Phase 2: Successes and Ar eas for Impr ovement ............................................. 50Evaluation of Approaches Ut ilized in Phase 2 of Portland Plan Outreach........55Phase 3...................................................................................................................56Phase 3: Successes and Ar eas for Impr ovement .............................................56Evaluation of Approaches Utilized in Phase 3 of Portland Plan Outreach........60Phase 4...................................................................................................................62Phase 4: Successes and Ar eas for Impr ovement .............................................62Evaluation of Approaches Ut ilized in Phase 4 of Portland Plan Outreach........65Portland Plan Public Participation Tec hniques and Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participat ion.........................................................................................................675 DISCUSSI ON .........................................................................................................70Participation Techniques to Furt her Portland Plan Developm ent............................70Restraints on Public Partici pation ...........................................................................71Critique: Tr ansparency............................................................................................72Critique: Equal Represent ation of t he Public..........................................................72Extent of Citizens Power in Devel opment of the Port land Plan Dr aft.....................736 CONCLUS ION ........................................................................................................75APPENDIX A EXAMPLE TABLE FROM THE PHASE 1 PORTLAND PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRESS REPORT : EVAL UATION OF APPROACHES UTILIZED IN PHASE 1 OF PO RTLAND PLAN OUTREACH.................................79B DEMOGRAPHICS: PORTLAND VS. PHASE 1 WORKSHOP ATTENDEES AND SURVEY R ESPONSES ................................................................................. 80LIST OF RE FERENCES...............................................................................................81BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................84
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Population Percentage: Po rtland vs. Unit ed Stat es ............................................404-2 Approaches Utilized in Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnstein's Ladder ................................................................................................684-3 New Approaches Utilized in Phase 2 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnste in's Ladder............................................................................... 684-4 New Approaches Utilized in Phase 3 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnste in's Ladder............................................................................... 694-5 New Approaches Utilized in Phase 4 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnste in's Ladder............................................................................... 69
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Arnsteins Ladder of Cit izen Par ticipat ion (1 969)................................................33
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CIC Community Involvement Committee CPBPS City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability DCL Diversity & Civic Leadership Program GIS Geographic Information System LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender, & Questioning PGIS Participatory Geogr aphic Information System PP-GIS Public Participation Geographic Information System VE Virtual Environment
10 Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning AN EVALUATION OF PUBL IC PARTICIPATION TECHN IQUES USING ARNSTEINS LADDER: THE PORTLAND PLAN By Shayna Debra Gershman August 2013 Chair: Richard Schneider Cochair: Paul Zwick Major: Urban and Regional Planning While public participation provides citizens with the opportunity to be involved in the process of developing programs or policies, the extent of thei r participation is an important factor in determining the level of citizen empowerment within the decisionmaking process. However, researchers have i dentified many cultural factors that hinder citizen participation in the planning process, including a lack of education about planning issues, a lack of confidence in thei r ability to provoke change, and a lack of interest in participation (Albrechts, 2002). A dditionally, without acce ss to resources that provide information about politics, political i ssues, and the technical aspects of planning, citizens will be less likely to actively participate in the decision-making process (Jonsson, 2005). This paper examines the relationship bet ween policy-makers and citizens in the city of Portland, Oregon throughout the dev elopment of the Po rtland Plan, a broad visioning document until the y ear 2035. Specifically, this study will use Sherry Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation to evaluate t he amount of citizen control within the process of determining a program or policy based on the public participation techniques
11 used at each of the four phases of the Port land Plan development process (Arnstein, 1969).
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This paper examines the relationship bet ween policy-makers and citizens in the city of Portland, Oregon throughout the dev elopment of the Po rtland Plan, a broad visioning document that is designed to provide development guidance until the year 2035. Based on the core principles of prosperity, education, health, and equity, this roadmap for the future establishes specif ic policy goals and initiatives developed through best practice research and extensive citizen involvement from Portlanders. Using public participation literature, this paper analyzes and evaluates the public participation techniques used by policy-makers in Portland to develop the Portland Plan. Specifically, this study will use Sherry Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation to evaluate the amount of citizen control within the process of determining a program or policy based on the public participation techni ques used at each of the four phases of the Portland Plan development process (Arnst ein, 1969). The Portland Plan was touted as the plan that Portland wrote, based on the extent of ci tizen involvement within the draft development process. Therefore, t he author of this paper expects to find conformance to the higher rungs of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Partic ipation, and levels of citizen participation with increasing degr ees of decision-making clout (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). Though the United States upholds the i deal of public participation in the democratic process, there are still significant challenges to full citizen empowerment, particularly in the field of urban planning.1 Extensive research has been conducted 1 Sherry Arnstein (1969) described citizen empowerment in the following way: It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently ex cluded from the political and economic processes,
13 regarding the cultural, social, and environmental barriers that hinder citizen involvement, while other research discusses the negative c onsequences of public participation, such as increased cost and length of time spent carrying out the decision-making process (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). Unfortunately, a lack of government transparency is a problem facing many countries around the world, where public bodies and institutions remain out of the reach of pub lic control ("Corruption perceptions index 2012," 2012). In its most idealistic sense: Public participation brings the governm ent closer to the people. It enables citizens to set policy goals and priorities, oversee the actions of the politicians and administrat ors and hold them accountable for their actions, express points of view, share info rmation and point to their needs and problems, get involved in the dec ision-making process and many others (Haruta & Radu, 2010, p. 77). Why Portland? The city of Portland, Oregon is best known for its proactive policies regarding the environment, transit-oriented development, regionalism and sust ainable land-use practices (Gibson & Abbott, 2002). For example, Portland has one of the countrys few elected multipurpose regional metropolitan governments called Metro, created in 1978 by combining a regional planning agency with the metropolitan service district (Gibson & Abbott, 2002). Metros main responsibilities incl ude structuring regional spatial planning and administering an urban growth boundary (U GB) to contain suburban development (Gibson & Abbott, 2002). Portlands innovative business atmos phere and fast-growing high technology sector aided population growth in the Portland metropolitan region, which increased by to be deliberately included in the futureit is the means by which they can induce significant social reform to share in the benefits of the affluent society (p. 216).
14 26.6% between 1990 and 2000 (Gibson & Abbo tt, 2002, pg. 427). However, Portland continues to suffer from pressing challen ges such as income disparities, high unemployment, a low high school graduation ra te, and environmental concerns ("About the Portland Plan," 2013). In response to these challenges, the City Council adopted the Portland Plan in April of 2012. Research Questions Broad visioning processes as a best prac tice for community engagement clearly offer potential to large cities seeking to involv e their citizens in determining the future of their city. Even with the challenges previously di scussed, Portland still remains a model of livability and revitalization (Gibson & Abbott, 2002). However, can t he city of Portland also be considered a model for their integrat ion of public participation into the planning process? How do the public participation techni ques utilized in the development of the Portland Plan conform to Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation? Why is citizen participation important and what changes will occur in the public participation process as modern technology becom es increasingly important in our daily lives? Organization The work will be presented in six chapters. Chapter 2 prov ides a literature review relative to public participation scholarship and practice, and a discussion of three major themes evident throughout academic writings about public participation in the planning process: 1. The cultural barriers that hinder public participation in the planning process; 2. A lack of resources that contribute to a lack of public partici pation in the planning process;
15 3. How building intell ectual capital from the begi nning of the planning process through institutional changes can enhance p ublic participation in the planning process. Chapter 3 includes a methodology used in the anal ysis of this study. Chapter 4 includes a narrative of the study area and details the analysis of publ ic participation techniques based on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Pa rticipation. Chapter 5 discusses the conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis. Chapter 6 discusses the implications of this analysis on planning policy and the futu re of public participation, as well as questions that have arisen during the research.
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW History of Public Participation Democracys most well-known roots are in the city-states of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. While democracy existed in more primitive fo rms prior to this, representative governments began to dev elop around 600 BCE (Jones & Platt, 1994). Citizenship was not usually extended to all ci tizens, such as women, but these models of governance have inspired political thinke rs for centuries and inspired our modern concept of democracy (Jones & Platt, 1994). The 18th and 19th centuries were an important time for the development of democratic institutions. For example, the United States and France both experienced revolutions which resulted in the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1788 and the establishment of universa l male suffrage in France in 1848. Full enfranchisement of citizens in the United States finally mate rialized with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and academics argue t hat the Civil Rights movem ent was instrumental in institutionalizing public participation, leading to Pr esident Lyndon Johnsons Great Society programs of th e mid-1960s (Cogan, Shar pe & Hertzeberg, 1986).1 Open Government Ultimately, the goal of open governm ent is to enhance transparency of governmental processes and policy-makers.2 Transparency International is a global coalition fighting corruption throughout the world, emphasizing open government and accountability. Specifically, this movement works with partners in government, business and civil society to put effective measures in place to tackle corruption in government and public administration.
17 Every year, Transparency International re leases a Corruption Perceptions Index which scores countries on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). Of the 176 countries and territories included in the 2012 index, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand tied for having the lowest amount of perceived corruption, while Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia were perceived as the most corrupt countries in the world ("Corruption perceptions index 2012," 2012). The Un ited States ranked 19th ("Corruption perceptions index 2012, 2012). Some of the richest countri es in the world consistently receive high scores, while some of the worlds poorest countries are consistently perceived to have the highest levels of corruption. Unfortunately, citizen participation in decision-making becomes less likely as the perception of corr uption increases and private interests, rather than the public interest, dictate policy ("Corruption by topic: Politics and Gove rnment," 2012). Academic Discourse As noted above, there are three majo r themes evident throughout academic writings about public partici pation in the planning process. Based on relevant literature (Irvin & Stansbury 2004, Albrechts 2000, Verba 1967), these three themes include the following: 1. The cultural barriers th at prevent public participation in the planning process 2. A lack of resources that contribute to a lack of public partici pation in the planning process 3. How building intellectual capital from the beginning of the planning process through institutional changes can enhance public part icipation in the planning process. As described in Chapter 3 (Methodology), the author performed internet and archival research to gather literature related to t hese topics, and the liter ature was primarily
18 found in online academic journal articles. After this research was gathered, it was organized by this author and synthesized to dev elop these three themes. As the basis for future research in the field of public par ticipation, these themes provide a more solid understanding of how modern pub lic policy has developed re garding effective public participation in the planning process. Cultural Barriers Equal representation of the public is one of the most significant hurdles facing the process of citizen involvement. Typicall y, low-income members of society lack representation within the participatory pr ocess, which gives the middle and upper classes unfair representation and voices th roughout decision-making. According to Irvin and Stansbury (2004), citizen participation committees are usually overpopulated with members of the top so cio-economic group. Irvin and Stansbury (2004) also assert that special-interest groups will be less likely to involve themselves in public parti cipatory processes because elite groups that dominate the decision making have diminished the effectiveness of these public participatory processes (p. 59). Additionally, low-income citizens are unable to devote the time, energy, and resources to spending ti me in public meetings because they must provide for their families and Irvin and Stansburys research found that the core members of public participation committees are often full-time homemakers (and/or retired people) who represent the small nonelected elite that greatly influence public policy (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Additional cultural, psychological, and socio-economic barriers have been identified within the current social system that prevents low-income groups from being
19 fully involved in the planning process. These barriers are related to the dominant styles of governance and include a lack of education a lack of confidence in their ability to provoke change a lack of interest in participation And low social capital (Albrechts, 2002, p. 335-336). In addition to identifying these barriers, Louis Albrecht identified several possible strategies to remove these barriers. He st resses that the best way to reach these lowincome groups is through holding meetings in more informal settings, such as community centers and churches. According to Albrechts (2000), planners must respect the customs, values, informal information channels, and language of different groups to reach out to more people and make them comfortable taking part in participatory processes. Unfortunately, evidence shows that, when it comes to public involvement in land and water use planning, Even though many i ndividuals say that they are well informed on planning issues, it has been found that only a very small percentage of the population actively participates in the planning process. The average participant is well educated and a member of an organization (Thelander, 1981, p. 326). According to Thelander (1981), educating t he public and notifying them of planning issues are steps that can be taken to improve the participat ion problems frequently f ound in the planning process. Specifically, Thel ander (1981) notes the import ance of notifying and informing the citizens in a systematic way, in order to cover a wide array of views by both organized and unorganized citizens (p. 327). She also asserts that engaging the actors in a community early on in the planning proce ss will help to incorporate different views and/or activities into each phase of the planning process (1981).
