Download pdf - Recognizing Uncertainty and Linked Decisions in Public Participation: A New Framework for Collaborative Urban Planning

■ Research Paper

Recognizing Uncertainty and LinkedDecisions in Public Participation: A NewFramework for Collaborative UrbanPlanning

Arnab Chakraborty*Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

To promote collaboration, urban planners need to devise processes that consider stake-holders’ interests not as an afterthought but as an integral component of decision analysis.In this paper, I introduce and illustrate a framework that attempts to do so using a long-running road extension planning process in Urbana, Illinois, USA. Drawing upon archivalresearch, stakeholder reactions, and my experiences as an observer, the case study demon-strates how assumptions in problem framing and analysis and a focus on hardenedpositions can lead to disagreements. Using a stylized scenario exercise, I then present analternative framework that can explicitly recognize the uncertainties and linked decisionsinvolved in the analysis and allow the stakeholders to expound their concerns. A test ofthe principles shows that by bringing out the basic objectives of stakeholders and consider-ing a wider range of choices and uncertainties, the framework can help identify underlyingareas of agreement. I conclude that recognizing limitations of analytical methods andsystematically bringing stakeholder values to a planning process can help improve itsefficacy. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords uncertainty; linked decisions; collaboration; scenario analysis; stakeholders

INTRODUCTION

Planning scholars and modellers have long bor-rowed from systems theory and complexityresearch to device approaches that advance

our understanding of urban processes and theirreaction to interventions (see, for e.g. Johnstonand Hopkins, 1987; Schiffer, 1992; Innes andBooher, 1999; Batty, 2005; Geertman and Stillwell,2009; Susskind, 2010). They include new formalplanning techniques (e.g. algorithms that helpplanners work through decisions), methods ofstakeholder engagement (e.g. representation ofaffected publics) and computational models (e.g.

*Correspondence to: Arnab Chakraborty, Department of Urban andRegional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 611 E.Lorado Taft Drive, M230 Temple Buell Hall, Champaign, IL 61821, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systems Research and Behavioral ScienceSyst. Res. 29, 131–148 (2012)Published online 8 February 2012 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sres.2102

simulation of land cover changes). Despite theseadvances, however, their connections to planningpractice remain underdeveloped (Batty, 2008).For example, when outputs of urban simulationmodels are introduced in deterministic ways toa messy, politically charged public process, theeffectiveness of systematic analysis as well asstakeholder engagement may suffer.

Practical ways for internalizing the underlyingvalue conflicts of public processes continues to bea challenge.1 Decision-making processes in thepublic domain are often designed by governmentagencies responsible for specific functions, such asmanaging regulations, providing public servicesand making public investments (Meck, 2002). Suchplanning decisions are often claimed to be ‘valueneutral’ and in the ‘public interest’ (Klosterman,1985). Their analytical and participatory pieces areoften separated. Analytical frameworks, whenapplied, often call for exploration of alternativesbefore formulating a plan of action (Chapin,1972). However, the process of identifying theproblem, generating alternatives and selectingevaluation criteria is left to the devices of profes-sional planners. This approach, called comprehen-sive rational planning (or the C-Rmodel), has beencriticized for its bias towards the civic and businesselites and for promoting the values of the middleclass to the exclusion of others (Klosterman, 1985).Critics—postmodernist, post-colonial, feminist,etc.—have called for a new direction in planningthat includes marginalized groups in the decision-making process, to both undo past harms and tocreate a more equitable society (Lindblom 1959;Jacobs 1961; Friedman 1987). They all argue thatputting a priority on process over outcome canadvance the principles of equality.

Despite the critiques of the C-R model, theprocess of adopting alternative principles intopractice has been slow. The intent and outcomesof some of the alternative, more participatoryapproaches have also been challenged. To be sure,many public agencies now mandate participationin decision making (Meck, 2002; Brody et al.,2003). However, in some cases, participation hasmeant little more than commenting on already

developed plans or has disintegrated into open con-flict leading to a stalemate situation (Margerum,2002). Many needs of inclusive planning pro-cesses—identifying values of different groups androots of conflict among them, joint-fact findingwithstakeholders, etc.—are costly and time consumingand are often considered inefficient (Andrews,2002). Awide variety of contexts that call for inclu-sive processes andmultiplicity of publics2 involvedin them have also meant that solutions are hard togeneralize.

