|
|
The Land Use Tracker |
|||||||
|
IN THIS ISSUE:
|
The Wisconsin Planning Experience: Results From the Community Planning Survey By Rebecca Roberts and Chin-Chun Tang, CLUE Project Specialists
In January 2004, the Center for Land Use Education initiated a state-wide online survey of planning professionals. We examined five major aspects of community planning, including the availability of funding for planning, planning activities typically included in local planning processes, challenges associated with those activities, methods to build and sustain public participation, and the role of external assistance providers. Highlights from the survey are provided below. Survey Respondents The majority of individuals who responded to the survey work as professional planners (see Figure 1). Most are employed by municipal governments. UW-Extension and private consulting firms also employ a large number of respondents. Roughly half of these individuals characterize the community or communities they work with as rural. In the past five years, survey respondents worked on an average of five planning projects, of which comprehensive and land use planning projects were completed most frequently. Ninety percent were involved in at least one multi-jurisdictional planning project in the same time period. The majority of respondents reported positive or neutral experiences with planning.
Financial Resources A lack of financial resources was repeatedly identified as a pressing challenge for many survey respondents. With an average annual operational budget of $280,000 and the cost to complete a major comprehensive or land use plan creeping upwards of $200,000, it is no surprise that communities are most concerned with funding when initiating or implementing new plans or projects. Financial concerns associated with data collection and land use mapping activities were also reported. When asked to describe funding sources, respondents indicated that approximately two-thirds of funds are generated locally, such as through taxes, a quarter is derived externally through grants, and the remainder is provided through in-kind services. The State�s comprehensive planning grant serves as the major source of outside funding for local planning efforts. Communities also identified other common funding programs as shown in Figure 2.
The Planning Process At the time of completing this survey, ninety-nine percent of respondents had begun to prepare for a community planning process. When asked to describe the process used in their community, most respondents reported similar planning activities, including data collection, analysis, visioning, development of goals and objectives, and land use mapping. Slightly fewer communities reported scenario development or strategy selection activities. A decreasing number of respondents report involvement in plan implementation, monitoring, and revision activities, respectively. Survey respondents were also asked to rate the difficulty of the activities included in their planning process. As shown in Figure 3 on the facing page, pre-planning, data collection, analysis, and land use mapping were considered some of the least difficult activities to complete. In comparison, plan implementation was ranked as the single most difficult activity. Visioning, future scenario development, strategy selection and plan review and approval were also considered fairly difficult.
To understand why planning activities were rated as such, we asked respondents to identify specific challenges they experienced related to each activity. Top challenges overall include:
Community Involvement Community involvement and support for local planning processes has been known to contribute to the success or failure of local projects. When asked about the importance of support from various segments of the community, respondents overwhelmingly suggested that support from local officials is critical to the success of local projects. As shown in Figure 4, they also felt that support from the general public and interest groups was important, but to a lesser degree. To build support among local officials and the public, respondents suggested involving these groups in the planning process, encouraging community members who support planning to build support among their peers, and involving opposition groups early on in the planning process.
Although respondents expressed hesitation about using outright incentives or rewards to encourage public involvement, many communities described techniques to make participation less intimidating, more convenient and more rewarding on a personal level. For example, most communities use flexible meeting times to encourage attendance, refreshments and snacks during meetings, and formal invitations to participate. To encourage local units of government to participate in planning, respondents suggested highlighting opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation, issuing formal invitations to participate, and providing press coverage. External Assistance Among survey respondents who report receiving assistance related to natural resources planning or management, most report working with planning consultants. Consultants are generally involved to develop and draft the technical components of natural resources plans, including data, maps, goals, objectives and recommendations. A large number also report receiving education, training and assistance from UW-Extension related to public involvement and visioning. State agencies, including DNR and DOT, non-governmental organizations, county departments, and federal agencies also actively provide assistance to Wisconsin communities. Conclusion This survey was designed to investigate and document the
experiences of local communities and professionals involved in planning in
Wisconsin. The experiences captured shed light on the environment in which
planning takes place in Wisconsin and provide many valuable lessons for
the Wisconsin planning practitioner. The full report contains extensive
text and graphics illustrating the survey results, a discussion section
describing implications for the practicing planner, and a description of
the survey methodology used. To view the full report, please visit the
following website:
|
|||||||