20 It can also be difficult to attract intere st from the general public because a modern hectic lifestyle and the massive flow of information (p. 499) have been cited as reasons for the general lack of participati on in planning activities (Jonsson, 2005). Jonsson (2005) writes, The participants agreed t hat if something concrete were about to take place affecting the local environment or local life, people would be more likely to react and engage (p. 499). However, because most people are uneducated regarding specific planning issues, they are not well-equipped to handle difficult technical problems that frequently arise. A main challenge to public participation in the planning process has been to attract enough interest and readiness to participate among the public and stakeholders, especially in the long run (Jonsson, 2005, p. 495). Human nature affects urban planning at its most basic level, presenting researchers and academics with intrigui ng, yet frustrating problems. Public participation GIS (PP-GIS) and webbased public participation tools offer anonymity for people who are not as publicly outspoken as the primary stakeholders typically involved in the planning process. Public meetings t end to be dominated by certain stakeholders, which discourages partici pation from other segments of society. However, web-based public par ticipation tools can be a fix for this common problem. Kingston et al. (2000) argue, With a Web-based system the public is at the end of a telephone line that enables them to make comments and expr ess their views in a relatively anonymous and non-confrontational mann er compared with the traditional method of making a point verbally in front of a group of relative strangers (p. 111). Lack of Resources Effective democratic participation require s certain resources to increase the likelihood that an individual wil l participate in participator y planning. These resources
21 can be of an intellectual nature, such as information about politics and political issues, knowledge of channels of communication and t he rules of public pa rticipation and the skills to manipulate these channels (Verba, 1967). Because participation takes time, money, and effort, social resources are also important because individuals would be more likely to get involved if they hav e friends in organizations who are also participating in the democratic process (Verba, 1967). Verba (1967) asserts that an individuals education of participatory structures is one of the most effective ways to elicit participation. Much of this education is gleaned from the cultural c onduciveness of society. Inequalities in intell ectual, material, and social resources and a more active cultural setting will change the likelihood of whether or not an individual participates (Verba, 1967) Additionally, effective participation may depend on the availability of independent sources of technical skills and information for participants (Verba, 1967, p.75) The low-income segment of society is affected most by this lack of resources, especially when it comes to technical information. Democratic participation will be most successful when there are ample channels available for various kinds of participation and decision-make rs are receptive to the participation of particular groups (Verba, 1967). Howard and Gaborit list t he following three limitations on public involvement in the planning process: a lack of connections for people to interact with the environment being discussed; the lack of immersion withi n standard 2D models and presentations; and the lack of availability for the public to directly comment on planning projects (Howard & Gaborit, 2007). They believe these limitations explain wh y there is a lack of interest in urban planning from the publ ic and propose that virtual environment
22 technology (VE) will facilitate and improve useful engagement by the public in the planning process as opposed to the traditional consultation process (Howard & Gaborit, 2007, p. 233). VE technology has the potential to reach mo re people because it is internet-based, and will also be more inclus ive because people will have the opportunity to visit the environment to observe t he proposals, leave feedback on the environment, andpropose other alternatives by modify ing the 3D model (Howard & Gaborit, 2007, p. 235). Modification of the model is important to engaging the public in this type of participation mechanism and creating a mo re dynamic consultation process. Kim (2005) describes three-dimensional urban simulation as an alternative way to provide the public with information re lated to urban design. Three-dimensional visualization and simulation tools have the c apacity to act as a modern communication medium for collaboration. Howe ver, due to the absence of [quantitative data], it is difficult to estimate the extent and c apability of the 3D simulation tool and its advantages and disadvantages as an information delivery tool (Kim, 2005, p. 41). Kim developed a 3D urban simulation tool designed for the City of High Springs, FL visioning process and surveyed members of the communi ty to measure the effectiveness of the 3D urban simulation tool as an information delivery medium for the visioning process (Kim, 2005, p. 64). His survey results indicate the superiority of the 3D simulation tool in facilitating information flowboth the design students a nd the residents have evaluated the 3D simulation tool as a better communication medium than the 2D plan (Kim, 2005, p.140). However, although the 3D simulation tool has advantages that conventional methods do not have, there are several areas where the 3D simulation tools should be improved
23 to support seamless information flow and co mmunications in public meetings (Kim, 2005, p.148). According to Kim (2005), the best way that a lo cal government adopts this 3D simulation technology is to incor porate it with its plann ing information system such as the governments current GIS sys tem (p. 164). Unfortunately, the high cost of public par ticipation is a disadvantage of public participation in the planning process (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Simply put, there are not enough resources to handle the time commitment that participatory processes require in order to have an efficient collaborative proc ess. Irvin and Stansbury (2004) write, An elaborate public participation pr ocess may in fact pull resour ces away from the agencys mission and reduce on-the-gr ound results (p. 58). Irvin and Stansbury agree with Verbas findings, emphasiz ing that if there are many competing factions and socioeconomic groups within the participatory group that require complex technical knowledge bef ore participants can make decisions, participation will be ineffectiv e and a potential waste of prec ious resources (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). While Irvi n and Stansbury appreciate the advantages that public participation can bring to the planning process, they urge agencies to evaluate whether resources should be funneled toward partici patory processes or implementation of planning projects. In their thinking, as government budgets are decreasing, public participation may be too costly and wasteful compared to top-dow n decision making. However, there is evidence that technology-based participation techniques, such as social networking and virtual reality tool s, can potentially engage citizens in a more meaningful way. Researchers Evans-Cowley and Hollander be lieve a lack of resources exists for which citizens can effectively participate in open dialogue and conversation.
24 Their research explains that a participator y environment that uses Internet technology and/or a virtual 3D environment can be of critical importance in physical planning processes, providing a space for participants to interact with each other and to gain new insights into proposed new development or urban design guidelin es (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010, p. 400). By making it easier for the public to directly comment on planning projects, technology and the Internet may be the key to cr eating more useful forms of public participation, which pl anners have not yet learned to effectively incorporate into the planning process (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010). Certain barriers do exist that may inhibit the success of technology-based participatory planning. For example, t he general public may be limited by the implementation of high-tech software because they are unfamiliar with how it works, or the low-income segment of society may not have access to computers. However, Evans-Cowley and Hollander (201 0) are optimistic that p lanners are eager to find solutions and work on issues of equality in access and to find ways to engage with hardto-reach groups (p. 406). Digital Divide The Digital Divide is defined as t he gap between those who can benefit from digital technology and those who cannot ("Dig ital Divide defined," 2010). According to the Digital Divide Inst itute, the real issue is not so much about access to digital technology but about the benefits derived from access ("Digital Divide defined," 2010). As stated earlier, there are many potential barriers to Internet usage, including economic, cultural, physical, organization al, and educational ones (Quay, 2001). Quay (2001) emphasizes that electronic access is rapidly becoming not only the accepted but also the desired means to obtain information and services (p. 15). However, urban
25 planners must keep in mind that those on the other side of the digital divide may not be able to usedigital services fully. As planners design public participation programs, they should know how the digital divide may a ffect all of their clients (Quay, 2001, p. 16). Participatory Practices and Existing Institutions Rydin and Pennington focus their arti cle, Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital, (2000) on how to redesign current in stitutions to induce cooperation between the public and governmental institutions in charge of making planning decisions. As Thelander discussed in her article, Rydin and Pennington argue that it is more effective and beneficial to include the public throughout the policy development process because it can help avoid disagreements and conflict later on during the implementation process. In their article, Rydin and P ennington (2000) write, Public participation is a measure of the overall legitimacy of the policy process. A policy which has involved a wider range of parties is assumed to operate with a greater level of consent and this is, by definition, more desirable (p. 154). Kingston et al (2000) offer a similar sentiment: Too often in the past the public have been seen as getting in the way of implementing and driving policy forw ard. It has often been the case, however, that a lack of public consulta tion has led to future problems within communities when they are ignored and not asked for their views (p. 115). The collective action problem aris es within public participation.3 In order to minimize the occurrence of free-riding on the par ticipation of others, the public must feel that they have an incentive to mobilize, t hat their participation offers benefits to them, and that the process they participate in will yield significant results (Rydin and Pennington, 2000). Rydin and Pe nnington (2000) turn to public choice theory to help
26 identify questions about public participation in the planning process and examine participation as a collective ac tion problem. Public choice theory helps to explain the problems associated with public participation. Rydin and Pennington (2000) describe, for example, that it is parti cularly difficult to mobilize la rge groups that do not have established social ties to disseminate in formation and incentivize participation in the planning process. Utilizing social capital to balance the collective action problem is an idea supported by Rydin and Pennin gton, based on the work of political economist Elinor Ostrom.4 Based on the idea that knowledge shared throughout a social network, particularly at the local level, creates capita l, Rydin and Pennington (2000) feel that this can entice more community involvement and interaction. However, the outcome of building social capital is dependent on the particul ar form of institutional design that is adopted (Rydin, & Pennington, 2000, p. 163) Rydin and Pennington (2000) support a bottom-up approach to dealing with social inte ractions and increasing social capital in order to build an effective policy institution and foster spaces for lo cal political debate. Additionally, an important factor affecting public participation in planning is how civil society is integrated (if at all) into formal planning and statutory planning bodies and procedures (Alexander, 2008, p. 61). Civil society and its role in the planning process is a focus of Ernst Alexander, who discusses the institutions of civ il society and cultural barriers that affect citizen participation. For example, Alexander (2008) asserts, The institutionalization of state-ci vil society interactions in many particular domains reveals a highly selective and even discrim inatory attitude toward differ ent parts of civil society (p. 66).
27 For example, Alexander (2008) believes that the administrative culture of society is at odds with civil society and citizen participation as a direct result of the institutionalization of planning bodies. He supports advocacy planning, which involves strong institutions and practices that provide channels for public participation, and specifically strong advisory councils or boards made up prim arily or wholly of public representatives (Alexander, 2008). According to Alexander (2008), the planning system as a whole must develop in such a way as to make public participation practical in social, cultural, and institutional contexts. Similarly, Gerometta, Hussermann, and Longo (2005) assert, Civil society has been found to have potential for innovation towards needs-satisfaction, with institutional change allowing more effective action and the dev elopment of other socially innovative processes (p. 2008). These researchers seek to offer ways to change current institutions that promote soci al exclusion in civil society, particularly of fragmented parts of society that do not experi ence social equity. Specifica lly, When considering socially innovative governance to include civil society, [it is necessary] to find models adapted to targeting these current urban processes of fragmentation and social exclusion (Gerometta, Hussermann & Longo, 2005, p. 2015). Gerometta, Hussermann, and Longo (2005) be lieve governmental institutions must do more to foster effective communica tion and deliberation of issues important to civil society. If this were the case, they believe that social innovation would be increasingly efficient in achieving the public in terest, a belief that was also put forth by Rydin and Pennington in thei r discussion of creating social capital while dealing with the issue of the collective action problem.5 Unfortunately, Forms of exclusion and
28 integration, which become visible in the social milieu of a local society and their available social capital forms, define partici pation of groups within the segment of the public sphere, which is the civil society (Gerometta, Hussermann & Longo, 2005, p. 2018). By including excluded groups in participation in the public sphere, civil society is found to be a more valuable contributor towards more cohesive cities and governance arrangements that promote them (Gerometta, Hussermann & Longo, 2005, p. 2007). Creating social capital is im portant for creating social networks and establishing a more inclusive civil society. Public Participation and Geogra phic Information Systems (GIS) The most recent literature related to public participation has begun to focus on the use of technology, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Participatory GIS (PGIS), to involve citizens in the dec ision-making process. In the article Webbased public participation geographical in formation systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making, Kingston et al. (2000) promote the idea that webbased mapping techniques facilitate public partic ipation that is inte ractive and hands-on. Not only do these authors believe that the use of a real decision-making problem is seen as the key to the proper development of Web-based GIS as thishelps to secure widespread public interest by being grounded in something real, (p. 110) but they also stress the use of a dynamic map that is interactiv e and provides particular pieces of information about features on it, allows t he user to elicit greater detail about issues and problems at hand such as the relative location of features and proposed developments, the spatial and topological relationships between objects on the map and simple measures of area and distanc e (Kingston et al., 2000, p. 111).