The lack of effective engagement by plannersdoes not always deter public mobilization orinterest in participation though (Innes, 1996).Multiple stakeholders with a range of interestsand positions often exist even around the smal-lest local government project. Their assessmentsof a problem may vary depending on their per-ceived losses or gains, short-term and long-termexpectations, and their beliefs about the uncertain-ties and assumptions involved in decisionmaking.Their degree of mobilization may depend on thepolitical support for their positions, their experi-ences in previous processes, and overall ‘stakes’involved (Ramirez, 1999; Hopkins, 2001a; Chazal,2010). Furthermore, their stance on engagement—cooperative or adversarial—may depend on theirperceived benefits from each. Thus, to promotecollaborative planning, planners should deviseprocesses that can consider the underlying valueconflicts and objectives of stakeholders integralto the analytical decision making.

In this paper, I present a framework for doingjust that. I critically assess a long-running planningprocess for a road extension project in Urbana,Illinois, USA, that has been fraught with conflict.I draw upon archival research, stakeholder reac-tions, planning theory and my experiences as anobserver. I discuss how assumptions in problemframing and analysis and a focus on hardenedpositions have led to disagreements. Using a

1 See for e.g. Margerum (2002) for challenges to process-oriented modelsandMunda (2004) for more quantitative Social Multi-Criteria evaluation

2 According to Chakraborty et al. (2011), ‘[p]ublics refer to groups withdivergent, sometimes overlapping, interests with which individualsand communities identify and, during a planning process, aroundwhich they occasionally organize. The notion of multiplicity of publicsreflects not only a large range of interests but also individuals’ identi-fication with different publics in connection to different causes.According to the communicative model of planning theory, identifica-tion and inclusion of such publics, especially the non-dominant ones,as stakeholders in a process are a planner’s key challenge behindbroadening their power and enfranchisement’.

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 29, 131–148 (2012)DOI: 10.1002/sres

132 Arnab Chakraborty

stylized scenario exercise, I present a frameworkthat explicitly recognizes the uncertainties andlinked decisions involved in an analysis andasks the stakeholders to expound and test theirconcerns. By bringing out the basic objectives ofstakeholders and considering a wider range ofchoices and uncertainties, the framework illumi-nates underlying areas of agreement. I concludethat recognizing limitations of analytical methodsand systematically bringing stakeholder values toa planning process can help improve its efficacy.

PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES IN URBANPLANNING

The need for, and challenges to, collaborative plan-ning abound (see reviews in Julian, 1994; Manzoand Perkins, 2006). To synthesize the key issues, Istart by organizing the relevant literature intothree streams: (i) collaboration and public decisionmaking; (ii) systematic approaches to participa-tory planning; and (iii) scenario planning tech-niques and conflict management.

Collaboration and Public Decision Making

In 1950s and 60s, central city revitalization in theUSAwas the focus of many government-led plan-ning efforts (Hall, 1988). These efforts, occurring ata time when the middle classes were leaving forthe suburbs, resulted in hollowed out urban cores,with concentrated pockets of poor minorities andimmigrant populations. Urban renewal, as manygovernment schemes of that era were collectivelycalled, caused large-scale displacement of estab-lished low-income communities (Krumholz, 1999).However, replacing these areas with high-renthousing and commercial developments ensuredthat the interests of the business elites were oftenprotected. Criticism of these top-down, heavy-handed actions of the government led to calls forgreater involvement of the public in the localplanning process. Since then, many states andlocal planning statutes have set minimum guide-lines for public involvement (Meck, 2002).Mandated participation, however, has not been

seen widely as effective. Many critics have called

their real impact as little more than an opportunityfor the public to comment on already developedplans (Shan and Yai, 2010; Timney, 2011). In track-ing the history of relevant state and local statutesin Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, Meck(2002) criticizes traditional state regulations forincluding only one form of public participation:citizen hearing. He notes that such practices some-times result in one-way information sharing ratherthan a multi-party dialogue. Subsequent changesin many places have seen broader and stricterrequirements for participation both in stagesof plan development and in plan updates. Forexample, State of Florida’s statutes require plan-ners to ‘. . . provide for broad dissemination ofthe proposals and alternatives, opportunity forwritten comments, public hearings. . .provisionsfor open discussions, communications programs,information services, and consideration of andresponse to public comments’. It also requires thateach local vision, ‘. . .be developed through acollaborative planning process with meaningfulpublic participation’ (Florida Statutes, 2009).Manyother states have made similar changes. Forexample, Oregon requires every municipalityto have a citizen advisory committee whosemembers should reflect the geographic areasand interests related to regulations and otherdevelopment decisions (Oregon SLUPL, 1973).

