|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Impact of Wisconsin's Public Participation Requirement on Local Comprehensive Plans By Michael A Burayidi, Ph.D., Professor, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh It is generally acknowledged by urban planners that community participation in the planning process is essential for ensuring that plans reflect the needs and wishes of residents in a community. As Burby observed: "Strong plans stem from planning processes that involve a broad array of stakeholders, and strong plans accompanied by broad stakeholder involvement are needed if plans are to have a significant effect on the actions of local governments" (2003, p. 33). State governments have also embraced community participation as essential to program effectiveness. While participation requirements may vary by state government, the growth management plans of most states including Maryland, Georgia, and Vermont require, at a minimum, a public hearing before the approval of a local comprehensive plan. Wisconsin, like many other states seeking to manage growth, enacted Wisconsin Act 9, also known as the "Smart Growth" or "Comprehensive Planning Law" in December 1999. The law requires communities that engage in zoning, subdivision or official mapping actions to make decisions related to these programs consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan beginning on January 1, 2010. The law also outlines specific procedures for involving the public in planning. It requires communities to adopt written procedures to involve the public throughout the preparation of a comprehensive plan, hold a public hearing prior to adoption of the plan, and widely distribute proposed or amended plans for public review and comment (Wisconsin Statutes § 66.1001(4)). Methodology This study examined the comprehensive planning processes of a sample of Wisconsin municipalities to see the effects that different community characteristics, inputs and processes have on participation outcomes. At the time of this study (February 2006), the Wisconsin Department of Administration had received 473 adopted municipal comprehensive plans. A random sample of 57 plans, including thirty-seven town, ten village and ten city plans, were selected for review. Four sources were referenced in evaluating community participation effectiveness: 1) the public participation plans of the communities, 2) summaries of community meetings, 3) the content of adopted comprehensive plans, and 4) interviews with key community personnel involved in preparing the comprehensive plans. Community characteristics (such as population, education and income), as well as variables related to planning inputs, processes and outcomes (such as presence of an adopted public participation plan, number and type of participation techniques used, diversity of groups involved, and level of citizen influence) were recorded and analyzed for each community (see Table 1). Study Results Table 1 compares the participation scores of incorporated and unincorporated municipalities and shows that these municipalities differ in six key areas: incorporated municipalities spent more per capita on conservation and development activities, involved both traditional and nontraditional groups, went beyond the traditional approaches to involve the public in the planning process, involved a greater number of stakeholders, used a wider variety of participation approaches, and gave residents greater control over the planning process than unincorporated municipalities.
Using multiple regression analysis, one process variable and three community characteristic variables were shown to have the most effect on citizen power, that is, the extent to which residents in a community were given control over the planning process (Arnstein, 1969). A community's outreach efforts, such as the number and types of stakeholders involved, and the number and types of approaches used to involve the public in the planning process were key factors in determining the community's public participation effectiveness. Also, large communities, communities with a high proportion of residents that have a bachelor's degree or higher, and those in which plans were prepared for a single jurisdiction rather than multiple jurisdictions showed more effectiveness in their public participation processes than those without these characteristics. Most of the communities that had low scores in their outreach efforts also scored low on the overall index of community participation. By contrast communities with high outreach scores did remarkably well on the overall index. The findings of this study support the planning literature and previous research findings on community participation that show "good processes reach out to all stakeholders, share information openly and readily, engage people in meaningful interaction, and attempt to satisfy multiple interest positions" (Webler and Tuler 2006, p. 718; also see Cooper, Bryer and Meek 2006). Lessons from Wisconsin�s Experience The objective of this research was to identify factors that contribute to effective community participation in the preparation of comprehensive plans. The findings show that the guidelines established by the state of Wisconsin for public participation, including the preparation and adoption of a public participation plan, notification of opportunities for public participation, and a public hearing prior to plan adoption, were met by all communities. Furthermore, issues and opportunities identified by residents were generally reflected in the final plans and programs of most communities. Nonetheless, many communities still had low scores on the community participation index primarily because of poor outreach efforts. One way to rectify this problem is for states to provide incentives to encourage the use of innovative approaches that go beyond conventional methods of eliciting participation. While potentially time consuming, some of these innovative approaches, such as the use of advisory committees and photography journals, have been shown to increase the effectiveness of participation. In assessing proposals for funding, greater weight should also be given by state funding agencies to community outreach efforts, especially those involving non-traditional ways of involving the public in planning. Furthermore, state funding agencies, such as the Wisconsin Department of Administration should be following up with communities to make sure that the techniques they suggest for involving the public in planning in their grant applications are actually implemented. While the state's comprehensive planning law and grant program promote multi-jurisdictional planning among municipalities as a way to increase inter-governmental and collaborative solutions to problems, this research found that multi-jurisdictional plans were less effective in generating effective participation. Thus, the state should weigh the benefits of rewarding multi-jurisdictional planning efforts against the impacts such an approach has on community participation outcomes. To conclude, state laws that require public participation in the preparation of local comprehensive plans have the potential to increase the level and effectiveness of community participation in planning. To achieve optimum results, however, state funding should be targeted to participation processes that encourage planners to involve a wide variety of stakeholders through the use of non-traditional and unconventional methods. State governments should also institute mechanisms for evaluating local government planning processes to ensure that there is follow-through between proposed public participation efforts and actual efforts. Michael A. Burayidi, Ph.D. is a Professor of Urban Planning and Coordinator of the Urban and Regional Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. References Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224. Burby, Raymond J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33-49. Cooper, Terry, Bryer, Thomas A., and Meek, Jack. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(supplement), 76-88. Webler, T. and Tuler, S., (2006). Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: Combined results from 10 case studies. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 699-722.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