29 Additionally, web-based maps and public participation techniques are seen as more inclusive for many sectors of society. S pecifically, Individuals who do not have GIS software or cannot be physically present at a collaborative forum may be able to participate by taking advantage of Internet m apping sites or web-mediated collaborative decision making (Elwood, 2006, p. 696). Researchers believe that PGIS will lead to more bottom-up decision making and build on effective participation and co mmunication among experts and non-experts (Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta & Painho, 2010, p. 173). Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta & Painho developed a PPGIS protot ype, and conducted an experim ent of this software in Canela, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The pr ototype was based on the principles of information distribution, solutions through participation, transparency, and consensus building (Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta & Painho, 2010, p. 175). Specifically, participants viewed spatial data and map la yers, and discussed urban planning topics with other experiment participants by prov iding comments, suggestions, questions, and complaints directly on geospatial layers withi n a Web 2.0 system (Bug s, Granell, Fonts, Huerta & Painho, 2010). Of the 22 people involved in this experim ent, 86% found the platform easy-to-use and understand and 100% felt that this platfo rm can strengthen public participation in decision-making (Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huer ta & Painho, 2010, p. 179). Overall, the authors are confident that PGIS promo tes communication among users, and most importantly, vertically with decision makers in a more interactive and straightforward way (p. 180), and will be most effective when participatory practices such as this are integrated into existing institutional organi zations (Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta &
30 Painho, 2010). Unfortunately, most citizens la ck the technical skills that this sort of technology requires, and more empirical testing is necessary to support the claims made by Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta and Painho in this particular experiment. Unfortunately, a lack of resource s can impede the PGIS and community empowerment process. Kyem makes a case for participatory GIS (PGIS) to emphasize empowerment of the public wi thin the PGIS process. Em powerment is based on the building of human and social capital, which is supported by other researchers, including Rydin and Pennington (2000). According to Kyem (2004), In the context of a PGIS application, this perception of empowerm ent would dictate the building of local capacities in such fields as management, ta ctical operations, and the analysis and uses of spatial data (p. 9). Su ch empowerment should increase the likelihood of public participation within political or planning processes, as the public has greater access to demographic data, property data, master plans, etc. (Hanzl, 2007, p. 293). However, PGIS projects are still relati vely new and their recent implementation makes it difficult to tell whether or not there have been changes in local political structures and social institutions (Kyem, 2004). Hanzl (2007) believe s that the potential of PGIS is related to its popularity and a condition of efficiency of these forms of communication is continuous activity of re sponders and thus reliability of presented information (p. 298). Hanzl also argues that many PGIS models only show how computer tools may be used for visual izing [new] development and not for the constructive process of continuous public pa rticipation (p. 303). The Digital Divide will continue to hinder GIS-based projects, but the following broad issu es will strengthen individual access and inclusion in PPGIS processes: service provision, access to data,
31 [the ability of an individual to create] a pr esence on the Internet; and [the ability of an individual to have] an influence in shaping t he future of informa tion & communication technologies (Modar res, 2011, p. 5). Kingston et al. (2000) concluded their article with three principles that should be considered by researchers in the creation of future PPGIS projects. These include: 1. A web-based PPGIS should provide equal access to data and information for all sectors of the community; 2. It should have the capability to empower the community by providing the necessary data and information which matches the needs of the community who are, or potentially, participating; 3. A high degree of trust and transparency needs to be established and maintained within the public realm to give the process legitimacy and accountability (p. 122). Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation In 1969, Arnstein published an article entitl ed, A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In this article, she developed a typology of citizen participation arranged as rungs on a ladder, with each rung corresponding to the amount of citizen c ontrol within the process of determining a program or policy. This article was published at a time when citizen participation was being institutionalized through legislation, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, and national rhetor ic became increasingly concerned with the democratic ideal of active citizen partici pation in government. Arnstein saw citizen participation as citizen power, or The redistribution of power that enabl es the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and econom ic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the stra tegy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shar ed, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs ar e operated, and benefit s 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 s hare in the benefits of the affluent society (p. 216).
32 Arnstein (1969) highlights the fundamental point that participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless (p. 216). Citizen participation is clearly not without significant obstacles, and Arnstein accepts that this limits her typology. For example, On the powerholders side, [the obstac les] include racism, paternalism, and resistance to power distribution. On the have-nots side, [the obstacles] include inadequacies of the poor comm unitys political socioeconomic infrastructure and knowledge-base, plus difficulties of organizing a representative and accountable citizens group in the face of futility, alienation, and trust (A rnstein, 1969, p. 217). While Arnstein lists eight levels or rungs on her proposed ladder of citizen participation, she recognizes that there are subtle dist inctions within each rung that represent the wide variety of real world situations and expe riences that shape the process of citizen participation. Each rung is characterized by different objectives or conditions which highlight the extent of citizens power in determi ning the end product (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). Arnstein outlines three main stages of ci tizen participation which encompass the eight rungs of the ladder (Figure 2-1). The th ree stages of citizen participation are nonparticipation, tokenism, and citizen power. The following are the eight rungs of the ladder (Arnstein, 1969): 1. Manipulation 2. Therapy 3. Informing 4. Consultation 5. Placation 6. Partnership 7. Delegated Power 8. Citizen Control A graphic of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation is provided on page 33 of this paper. Nonparticipation includes manipulation and therapy. Tokenism includes the third,
33 fourth, and fifth rungs of the ladder: informing, consultation, and placation, respectively. Citizen power is the highest stage of citizen participation and includes the final three rungs of the ladder: partnership, delegated power, and citizen cont rol. It is only possible to move up the rungs of the ladder if ci tizen involvement has changed a decision that would otherwise have been made by a governm ental agency (Brooks & Harris, 2008, p. 142). Figure 2-1. Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)
34 Description of the Rungs on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation The first rung of the ladder manipulation, involves influencing the public and gaining support through the use of propaganda. A ccording to Arnstein (1969), at this level, People are placed on rubberstamp advisory committ ees or advisory boards for the express purpose of educat ing them or engineering their support (p. 218). These bodies typically have no legitimate function or power (Arnstein, 1969, p. 218). As the second rung of the ladder, therapy assumes t hat the public is incapable of decisionmaking and those in power subject citizens to paternalistic education exercises, or clinical group therapy, as a form of enlightenment (Brooks & Harris, 2008). The second stage begins with the third rung of the ladder, informi ng. At this rung, information flows from the public officials to the citizens with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation (Arnstein, 1969, p. 219). The most frequent tools used for participation and communica tion during the process of informing include news media, pamphlet s, posters, responses to i nquiry, and meetings which discourage questioning and provide superficial and irrelevant information (Arnstein, 1969, p. 219). Consultation, the fourth rung on the ladder, prov ides for a two-way flow of information through meetings, hearings, and surveys. However, the public input gathered throughout this process is rarely taken into account. Arnstein (1969) categorizes this rung in the following way: What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have participated in participation. And what t he powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving those people (p. 219). The final level of tokenism is placation, where citizens begin to gain influence through boards or committees, but they can still be outnumbered or overruled,
35 particularly when their opinions are unfavorabl e from the perspective of professional planners (Brooks & Harris, 2008, p. 141). The third stage of Arnsteins ladder begins with the sixth rung, par tnership. At this rung, [Citizens and powerholders] agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses (Arnstein, 1969, p. 221). Arnstein discusses some characteristics that effectiv ely facilitate partnership, such as organized citizen leaders and groups within the community and financial resources for technicians. As the seventh rung on the ladder, delegated power exists when citizens can assure accountability of a program by achieving do minant decision-making authority over the plan or program (Arnstein, 1969, p. 222). Citizen control is the highest rung on Arnsteins ladder. Arnstein (1969) writes, People are simply demanding that degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants or resi dents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of poli cy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which outsiders may change them. A neighborhood corporation wit h no intermediaries between it and the source of funds is the model most frequently advocated (p. 223). Criticisms of Arnsteins La dder of Citizen Participation The appeal of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Pa rticipation lies in its simplicity and ability to reveal, in pictorial form, the pow er agendas implicit in many institutionalized narratives and the differences in the forms and strategies of participation that are desired or result (Collins & Is on, 2006, p. 2). However, there are criticisms of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation. According to Collins and Ison (2006), Arnsteins ladder, with its focus on power, is insufficient for ma king sense of participation at a conceptual or practice level (p. 2). Academics cite va rious limitations for Arnsteins Ladder of
36 Citizen Participation, such as the assumption that participation is hierarchical in nature with citizen control held up as the goal of participation an assumption that does not always align with participants own reasons for engaging in decision-making processes (Collins & Ison, 2006, p. 2). Additionally, researchers emphasize the limitation that Arnstein herself cites, that each problem or decision is unique and can require different levels or types of participation that are not reflected in the broadness of the ladder. Collins and Ison (2006) have the following two critiques of Ar nsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation: First, at a conceptual level, Arnsteins notion of participation is both devoid of context and, critically, has no means of making sense of the context in which the ladder is used. Second, in si tuations when the nat ure of the issue is highly contested or undefined, Arnste ins ladder provides few insights into how participation might be progressed as a collective process between all of the stakeholders involved (p. 5). However, in the case of the Portland Pl an, the nature of the issue is neither contested, nor undefined. In this study, the Portland Plan draft development process provides the context for Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation, perhaps helping to establish its legitimacy among current academ ics as it relates to broad visioning processes as a public engagement tool. In this paper, this author relates the public participation techniques utilized in the devel opment of the Portland Plan draft document to the public participation techniques that Arnstein describes at each rung of the ladder. While the Portland Plan draft process is very different from anythi ng Arnstein described in her original article, both Arnsteins Lad der of Citizen Participation and the Portland Plan draft process share the f undamental goal of involving citizens in the decisionmaking process.
37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Background information for this resear ch relied upon case study literature relevant to public participation techniques, barriers to public participation, and the concepts of open government and transparency. Fi rst, internet and archival research was performed to gather literature related to these topics, and was primarily found in online academic journal articles cited in this paper. After this research was gathered, it was read by the author of this paper and syn thesized to develop the following three themes: 1. The cultural barriers th at prevent public participation in the planning process 2. A lack of resources that contribute to a lack of public partici pation in the planning process 3. The connection between build ing intellectual capital from the beginning of the planning process and how institutional c hanges can enhance public participation in the planning process. These themes established the framework for the various sections of the literature review in this paper, as well as the formula tion of the overall research question, which was developed after this author had completed the literature review. This author then performed an internet search of the Portl and Plan website (sponsored by the City of Portland) to retrieve the Public Participat ion Progress Report released after each of the four phases of development of the Portland Plan. The four P ublic Participation Progress Reports were reviewed in their entirety. Each Public Participation Progress Report specifies the approaches used by Portland Plan staff for public partici pation, as well as the opportunities, limitations, and lessons for the following phases related to each approach.
38 For the purposes of this study, these approaches were then organized by the stage and rung of citizen participation on Arnstein s Ladder of Public Participation. The organization was based on Arnsteins description of each stage in her original article, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, (1969) as well as the general discussion of Arnsteins Ladder in Citizen Participation, NEPA, and Land-Use Planning in Northern New York, USA by Brooks and Harris. By comparing t he stage and rung of citizen participation on Arnsteins Ladder of Public Participation with the approaches used by Portland Plan staff for public participation in the development of the Portland Plan, it was possible to more effectively understand the potential ext ent of citizens power in determining the end product, which in this case, is the Portland Plan. Once the approaches were organized using Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation, the study created a more solid understandi ng of the perceptions of participation within Portland Plan development. Therefore, the ultimate objective of this research is to categorize the public partici pation techniques utilized in the development of the Portland Plan, based on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation. This categorization will attempt to determine the ac tual level of partici pation that Portland Plan staff derived from Portlanders, and whet her the techniques utilized furthered the assertion that the Portland Plan was indeed the plan that Portland wrote. Limitations of research One of the most significant limitations of this research is that, due to lack of time and financial resources, the author was unable to visit the city of Portland. Therefore, the author was also unable to question any of the citizens involved in the development of the Portland Plan draft document, as well as Portland Plan sta ff. Additionally, the
39 quantitative findings provided in the Public Participation Progress Reports do not account for duplications of Portlanders who, for example, attended multiple workshops or responded to multiple surveys. Theref ore, the data relat ed to the number of Portlanders involved in the Portland Plan draft development process is skewed and probably does not adequately reflect the nu mber of new Po rtlanders contacted through the public participat ion outreach process.
40 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Background Portland is located in Multnomah County, Oregon. Situated in the northwestern part of the state, Portland lies near the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette rivers. According to the U.S. Census Bur eau, the total population of Multnomah County in 2010 was 735,334 ("Multnomah County, Or egon," 2013). Portland is the most populous city in Oregon at 583,776 residents ("Portland (city), Oregon," 2013). The racial make-up of Portland according to 2010 U.S. Census Data was 76.1% White, 6.3% African American, 7.1% Asian, 1.0% American Indian and Alaska Native, 9.4% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, and 4.7% are identifi ed by two or more racial categories ("Portland (city) Oregon," 2013). Approximatel y 80% of the population of Portland is over the age of 18 and 10.4% of the population is ov er the age of 65 ("Portland (city), Oregon," 2013). There ar e 265,439 total housing units in Portland and the median household income is $50, 177 ("Portland (city), Oregon," 2013). Table 4-1. Population Percentage : Portland vs. United States Race Population Percentage: Portland Population Percentage: United States White 76.10% 72.40% African American 6.30% 12.60% Asian 7.10% 4.80% American Indian and Alaska Native 1% 0.90% Hispanic or Latino 9.40% 16.30% Two or more racial categories 4.70% 2.90% Retrieved from Portla nd (city), Oregon (2013) and Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010 demographic profile data (2010).
41 visionPDX In 2005, Portland Mayor Tom Potter launc hed visionPDX, a two-year community visioning project for the city This project involved extensive community involvement to develop a shared vision for the future of Portland and the purpose of the project was two-fold: to invite community members to plan for the futu re of the city and to open up government to all Portlanders, particularl y to underrepresented groups and communities ("Portland's Community Visioning Project: vi sionPDX," 2013). Development of the vision document was based on community involvement at events, discussions, interactive theatre, one-on-one conversations and questi onnaires. Approximately 17,000 members of the Portland community were engaged through the aforementioned events/public participation techniques ("visionPDX history," 2013). A visionPDX community questionnaire was distributed to Portlanders, and their responses identified specific values such as community connectedness and distinctiveness, equity and accessibility, sustainability, accountability and leadership, in clusion and diversity, innovation and creativity, and safety, which shaped the vision of Portlands future in the final visionPDX document ("Portland's Community Visi oning Project: visionPDX," 2013). The next step of visionPDX was the Port land Plan. According to visionPDX: The Portland Plan will serve to guide the growth and development of Portland over the next 30 years. It will serve as Portlands updated Comprehensive Plan and include updates to the citys Central City Plan, City-wide Economic Development St rategy, and Sustainability/Global Warming policies. It will make use of the broad outreach and engagement generation in the visionPDX process and will continue to involve the public around policy choices and strategies ("The Next Step: The Portland Plan," 2013).
42 Brief Explanation of the Portland Plan Development of the Portland Plan began in 2009 with research regarding Portlands existing conditions on numerous topi cs, such as health and safety, economic development, and historical and natural res ources. During the first phase of plan development, this research was revi ewed by Portlanders through workshops, community presentations, and surveys. T he second phase included events that provided public review of Portland Plan goals and objectives determined throughout the first phase. Phase two also involved a survey component. The third phase of the Portland Plan development process revolved around community fairs, meetings, and a speaker series where Portlanders identified the priorities and strategies that they felt were most important for the future of the city. The top goals that resulted from phase three were published for public review and comment in the spring of 2011. After each phase, Portland Plan staff released a Pub lic Participation Pr ogress Report. The introduction for each Progress Report states, The purpose of this report is to document and evaluate the outreach and public participation activitiesThis document will help the Community Involvement Committee (CIC), staff, local decision-ma kers and the public at large review the work to date and pr ovide an opportunity to reflect on lessons learned to improve the next round of Portland Plan outreach and engagement activities. Additionally, this report will serve as documentation for the Community Involvement Co mmittee when they update the Portland Planning Commission on the City of Po rtlands public engagement process as it relates to state-mandated periodi c review (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability [CPBPS], 2010a, p. 1). In addition, community advisory groups wo rked to identify best practices for the strategies and initiatives outlined in the Po rtland Plan. The Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) provided technical suppor t and recommendations on each draft of the Portland Plan. The PSC also held thr ee public meetings and a series of work
43 sessions to listen to public testimony on t he proposed plan. The Portland Plan Advisory Group was appointed in 2009 to pose provoc ative questions, challenge assumptions, prompt each other and staff to tackle difficu lt ideas to support the development of a smart and strategic plan, and provide advice to [politic ians and planners] (CPBPS, 2012a, p. 144). One of the most important groups associated with the Portland Plan is the Community Involvement Committee (CIC). T he CIC was appointed by the Portland City Council in July 2009 (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 2). Comprised of 16 community volunteers, including two Planning and Sustainability Co mmissioners, the CIC maintained oversight of public outreach elements of th e plan, ensuring that as many citizens as possible were able to voice their opinions (CPBPS, 2012a, p. 144). In Phase 1, the CIC suggested four levels of public participation for the Portland Plan development process: 1. Notification; 2. Information; 3. Presentations; and 4. Interactive Activities. Phase 1 Phase 1 activities took place between fall 2009 and March 2010. The four levels of participation utilized in Phase 1 were No tification, Informati on, Presentations, and Interactive Activities. Notifi cation involves informing inte rested and potentially interested individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions about the Portland Plan and events related to its development. The approaches used for this level of participation were related to marketing and communications and included: Advertis ing; Direct mail; Community newspaper inserts; Emails to Ma ster Mailing List (MML); print and other media (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 5). These approa ches correlate with the third rung of
44 Arnsteins ladder, Informing, which is also the lowest rung of the second stage, Tokenism. The Information level of participation de scribed in the Public Participation Phase 1 Progress Report used the following appr oaches to distribute understandable information about the Portland Plan to intere sted and potentially interested individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions: Fact sheets and Background reports; Surveys; Brochures and informational boards; A Portland Plan website; Social media; and Local media (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 5). The fact s heets and background reports, surveys, and brochures and informational boards were di stributed at seven Phase 1 workshops and public engagement events, and t he Portland Plan website and social media outlets, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr, we re updated with news, information, and events related to the Portland Plan. These approache s correlate with the third and fourth rungs of Arnsteins ladder, Informing and Consultation. The third level of participation identifi ed in the Public Participation Phase 1 Progress Report is Presentations. Port land Plan staff att ended and presented at community and neighborhood meetings to prov ide overviews and updates of the plan, as well as to solicit questions and comments fr om Portlanders. Staff also sat at tables to provide information at special events carried out by organizations interested in learning more about the Portland Plan process. This level of participation comports with the fourth rung of Arnsteins ladder, Consultation. Interactive Activities encompass the fourth level of participation discussed in Phase 1. The following outlets were used to provide a creative and informative option for public outreach: Workshops; Topical work sessions; Online and printed surveys; and
45 Special outreach activities to non-geogr aphic groups (CPBPS, 2010a, p.7). The workshops included business-, youthand Latino-targeted events, while special outreach activities to non-geographic groups were aimed at engaging communities that may not generally participate in these types of activities, such as low income communities, youth, immigrants, seniors and people with disabilitie s, and the LGBTQ community (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 7). These non-geographic communities differ from neighborhood associations in that issues of primary concern may not be tied to the places where people live (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 8). This level of participation satisfies the fourth rung of Arnsteins ladder, Consultation. Public Participation Goals for the Portland Plan Process The following five goals were evaluated for Phase 1 public participation: build on existing relationships; engage broader/diverse groups with education and information and provide all interested with enough education so they can meaningfully participate; provide multiple venues and means for communi ty involvement; involve as many people as possible; and with feedback and continu ous engagement throughout Portland Plan development and implementation, ensur e community members are being heard (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 11-13). T he evaluations of these goals identified areas of improvement for the public participation efforts related to each goal and were based on both quantitative and qualit ative measures of success, such as The number of workshop participants A description of a CIC members engagement efforts The number of outreach documents tr anslated into a non-English language A description of the targeted efforts to reach the business community, etc.
46 Phase 1: Successes and Areas for Improvement Throughout Phase 1, Portland Plan staff was able to maintain and carry over relationships that were established with community groups and organizations throughout the visionPDX process (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 14). Staff coordinated to contact and engage organizations with an existing interest in Portland Plan information, while developing new relationships wi th senior groups, non-profit social service organizations and interest groups such as people with disa bilities and the LGBTQ community (p. 14) and some cultural/ethnic groups (CPBPS, 2010a). City agencies assisted Portland Plan staff in advertising upcoming workshops. Two areas for improvement specified for Goal 1 (Build on existing relationships) were the need for more City bureau and partner agency assistance with outreach and engagement, as part of their ow n project outreach and outreach to employees and the need to build relationships with new groups, especially under-served and non-geographic issue-orient ed communities (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 15). The Phase 1 Public Participation Pr ogress Report determined various successes related to Goal 2 (Engage br oader/diverse groups with education and information and provide all interested with enoug h education so they can meaningfully participate). For example, Portland Plan staff hel d workshops during Phase 1, and Many of these presentations and event s organized in Phase 1 included the tailoring of presentations and materi als provided to reflect language and communication preferences; e.g. S panish language brochure and survey; large-print handouts for seniors and other s who are visually impaired; a survey designed by youth for youth; and information in PowerPoint presentations and handouts reflecting s pecific interests of a targeted audience (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 15). Media was an important component of Goal 2 public partici pation efforts in Phase 1, including newspaper articles in local publicat ions, cable access TV coverage of Phase 1
47 workshops, and a Phase 1 survey which was included in the Winter 2010 Curbsider magazine that went to every household in Portland (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 15). The following four areas for improvement were specified for Goal 2: Continue to produce meaningful materials translated into other languages, large print, Braille, etc.; provide simplified easy-to-understand educ ational materials to newcomers that highlight why they might want to participate; continue diverse media coverage e.g. Latino, Asian newspapers, KBOO radio, etc. ; and expand outreach to rent ers (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 16). Goal 3 (Provide multiple venues and means for community involvement) emphasizes successes in providing a variety of materials and types of events for public involvement, including non-traditi onal venues such as social media and the internet. The Phase 1 survey was available on the project website and through Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter. The following three areas for improvement were specified for Goal 3: Need to better monitor/record/understand the number of first-time participants in Portland Plan events/activities; continue to offer food/childcare/translators [at outreach and engagement events]; and explore i deas and implement additional interactive tools for engagement (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 16). Successes related to Goal 4 (Involve as many people as possible) were measured by the number of those in attendanc e in Phase 1 workshops, the number of people reached through community presentations and other outreach events, the number of completed surveys and views on t he Portland Plan website, and the friends and followers of the Portland Plan social media outlets (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 17). While the workshops were successful in dra wing hundreds of Port landers, those in
48 attendance were not representative of the socio-demographic characteristics of Portland as a whole (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 16). Additionally, Portland Plan staff intended to continue to engage more people especially in non-geographic communities and first timers in future phases (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 17). Two specific public participation efforts were considered successful in relation to Goal 5 (Being heard as community members with feedback and continuous engagement throughout Portland Plan developm ent and implementation): workshop polling and survey responses were provi ded online and as hard-copies for public review, and a diagram was presented online and at public events to illustrate how public input was being incorporated in the Portland Plan process and results (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 17). However, Portlanders still express ed concern about the transparency of plan development and the ut ilization of public input (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 17). Therefore, the following two areas for improvement were specified for Goal 5: Continue to demonstrate to public in documents/information provided in each phase, how their comments are bei ng incorporated from previous input report results and findings from previous phases on website and in documents; and design and implement follo w-up activities that incorporate previously received group input as part of specialized outreach to cultural/ethnic and other non-geographic groups (building relationships) (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 17). Evaluation of Approaches Utilized in Phase 1 of Portland Plan Outreach The Public Participation Phase 1 Progre ss Report also includes a table with an evaluation of approaches utilized in Phase 1 of Portland Plan outreach (Appendix A). The table includes columns for opportunities, limitations, and lessons for next phases based on the following approaches: workshops ; overviews at group meetings; hosted presentations; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with nongeographic groups; special events; social media; marketing and communication; the
49 Portland Plan website; and local media (tel evised and audio). The limitations were especially significant, as they identified so me of the most fundamental problems facing Portland Plan staff in the citizen engagement pr ocess. For example, resources such as staff capacity, time, and money are lim ited and restrict the number and type of presentations that can be held and led by Portland Plan staf f. The ability to conduct outreach to non-geographic groups for special events was limited, making it even more difficult to draw people who are new or uncomfortable with public processes (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 18). Internet access became a major lim itation to outreach and engagement approaches such as online surveys, social media, and the Po rtland Plan website because not everyone has access or uses the internet. This limitation highlights the Digital Divide, discussed earlier in th is paper. Modarres (2011) cites a 2010 Pew Research Center study which found that L atinos and African Americans were more likely to use their cell phones to access the Internet, e-mail, and Facebook, than the white population, while whites were more likely to use their networked home computer to engage with online content (p. 6). Howeve r, according to Modarres (2011), Cell phones are not equal substitutes for access and full engagement with the digital world. The continuing danger of the digital divide, then, is found in the distinction between access to information and its creation (p. 6). Overall, this phase hasfocused on notifying and informing as many members of the public as possible of the Portland Plan process (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 25). In relation to Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Partic ipation, Phase 1 did little to further the extent of citizen power beyond simply sharing information and knowledge with the
50 public and gathering input from those Portlanders that were involved in the Consulting participation techniques. Using the quantitative measurements, Portland Plan staff identified where they must make improvements in their outreach and engagement efforts for Phase 2. The majority of workshop attendees (75%) and online survey respondents (83%) identified as White/Caucasian (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 41). While these percentages reflect the overall racial make-up of the city of Portland (Table 4-1), they also demonstrate a larger problem with drawing minority populations into the Portland Plan development process. Phase 2 Phase 2: Successes and Areas for Improvement The approaches used in Phase 2 public involvement were the following: tabling at community events; workshops; overview s at group meetings; hosted presentations and town halls; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with nongeographic and community groups; social m edia; marketing and communications; the Portland Plan website; and local media (tel evised and audio) (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 11). Throughout Phase 2, Portland Plan staff wa s successful in maintaining existing relationships and increasing the number of Portlanders involved through a variety of public participation approaches (CPBPS, 20 10b, p. 3). However, despite the successes, the demographics of participants c ontinue to reveal gaps in engagement, (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 3) and Portland Plan st aff worked to engage non-geographic groups of Portlanders through culturally appropriate v enues. Similar to the Public Participation Progress Report from Phase 1, the Phase 2 Progress Report recognizes constraints related to budget and staff capacity and [P ortland Plan staff] have been working to
51 make the most of opportunities thr ough engaging new and previously involved community members (C PBPS, 2010b, p. 4). CIC members and Portland Plan staff re worded Goal 1 to more appropriately reflect desired public involvement outcomes: Build on new and existing relationships. Successes related to Goal 1 during Phase 2 highlight increased pa rtnerships with other City bureaus and agencies. These new partnersh ips assisted in advertising workshops and the development of workshop content, par ticularly for the business community. Additionally, Portland Plan staff developed new relationships with arts-related groups, educational groups and institutions, the aging community, and the LGBTQ community. However, the Public Partici pation Progress Report from Phase 2 identif ies similar areas for improvement related to Goal 1 as the Public Participation Progress Report from Phase 1: continue to seek bureau and partner agency assistance with outreach and engagement and continue to build new and on-going relationships with under-served and non-geographic issue-oriented grounds including: cultural groups, faith communities, homeless communities, renters, and minority businesses (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 5). During Phase 2, successes for Goal 2 (Engage broader/diverse groups with education and information and provide all inte rested with enough education so they can meaningfully participate) included: non-geographi c community town hall meetings for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) community and the arts community; Portland Plan staff participation and tabling at 32 city-wide community events; and distribut ion of a business-focused workshop and survey. Hard copies of Portland Plan materials were made available at 39 differ ent outlets, including
52 public libraries, universities, neighborhood coa lition offices, senior centers, etc. (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 19). Additi onally, non-English Portland Plan informational brochures and Phase 2 surveys were translated into Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 6). Most importantly, according to the Phas e 2 Public Participation Progress Report, Portland Plan staff str engthened their relationship with the Diversity & Civic Leadership Program (DCL) (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 6). T he following five member organizations comprise the DCL: the Cent er for Intercultural Organi zing (CIO), the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO), Lati no Network, the Native American Family Center (NAYA), and the Urban League of Portl and. In June 2010, the Portland City Council approved a grant progr am in which DCL member groups receive funds to conduct culturally-meaningful and appropriate public engagement for future Portland Plan phases (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 6). However, the areas for improvement we re primarily related to continuing outreach efforts to under-represented communiti es. One specific area for improvement that should be considered particularly important for Phase 3 public participation outreach plans is working to improve mark eting for services available at outreach events and workshops (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 7). Services that w ould allow greater participation from under-represented communities, such as language interpretation, child care, and Braille were underutilized (CP BPS, 2010b, p. 7). Another significant area for improvement involves the implementation of frequent and regular analysis of survey and/or workshop demographics to better tar get communities under-represented and to refocus outreach efforts (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 7).
53 A specific Goal 3 (Provide multiple venues and means for community involvement) endeavor undertak en during Phase 2 was the cr eation of an interactive game titled, Whats Your Big Idea? in whic h Portlanders were able to provide feedback and discussion about their big ideas for the fu ture of the city. Portland Plan staff implemented the use of this game during summertime community outreach events during Phase 2. Staff utilized the following venues to distribute the Phase 2 survey: senior centers supplied surveys and drop-box es for completed surveys; workshops, neighborhood coalition meetings and offices; hosted presentations; Curbsider magazine; district liaisons; and the project website (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 24). Throughout Phase 2, social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and the Portland Plan website was used to advertise events and allowed staff to post comment s and feedback from polling responses gathered at various Portla nd Plan events. One important area for improvement for Goal 3 was to develop a new tool to determine the nu mber of first time Portland Plan participants (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 8) in order to improve marketing and outreach to those without a high level of k nowledge and involvement on Portland Plan issues. The following quantitative measures were identified as Phase 2 successes for Goal 4 (Involve as many people as po ssible): 450 workshops participants; 6,500 general survey respondents; 228 business su rvey respondents; and approximately 1,000 attendees at Portland Plan presentations (p. 9). Also, the number of Facebook friends and Twitter followers increased. According to the Phase 2 Public Participation Progress Reports, the majority of wor kshop attendees (79%) and online survey respondents (85%) identified as White/Caucasi an, which is similar to the demographics
54 identified as workshop attendees and survey respondents in Phase 1 (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 29). Interestingly, the perc ent of responses identifying that their household income was under $20,000 rose from 9% to 14% between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 29). The percent of resp onses identifying that their household income was between $20,000 and $50,000 also increased between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys, from 24% to 33% (CPBPS 2010b, p. 29). However, Portland Plan staff still maintained that a major area for im provement for Goal 4 as the process moves into Phase 3 was to identify new groups and communities that have yet to be involved in the Portland Plan process (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 9). Goal 5 was reworded in Phase 2 as, Acknowledge that Portlanders are being heard, and show how their comments are being incorporated into the Portland Plan (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 10). Throughout Phase 2, Staff continued to utilize a master database of all written comm ents and event evaluations, wh ich was also accessed by staff when developing direction setting and designing future workshops (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 10). Additionally, in-depth re search on equity within Portland Plan and previous Portland planning efforts was completed and then woven into Phase II materials and processes in response to equi ty concerns by various communities (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 26). A Phase 2 workshop evaluation question related to Goal 5 was: "This workshop has provided me with a sense t hat the City of Portland is listening to my concerns. Of the 450 works hop attendees, 92% responded positively, of which 32% strongly agreed and 60% agreed (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 26). Unfortunately, Portland Plan process transparency continued to be a major concern voiced by Portlanders throughout Phase 2, and improvements related to Goal 5 will be m ade if the Portland
55 Plan staff continue to report back and demons trate to participants in workshops and events that previous input is being incorporated into curr ent materials and proposals (CPBPS, 2010b, p 10). Evaluation of Approaches Utilized in Phase 2 of Portland Plan Outreach The Public Participation Phase 2 Progre ss Report also includes a table with an evaluation of a new approach ut ilized in Phase 2 of Portl and Plan outreach: tabling at community events. This approach has the potential to reach many people at once, especially those who wouldnt normally atte nd workshops. However, such community events are staff intensive and may be difficu lt for people with disabilities to access because they are typically held outdoors (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 11). An additional table includes the ways Portland Plan staff incorporated lessons learned during Phase 1 into the following Phase 2 approaches: workshops; overviews at group meetings; hosted presentations and town halls; hard copy and on line surveys; special outreach activities with non-geographic and communi ty groups; social media; marketing and communications; the Portland Plan website; and local news (televised and audio). Specifically, according to the CIC committ ee members, efforts made to engage underrepresented groups through out reach and engagement grants to organizations that serve these groups and by translating materials in other languages was a plus throughout Phase 2 (CPBP S, 2010b, p. 15). In Phase 2, Portland Plan staff held more workshops on weekends and in the evenings to hopefully increase participation from those who could not attend evening sessions. However, Portland Pl an staff found that holding mo re weekend workshops did not increase the overall workshop attendanc e (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 12). In future phases,
56 Portland Plan staff planned to provide more targeted outreach when offering interpretation and childcare services so that people take advantage of these services (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 12). During Phase 1, the pub lic identified that they wanted up-todate materials and presentations during each phas e to build trust and demonstrate that their voices are being heard (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 12). However, limited resources continued to hinder this process, as staff could not frequently update meaningful materials for specific community groups and no social media staff training took place. Additionally, Portland Plan staff focused on ma king sure that the fo rmat of future town hall meetings meets the expe ctations of the public i.e. attendees have the opportunity to provide input directly (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 12). However, in relation to Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation, Phase 2 also di d little to further the extent of citizen power beyond knowledge and information shari ng with the public an d gathering input from Portlanders that were involved in the Consulting participation techniques. Phase 3 Phase 3: Successes and Areas for Improvement Phase 3 lasted from September 2010 th rough May 2011. The approaches used in Phase 3 public involvement were the follo wing: Portland Plan fairs; large employer brownbags; workshops; overviews at group m eetings; hosted presentations and town halls; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with non-geographic and community groups; social media; marketi ng and communications; the Portland Plan website; and local media (televised and audio) (CPBPS, 2011, p. 17). Specifically, Phase 3 public involvement efforts focused on partnering with organizations, especially the Diversity and Civic Leadership (DCL) Progr am partners, to team up on outreach, improve communication of Portland Pl an content and include more culturally
57 appropriate engagement of diverse communiti es (CPBPS, 2011, p. 3). Portland Plan staff continued their involvement in tabling efforts at comm unity-sponsored fairs, events, and presentations and implemented community fairs as an alternative to large workshops (CPBPS, 2011, p. 1). Unfortunately, the return rate for surveys was not as high during Phase 3 as for the first tw o phases. Staff and CIC committee members believed that a possible reason for low surv ey responses could be fatigue about the Portland Plan based on the following observa tions: many people feel as though their voice has been heard, each phase of the Portland Plan offered less and less new information as it was refined, and Portlanders are ready to move on to implementation and the Comprehensive Plan (CPBPS, 2011, p. 1). The public involvement goals used to measure success in Phase 3 were the same goals used in Phases 1 and 2. Goal 1 (Build on new and existing relationships) efforts involved brown bag l unch presentations and busine ss forums to gather feedback from the Portland business community. Port land Plan staff continued to maintain relationships developed prior to the Portland Plan process, as well as those developed with City bureaus and partner ag encies during the process. The Goal 1-specific areas for improvement identified in Phase 3 are ve ry similar to those areas of improvement described in the first two phases. These areas for improvement included: continue to seek bureau and partner agency assistanc e with outreach and engagement and continue to build new and ongoing relation ships with under-served and non-geographic issue-oriented grounds (CPBPS, 2011, p. 7). Addi tionally, going into Phase 4, Portland Plan staff highlighted the need to continue and in some cases broaden involvement with the City of Portland boards, committ ees and commissions (CPBPS, 2011, p. 7).
58 Portland Staff collaborated with DCL duri ng Phase 3 to encourage participation related to Goal 2 (Engage broader and mo re diverse groups with education and information and provide all interested with enough education so they can meaningfully participate). During Phase 3, the Portland City Council appro ved the grant program to provide DCL with the resources to involv e their member groups in meaningful and appropriate public engagement efforts. The fi ve DCL member organizations attended and provided information at Portland Plan fa irs and events to, for example, build community capacity and educat e the community about key policy decisions that have a direct impact on their lives (p. 8) or educate and engage communities about the Portland Plan while learning ways to infl uence its design and content (CPBPS, 2011, p. 9). Specifically, the Immigrant and Re fugee Community Organization (IRCO) participated in the development of a Portland Plan PowerPoint presentation for community members with lim ited English skills and the Latino Network collected participant survey responses at various ven ues, such as Latino-centric flea markets and faith-based organizations (C PBPS, 2011, p. 10). Additio nally, the Native American Family Center (NAYA) colla borated with the Portland Yout h and Elders Council (PYEC) to host work sessions and recruit community participation in reviewing Portland Plan Draft materials. The Urban League focused t heir outreach efforts using the following approaches: the development of a survey(s); neighborh ood canvassing; various methods of advertising and notification; and a hosted meeting(s) with Portland Plan staff (CPBPS, 2011, p. 11). Portland Plan staff co ntinued to distribute translated Portland Plan materials throughout Phase 3 and more than 400 people attended Portland Plan
59 fairs featuring local food, unique community booths, free childcare, and in some cases, bilingual staff volunteers and materials. There were no youth-specific surveys or events held in Phase 3. Portland Plan staff identified that further improvem ent related to this goal would involve targeted outreach to fait h-based organizations and ethnic community organizations. In order to achieve Goal 3 (Provide multiple venues and means for community involvement) efforts during P hase 3, Portland Plan staff held the Portland Plan Inspiring Communities series, a five-part lecture seri es in which experts in the fields of economic development, environmental justice, education, community health and sustainable systems shared fresh perspectives on what strategies have worked elsewhere (CPBPS, 2011, p. 13). Attendees submitted evaluation cards which provided the Portland Plan staff with important demographic informat ion and feedback. Portland Plan staff continued to participate in community events throughout Phase 3. Phase 3 saw lower overall involvement fr om Portlanders. Goal 4 (Involve as many people as possible) participation effo rts drew the following quantitative levels: approximately 375 fair participants; approxim ately 217 survey responses; approximately 400 speaker series participants; and approxim ately 1,740 attendees to 79 Portland Plan presentations (CPBPS, 2011, p. A-10). Howeve r, Phase 3 was successful in increasing participation among the following racial or ethnic groups: Latino/Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander. While Asian or Pacific Isla nders made up 4% of the race or ethnic group at Phase 1 and Phase 2 workshops, th is particular group made up 10% of those in attendance at Phase 3 fairs. For the Latino/Hispanic community, this number rose from between 4-6% during P hase 1 and Phase 2 workshops, to 9% of those in
60 attendance at Phase 3 fairs. Two areas for im provement were identified for Goal 4 as the Portland Plan process progressed: continue to engage more people, especially non-geographic communities and first-timers and develop new tools to better ensure and keep track of the number of Portlanders engaged at public events (CPBPS, 2011, p. 15). The successes and areas for improvement for Goal 5 (Acknowledge that Portlanders are being heard, and show how thei r comments are being incorporated into the Portland Plan) are particularly significant based on the Phase 3 Public Participation Progress Report. In November 2010, staff convened discussion groups to share the preliminary language of the em erging strategies to ensur e that communication was clear, concise, culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and inclusive (CPBPS, 2011, p. 16). Additionally, Portland Plan staff posted survey results and citizen feedback from the Portland Plan fairs on the websit e. However, analysis of this feedback was slow to be provided (CPBPS, 2011, p. 16). According to the Progress Report, simply posting the survey results and public comments fr om the Portland Plan fairs on the website did not clearly demonstrate to the public how their feedback was being factored into drafting of the plan (CPBPS, 2011, p. 16). Evaluation of Approaches Utilized in Phase 3 of Portland Plan Outreach The Public Participation Phase 3 Progre ss Report also includes a table with an evaluation of new approaches utilized in P hase 3 of Portland Plan outreach: fairs and large employer brown bags. Fair attendees were able to browse and comment in writing or choose to engage with other participants and staff (CPBPS, 2011, p. 17). Portland Plan staff felt that these fairs offered too many opportunities [for attendees] to provide feedback in the way of eight surv eys, mapping exercises, and staff facilitated group discussions and saw this as a majo r limitation of this participation approach
61 (CPBPS, 2011, p. 17). While the large employer brown bags provided a new context for public engagement, Portland Plan st aff cited the following limit ations to this approach: difficult to generate interest depending on pur pose/timing in project (info sharing vs. feedback); requires interest/effort on part of firm/employer to proceed; and difficult to schedulea critical mass of employees (CPBPS, 2011, p. 18). An additional table includes the ways Po rtland Plan staff incorporated lessons learned during Phase 1 and Phase 2 into t he following Phase 3 approaches: overviews at group meetings; hosted presentations and town halls; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with non-geographic & community groups; social media; marketing and communications; the Portland Plan website; and local news (televised and audio). Portland Plan staff sought to incor porate the lessons learned by continuing to follow up questions and feedback received at group meetings and using social media and the Portland Plan website to further communication with the public, as well as partner agencies. As Portland Plan staff transitions into Phase 4, they continued to build new and ongoing relationships with partner agencies and bureaus and under-served and/or non-geographic groups to reach as many Portlanders as possible (CPBPS, 2011, p. 27). Additionally, staff sought to continue to advertise events to engage the community in this process and strive to s hare analysis of public feedback in a timely manner (CPBPS, 2011, p. 27). However, t he focus of Phase 4 will no longer be collecting and vetting facts, determining directi ons and objectives, or vetting integrated strategiesas the process transitions into a more formal phase where the public engages directly with City decision-makers (CPBPS, 2011, p. 27). Additionally, because the public participation techniques utilized in Phase 3 were similar (or, in some
62 cases, the same) as the techniques utilized in the first two phases, the extent of citizen power remained strongly correlated to the Informing and Consultation rungs of Arnsteins Ladder of Cit izen Participation. Phase 4 Phase 4: Successes and Areas for Improvement Phase 4 of the Portland Plan lasted from June 2011 to April 25, 2012, the day that the plan was adopted by the Portland City Council. The approaches used during Phase 4 public involvement include the follo wing: various community locations for public hearings; workshops; overviews at group m eetings; hosted presentations; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with non-geogr aphic groups; social media; marketing and communications; the Portland Plan website; and local media (televised and audio) (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 19). During Phas e 4, public hearings were held before the Planning and Sustainability Co mmission and the Portland City Council, making this the most formal phase within the Portland Plan public involvement process (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 1). Throughout this phase, Portland Plan staff continued to provide information at community-sponsored fairs and events, as well as presenting before neighborhood and business associations, interest-based gr oups, and other communi ty groups (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 1). CIC committee members made the following assessment of Phase 4: [summertime public involvement] focused on providing information through tabling at community-sponsored fairs and events and pres entations, but was not as dynamic in that there was not a draft pl an to share nor was it appropriate for staff to take in community feedback (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 1). Unfortunatel y, the Proposed Draft was released to the community less than a month before the first public hearing before the
63 Planning and Sustainability Commission, and providing information to the public on how to prepare testimony lacked both energy and materials until a few weeks before the first hearing (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 2). Phase 4 continued to incorporate the public participation goals and measures of success. Goal 1 (Build on new and existing re lationships) efforts involved tabling at 21 fairs and events, and Portland Pl an staff maintained relationships by providing ongoing updates at meetings on the progress of t he Portland Plan. Because the Proposed Plan took longer to publish than anticipated, much of the engagement at the summer fairs and events and the Portland Plan presentations to communit y groups was limited to general information on the Portland Plan rather than opportunities to discuss content and how to testify before the Planning and Sustainability Commission, which would have made for a much more dynamic experience for the public (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 6). The Public Participation Progress Report for Phase 4 offers the following important area for improvement, which should be taken in to consideration for the Portland Comprehensive Plan update and public involv ement efforts followi ng adoption of the Portland Plan: ensure there is adequate time between the public release of a draft document and the corresponding public hearings and public comment period, while factoring in time for organiza tions to meet and coordinate an official response, as well as avoiding the holidays for the public comment period (CPB PS, 2012b, p. 7). Adequate time for information disseminati on was also an issue related to Goal 2 (Engage broader and more diverse groups with education and information and provide all interested with enough educati on so they can meaningfully participate). In addition to the translated version of the final brochur e, Informational brochures and the draft
64 versions of the Portland Plan and corresponding summaries were also provided in large print, but were not available for the Planning and Sustainabilit y Commission hearings. Ability advocates voiced their concern that la rge print or html-friendly materials were not available in a timely manner (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 9). However, Portland Plan staff was successful in involving the youth voice duri ng this part of the Po rtland Plan process, collecting 178 surveys through canvassing, small focus groups, and online (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 9). Public hearings were one of the most significant venues used for Phase 4 community involvement related to Goal 3 (Provide multiple venues and means for community involvement). According to the Public Participation Progress Report for Phase 4, more than 68 people provided testimony at three Planning and Sustainability Commission hearings, while 180 examples of written documentation were sent to the commission (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 14). Unfortunat ely, some of the most notable participation at these hearings came from the Portland Commission on Disabilities (PCOD), who emphasized their frustration about feeling lar gely unheard despite working with Portland Plan staff, and that their feedback had not been reflected in the version of the draft before the Planning and Sustainability Commission (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 15). Portland Plan staff then consulted with these groups to revise the draft before finally advancing it to the City Council. Additionally, the Phase 4 Public Participation Progress Report cited the following area for improvement with appl ication to the Comprehensive Plan Update and beyond: consider the date and time of hearings, wor kshops and verify that the scheduling does not conflict with the local organizations r egularly scheduled meeting (CPBPS, 2012b,
65 p. 15). In relation to Goal 4 (Involve as many people as possible), there were approximately 1,360 attendees to Portland Pl an presentations, and 700 Portlanders were contacted at community events (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 16). Portland Plan staff intends to continue to engage Portlanders in the Comprehensive Plan update through Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr. Goal 5 (Acknowledge that Portlanders are being heard, and show how their comments are being incorporat ed into the Portland Plan) successes are based on the following quantitative data: all public test imony received was responded to in staff memoranda to the Planning and Sustainabilit y Commission and City Council; a master database was created with all wr itten comments and event evaluations; and Portland Plan staff met with the Portl and Commission on Disability and the Aging Friendly Cities Global Network to address gaps in the Proposed Draft (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 31). Additionally, staff responded to C IO feedback to address gentrification and displacement within the Portland Plan, and the draft language was later reviewed by the Equity, Civic Engagement and Quality of Life Technical Action Group (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 31). Evaluation of Approaches Utilized in Phase 4 of Portland Plan Outreach The Public Participation Phase 4 Progre ss Report also includes a table with an evaluation of a new approach utilized in Ph ase 4 Portland Plan outreach various community locations for public hearings Portland Plan staff varied public hearing locations to attempt to reach Portlanders outside of downtown Po rtland, and promoted the public hearings through local community groups to draw Portlanders who were potentially unaware of the process. However, st aff identified limitations related to this approach. For example, public hearings can conflict with local events in the targeted
66 geographic area, as well as community and interest-based groups in the near proximity (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 19). Additionally, the formal nature of public hearings may not be of interest, or may be intimidating and overly te chnical for Portlanders to provide testimony (CPBPS, 2012b). Another table includes the ways Portland Plan staff incorporated lessons learned during the first three phases into the following Phase 4 approaches: workshops; overviews at group meetings; hosted presentations and town halls; hard copy and online surveys; special outreach activities with non-geographic & community groups; social media; marketing and communi cations; the Portland Plan website; and local news (televised and audio). Port land Plan staff found that announcement distribution at numerous locations citywide di d not result in an increase in participation (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 20). Additionally, staff noted that Town Hall events are more appropriate in earlier phases of a project (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 20). Phase 4 incorporated videos into the Portland Plan website to pr omote and summarize the plan, and public involvement through social media greatly improved throughout this process. CIC committee members evaluated Phase 4 and shared their disappointment in Phase 4 compared to earlier phase s, partially due to the fact that the outreach was less focused on events (workshops, fairs, forums, etc.) that created a lo t of anticipation (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 24). Additionally, another CIC member emphasized the frustration with the Proposed Draft of the Portland Plan not being available until October 2012, when it was intended to be published in su mmer 2011 (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 24). Finally, many CIC members st ated the timing of Phase 4 felt out of line compared with the previous phases and that the comment period did not give neighborhood or other organizations enough time to come together and discuss the plan and still have time to
67 prepare testimony (CPBPS, 2012b, p. 24). In the fourth rung on Arnsteins Ladder, Consultation, the public input gathered throughout this process is rarely taken into account. In this case, it was difficult for Portlanders to tell whether or not their input had been taken into account because they had su ch little time to review the draft Portland Plan Public Participation Tec hniques and Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation The approaches utilized in each of the f our phases of Portland Plan Outreach correspond with a rung on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participat ion. All of the approaches correspond to the rungs Informing or Consultation, or a combination of the two. Additionally, these rungs are degrees of Tokenism. According to Arnstein (1969), under these conditions [citiz ens] 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 assuranc e of changing the status quo (p. 217). The following tables list each approach with it s corresponding rung, as well as specific examples of each approach to further cl arify and describe each approach. For the purposes of this study and much like Arnste ins Ladder of Citizen Pa rticipation, these tables list broad approaches and techniques t hat were specifica lly highlighted by Portland Plan staff in the Portland Plan Public Participation Progress Reports.
68 Table 4-2. Approaches Utilized in Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnstein's Ladder Approaches Utilized in Phase 1 of Portland Plan Outreach Specific Examples of this Approach Rung on Arnstein's Ladder Workshops Consultation Group Meetings Informing/ Consultation Hosted Presentations Informing/ Consultation Hard Copy and Online Surveys Consultation Special Outreach Activities with Non-Geographic Groups Informing/ Consultation Social Media Facebook Informing Twitter Flickr Marketing and Communication Advertisements in community and ethnic newspapers Informing Emails to Master Mailing List (MML) Use of Curbsider magazine Community newspaper inserts Web site Local Media Televised workshops Informing Live and taped broadcasts Table 4-3. New Approaches Utiliz ed in Phase 2 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnstein's Ladder New Approaches Utilized in Phase 2 of Portland Plan Outreach Specific Examples of this Approach Rung on Arnstein's Ladder Tabling at Community Events Informing/ Consultation
69 Table 4-4. New Approaches Utiliz ed in Phase 3 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnstein's Ladder New Approaches Utilized in Phase 3 of Portland Plan Outreach Specific Examples of this Approach Rung on Arnstein's Ladder Fairs Informing/ Consultation Large Employer Brownbags Informing/ Consultation Table 4-5. New Approaches Utiliz ed in Phase 4 of Portland Plan Outreach Compared to Rungs on Arnstein's Ladder New Approaches Utilized in Phase 4 of Portland Plan Outreach Specific Examples of this Approach Rung on Arnstein's Ladder Various community locations for public hearings Consultation
70 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This section presents a discussion based upon the literature review and background information, as well as the analysi s of the approaches utilized in each of the four phases of Portland Plan Outreach and how they do or do not correspond with a rung on Arnsteins Ladder Cit izen of Participation. Participation Techniques to Further Portland Plan Development As discussed earlier, all of the approaches correspond to the Ladder of Citizen Participation rungs Informing or Consultation, or a combination of t he two. According to Arnstein, citizens will feel as if they ar e participating, but a limited one-way flow of information furthers a lack of assurance that citizen ideas and concerns are taken into account by policy-makers and Portland Plan st aff. Public participation in the Portland Plan process was primarily used to develop and prioritize the values and objectives that Portlanders want their city to embody. This input was t hen gathered by Portland Plan staff to develop the Portland Plan Draft. In this case, the following techniques were appropriate for informing citizens about this process and gathering broad-based citizen ideas and concerns: workshops, group meetings, hosted presentations, surve ys, and tabling at community events and fairs. Because the Portland Plan is a broad visi oning document, it is not surprising that the citizen input was also very broad and la cked the specificity t hat would give it increased depth and detail. Additionally, much of the work re lated to the development of the plan required a technical kn owledge of planning-related issues, which limited overall involvement of the public. For example, dur ing Phase 1 of the process, Portlanders ranked their top priorities for the city based on background reports developed by
71 Portland Plan staff, and staff us ed this input to develop a set of goals for public review in Phase 2. Therefore, staffs research and te chnical knowledge of the unique conditions facing Portland were instrumental in determi ning the direction of the Portland Plan draft. Restraints on Public Participation As the literature describes, a lack of re sources can significantly hinder the participation process. In t he case of the Portland Plan, staff lacked the following resources: staff capacity to host an incr eased number of public events; ability to complete extensive and comprehensiv e outreach to all non-geographic groups (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 20); time and capacit y to engage typically underrepresented communities of Portland through special ev ents (CPBPS, 2010a, p. 24); inability to produce frequently updated meaningful materi als for specific community groups (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 12); and limited resources to train staff to incorporate social media in public involvement. Unfortunately, this fo cused the process on simply telling as many people as possible about the development of the Portland Plan. While education can empower citizens, it is import ant that they feel as if their input is being used by policymakers to effectively further the process. Also, researchers discuss the difficu lty in attracting enough interest and participation among the public and stakeholders, especially in the long run. Public participation literatur e cites the inability of many citize ns to devote the time, energy, and resources to spending time in public meetings (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Interestingly, even though Portland Plan staff held workshops on the weekends and in the evenings, this did not increase attendance. This can be attributed to various causes, and a limitation of this study is t hat the author was unable to estab lish contact with citizens in Portland to determine why this was the case. In the case of the Portland Plan, staff
72 identified a decrease in the num ber of survey responses during the final two phases, as Portlanders received less new information and ra ised issues of transparency regarding the use of their input in Portland Plan Dra ft development. It appears that Portlanders felt fatigue about the process, and became more interested in the product than the process in the later phases. Critique: Transparency Throughout the Portland Plan public partici pation process, Portlanders displayed an increasing demand for timely results of th eir participation. According to the Public Participation Progress Reports, citizens became frustrated with the level of transparency related to how citizen input was incorporated into the final draft. Simply providing Portlanders with quantit ative results of the surve ys did little to help them understand how this information was used a nd reviewed by Portland Plan staff. Additionally, Portlanders were given little time to review the Proposed Draft once it was released and the public lacked the time to comment and respond to any issues or concerns that they had with the document. It is understandable that this process was time-consuming for staff, but in order to establish good public participation, it is important to facilitate, interact, and c onnect with the public in a meaningful way. Critique: Equal Representation of the Public Overall, the results of the analysis support the literature in that equal representation of the public wa s one of the most significant hurdles facing the process of citizen involvement in the Portland Plan. Caucasian Port landers dominated many aspects of the Portland Plan process, in cluding representation at workshops and a higher survey response rate than any other demographic group. While staff translated Portland Plan informational brochures and su rveys into four languages (Spanish,
73 Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese), budget c onstraints and the inability to host nonEnglish characters on the website meant that information in languages other than English was not made available on the Portland Plan website (CPBPS, 2010b, p. 14). It should be noted that the dem ographic breakdown of survey response rates and workshop attendance mirrors t he demographic breakdown of the city of Portland (Appendix B). However, based on the Public Participation Progress Reports, it was evident throughout the Portland Plan process that there were gap s in outreach that could not be overcome during this approximately two-year process. Throughout the Portland Plan process, staf f did become more sensitive to the needs of minority populations, due in large pa rt to their collaborat ion with the Diversity and Civic Leadership Program (DCL). Res pecting the customs, values, informal information channels, and language of different groups is a step in the right direction for greater inclusion of minority groups in the dec ision-making process. It is important to mention that much of the work done by DC L member groups fulfilled the Informing and Consultation rungs of Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation, but did little to further the extent of citizens power in development of the Plan Draft. Extent of Citizens Power in Devel opment of the Portland Plan Draft On their website, Portland Plan staff a ssert, Unlike past plans, the Portland Plan focuses not just on places but also on people. This broader and more inclusive approach, as well as its core principle of equity, is what will distingui sh the Portland Plan from others of its kind (P ortland Plan, 2013). Through this research, it became evident to this author that citizen power was not the goal of citizen participation in the development of the Portland Plan. Arnstein believes that citizens begin to have influence in decision-making as they serve on public boards or planning committees
74 where they hold citizen veto power or final approval power. Howe ver, these options were not available to Portlanders, as t he approaches and techniques used for citizen participation were primarily to inform the pu blic, while also gathering their input. This education is an important step in developi ng policy. Even though citizens did not ultimately wield the type of citizen power that Arnstein reveres, Portland Plan staff made significant, concerted efforts to educate and inform the public, and in volve them in the draft development plan as much as their resources would allow.
75 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The study described in this paper offers an interesting look at how the public participation techniques utilized in the creati on of the Portland Plan correspond to rungs on Arnsteins Ladder of Citizen Participation. All of the approaches correspond to the rungs Informing or Consultation, or a combination of the two. While Arnstein believes that these rungs do little to fu rther the extent of citizen power in the decision-making process, it is important to consider the context of the Portland Plan process and the public participation goals that the City of Portland was trying to achieve through the creation of this broad visioning document. One of the questions that this paper sought to resolve is whether the city of Portland can be considered a model for their integration of public participation into the planning process. On one hand, the public par ticipation techniques utilized in this process were primarily to inform the public, while also gathering their input. No effort was made to involve public participation te chniques that correspond to higher rungs on Arnsteins Ladder, thereby fac ilitating partnerships and delegating power to citizens. However, in this authors view, developm ent of a broad visioning document does not necessarily call for such high levels of citi zen power. For the most part, Portland Plan staff was able to gather the information t hat was needed from the public in order to perform the technical task of creati ng the Portland Plan draft document. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this author that Portland can be considered a model for their use of public participation techniques that fall within the rungs of Informing and Consultation. Critiques c an certainly be made regarding the unequal representation of the public th roughout the process, or t he lack of transparency of the
76 data collected, but these problems are not uni que to Portland and their specific process of public engagement. There are many techniques available that can reach citizens in new and creative ways, but those in power must be willing to listen and provide open channels of communication between polit icians and their constituencies. As Haruta and Radu (2010) state, policy -makers must dete rmine whether the citizens are actually willing to act in the nam e of their rightful opportunity to be involved in policy making and whether the administrators are willing to react and positively respond to the publics suggestions (p. 80). Channels of communication go both ways, and citizens are more likely to participate in the decision making process if they feel as if their voice is heard and regarded by those in power (Verba, 1967). Working with limited resources, Portland Plan staff used a variety of public partici pation techniques to gather input from Portlanders. It is important to mention that Portland Plan staff remained acutely aware of their shortc omings and lessons learned throughout this process, which can influence the future initiatives in Po rtland that seek to incorporate public participation at a similar level. Additional research regarding public participation will always be important to more fully understand the most effective ways to involve citizens in the decision-making process. Specifically, Portland will need to focus on reaching a greater number of minority citizens through informal channels of participation, such as church group or community meetings. Policy makers must also be sensitive to changing technology, as internet-based public participatio n tools, including online surve ys, must be developed for the specific population that is being invo lved in the decision-making process.
77 Quite simply, public participation is import ant. By involving citizens in the growth and development processes t hat shape their communities, planners and policy makers are building relationships that strengthen communities and pr ovide legitimacy for the democratic process on which our country was founded. While the process of citizen engagement is not easy, when executed effectiv ely, it is rewarding not only for the people involved, but for the people yet to come.
78 Notes 1 It is important to mention that democracy is not an all-or-nothing affa ir; it is a matter of degree, of the extent to which the principles of popul ar control and political equality are realized in practice (Jones & Platt, 1994, p. 14). For example, A key feature of democracy is the ability of citizens to organize and communicate with each other independently of the gover nment, essential if they are to bring their continuing influence to bear upon government policy, and to gain effective redress in the event of any maladministration by public officials or the governments agencies (Jones & Platt, 1994, p. 14). In a democracy, the right to vote is one of the most important examples of public participation as the right to vote is not limit ed by a persons wealth or race. In a direct democracy, the people represent themselves and vote directly on laws and policies, while a representative democracy is characte rized by the election of representatives that create and implement pub lic policy for the people. While representatives are elected in an oligarchy, they serve as a small, powerful class where people are given few opportunities to change policy and influence decision-making. 2 According to Transparency International, open governments ex emplify the following characteristics: politicians prioritize the pub lic interest; democratic institutions are in place and active; and public interests, rather than private interests, dictate policy ("Corruption by topic: Polit ics and Government," 2012). 3 Rydin and Pennington (2000) write, Public participation is conceptualized as a collective action problem, where non-cooperative behavior (such as shirking and freeriding) may impact on the effectiveness of th e process (p. 157). When incentives face individual decision makers, it is rational fo r individuals to free-ride on the participation efforts of others, reaping t he benefits without incurring the costs (Rydin & Pennington, 2000, p. 157). 4 According to Rydin and Pennington (2000) Used in its broadest sense, the term capital refers to those goods or ideas wi th which something else can be created or established. Social capital, therefore, c onstitutes the pre-existi ng elements of social structures, which social actors can us e to obtain their objectives (p. 161). 5 Gerometta, Hussermann, and Longo provide three core dimensions to explain the term social innovation: the satisfaction of human needs (content dimension); changes in social relations especially with regar d to governance (process dimension); and an increase in the socio-political capabili ty and access to resources (empowerment dimension) (Gerometta, H ussermann & Longo, 2005, p. 2007).
79 APPENDIX A EXAMPLE TABLE FROM THE PHASE 1 PORTLAND PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRESS REPORT: EVALUATION OF APPROA CHES UTILIZED IN PHASE 1 OF PORTLAND PLAN OUTREACH Retrieved from the City of Portl and Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Portland Plan: Public Participat ion Phase 1 Progress Report (2010)
80 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHICS: PORTLAND VS. PH ASE 1 WORKSHOP ATTENDEES AND SURVEY RESPONSES Demographics: Portland vs. Phase 1 Wo rkshop Attendees and Survey Responses Race Population Percentage: Portland Population Percentage: Workshop Attendance Population Percentage: Survey Responses White 76% 75% 83% African American 6% 2% 1% Asian 7% 4% 2% American Indian and Alaska Native 1% <1% 1% Hispanic or Latino 9% 6% 1% Two or more racial categories 5% 4% 5% Retrieved from the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Portland Plan: Public Participation Phase 1 Progress Report (2010)
81 LIST OF REFERENCES About the Portland Plan (2013). Retrieved from http://www.portlandonline.com/ portlandplan/index.cfm?c=47906 Albrechts, L. (2002). The pl anning community reflects on enhancing public involvement. Views from academics and reflective practitioners. Planning Theory and Practice 3 (3), 331-347. Alexander, E. (2008). Public participation in planning A multidimensional model: The case of Israel. Planning Theory and Practice 9 (1), 57-80. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 216-224. Brooks, R., & Harris, G. (2008) Citizen participation, NEPA, and land-use planning in Northern New York, USA. Environmental Practice 10(4), 140-151. Bugs, G., Granell, C., Fonts, O., Huerta, J., & Painho, M. (2010). An assessment of public participation GIS and web 2.0 technol ogies in urban planning practice in Canela, Brazil. Cities 172-181. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Su stainability. (2012). The Portland Plan. Portland, OR: City of Portland. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Su stainability. (2010). The Portland Plan: Public Participation Phase 1 Progress Report. Portland, OR: City of Portland. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Su stainability. (2010). The Portland Plan: Public Participation Phase 2 Progress Report. Portland, OR: City of Portland. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Su stainability. (2011). The Portland Plan: Public Participation Phase 3 Progress Report. Portland, OR: City of Portland. City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Su stainability. (2012). The Portland Plan: Public Participation Phase 4 Progress Report. Portland, OR: City of Portland. Cogan, A., Sharpe, S., & Hertzeberg, J. (1986) Citizen participation. In F. So, I. Hand & B. McDowell (Eds.), The Practice of State and Regional Planning Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Collins, K. & Ison, R. (2006). Dare we jump off Arnsteins ladder? Social learning as a new policy paradigm. In: Proceedings of PATH (Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology) Confer ence, 4-7 June 2006, Edinburgh. Corruption by topic: Politics and government (2012). Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/topi c/detail/politics_and_government
82 Corruption perceptions index 2012 (2012). Retrieved from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/ Digital Divide defined ( Hint: its not about access.) (2010). Retrieved from http://www.digitaldivide.org/digital-divi de/digitaldividedefined/digitaldivide.html Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in parti cipatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5) 693-708. Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). Th e new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice & Research 25(3), 397-408. Gerometta, J., Hussermann, H., & Longo, G. ( 2005). Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies 42(11), 2207-2021. Hanzl, M. (2007). Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Design Studies, 28 289-307. Haruta, C., & Radu, B. (2010). Citizen partici pation in the decision making process at local and county levels in the Romanian public institutions. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 31, 76-92. Howard, T. L. J., & Gaborit, N. (2007). Using virtual environment technology to improve public participation in urban planning process. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133 (4), 233-241. Irvin, R., & Stansbury, J. ( 2004). Citizen participati on in decision making: Is it worth the effort?. Public Administration Review 64(1), 55-65. Jones, D. & Platt, S. (1994, April 29). An (incomplete) history of democracy. New Statesman & Society 7 (300), 3-31. Jonsson, A. (2005). Public Participati on in Water Resources Management: Stakeholder Voices on Degree, Scale, Potential, and Methods in Future Water Management. Ambio, 34(7), 495-500. Kim, Do-Hyung. Three-Dimens ional Urban Simulation for Co llaborative Urban Design. Diss. University of Florida, 2005. Print. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A. & Turt on, I. (2000). Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24 109-125.
83 Kyem, P. (2004). Power, partici pation, and inflexible institut ions: An examination of the challenges to community empowerment in participatory GIS applications. Cartographica, 38 (3) 5-17. Modarres, A. (2013, April 10). Beyond the digital divide. (2011). National Civic Review, 100 (3), 4-7. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ ps/i.do?id=GALE|A272245021&v=2.1&u= gain40375&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w Multnomah County, Oregon (2013, March 11). Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41051.html Portland (city), Oregon (2013, January 10). Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html Portland Plan. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.portlandonline.com/portlandplan/ Portland's Community Visi oning Project: visionPDX (2013). Retrieved from http://www.visionpdx.com/visionpdx/ Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010 2010 demographic profile data (2010). Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tables ervices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid =DEC_10_DP_DPDP1 Rydin, Y., & Pennington, M. (2000). Pub lic participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment 5 (2), 153-169. The Next Step: The Portland Plan (2013). Retrieved from http://www.visionpdx.com/reading/visiondocument/next_steps.html Thelander, A. (1981). Citiz en participation in land and water use planning. Acta Sociologica 24(4), 321-329. Verba, S. (1967). Democratic participation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 373 (2), 53-78. visionPDX History (2013). Retrieved from http://www.visionpdx.com/visionpdx/history.php
84 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shayna Gershman was born in 1990 in Albany, NY, but she grew up in Coral Springs, Florida. She attended the University of Florida, where she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science with a mi nor in urban and regional planning. During her undergraduate career, she was an active me mber of the univers itys fencing team. Shayna started her graduate coursework in urban and regional planning in 2010, and became a full-time graduate student in January 2012. She was a graduate research assistant in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, and a teaching assistant for the Planning Research Design course. S hayna graduated with her Master of Arts degree in urban and regional planning in Augu st 2013. She hopes to work in the planning field, focusing on community engagement in the planning process.