As the practice of public participation in planmaking has evolved, so has the research thataddresses its efficacy. Studies have looked at therelationship between characteristics of communi-ties and their practices, examining the natureof represented groups and their dominance;systematic variations across states and metropol-itan areas, and the impact of participation on planquality, efficiency and implementation (Arnstein,1969; Berke and Conroy, 2000; Brody et al., 2003;Müller et al., 2005). Although many of these stud-ies find that mandating participation raises thelevels of public involvement, its impact on thequality of representation and resulting plans isless clear. As a result, some have distinguishedbetween participation performed as a procedurefrom a deeper engagement with the public.

To understand the values and needs of partici-pants, participation has to be a part of the analyt-ical process (Helling, 1998; Brody et al., 2003).

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER


Uncertainty and Linked Decisions in Public Participation 133

However, to do so, planners will need to movebeyond their reliance on technical rationalityand scientific methods and embrace other waysof knowing that includes local and experientialknowledge (Sandercock, 1998). This is consistentwith theories that emphasize communicativerationality (Habermas and McCarthy, 1985) andempowerment of the public for greater, andbetter, participation (Arnstein, 1969; Krumholz,1982). Other theories such as advocacy planningand equity planning use the paradigm of technicalrationality to address socio-economic injustice(Thomas, 1994), while relying on communicativeprocesses as means to stimulate participatorydemocracy and building capacities within thecommunity.

Systematic Approaches to Participatory Planning

The literature on participatory planning presentsextensive lessons on understanding and engagingdifferent publics (see, for example, King et al., 1998;Ramirez, 1999; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Videiraet al., 2010). The approaches vary by whether theagency is involved in bottom-up (e.g. commu-nity organizing) or top-down (e.g. public reviewof plans) decision making. Ramirez (1999), forexample, suggests stakeholder analysis and recom-mends classifying them as primary/secondary/critical and as internal/external to the organization.Following Grimble and Wellard (1997), Ramireznotes that stakeholder analysis will help identifypatterns and interactions among stakeholders and‘develop an understanding of the system’ and‘define options for management’ (p. 103).

In urban planning literature, there is a longhistory of promoting and examining participatoryapproaches. Scholars have looked at the questionsof scale (e.g. direct participation at the neighbour-hood level or representative participation at higherscales), meaning (e.g. difference between partici-pation and inclusion) and barriers (e.g. for disad-vantaged groups) to participation (Beebeejaun,2006; Uitermark and Duyvendak, 2008; Quickand Feldman, 2011). Others have tried to measurethe costs and benefits of different participatoryapproaches (Hicks et al., 2008; Weir et al., 2009).Yet many have criticized the ways participation is

conducted, including legally mandated ones,for their lack of engagement, and effectiveness(Arnstein, 1969; Cooke and Kothari, 2001).

The part of this literature that focuses onmakingdecisions with the public, especially under con-ditions of complexity, is small but growing.Approaches such as, identifying values of differ-ent groups and joint-fact finding by the expertsand the public (Andrews, 2002) have been pre-sented as organizing principles. Their integrationwith analytical frameworks, although uncommon,is possible. The technical approach in comprehen-sive rational planning, for example, offers a step-by-step algorithms with feedback loops, whennecessary (Pitkin, 1992; Baer, 1997; Kelly andBecker, 2000). When combined with a decisionanalysis framework, several opportunities forengaging the public can be identified.

In its simplest form, decision analysis involvesidentifying the problem and decision-makingcriteria, identifying evaluation frameworks, apply-ing analytical techniques and finally, negotiatingthe decision in a process. Although it is clear thatalmost every step of this process involves subjec-tive judgements, it is usually the last stage that isset aside for commenting or negotiations. Depend-ing on the context, such negotiations may takemany forms including, between professional plan-ners and elected officials, or among interest groupsmediated by a professional. The nature of negotia-tions, however, is often determined by factorsbeyond the immediate decision problem, such asthe larger context and history. Stakeholder posi-tions may also reflect a range of factors includ-ing underlying objectives and perceptions ofshort-term and long-term impacts of decisions(Loukopoulos and Scholz, 2004).

Decision problems often involve multiple cri-teria, which may be valued differently by differentstakeholders. Indeed different stakeholder mayeven have different criteria. Furthermore, althoughsome criteria can be commensurable, othersmight not be (Hammond et al., 1999). For partici-pation to be a part of the technical rationality ofanalysis, these differences should be made expli-cit, and their implications should be consideredmore carefully. For that to happen, traditionalframeworks need to create space for messypublic discourses.




This leads to two important, albeit preliminary,concerns in setting up a usable participatoryframework: (i) the technical knowledge employedshould be accessible to the audience and be able toexamine a range of stakeholder concerns; suchaccessibility should be part of all stages in theprocess: from framing the problem to analysingthe impacts of decisions; and (ii) the subjectivecomponents of the analysis should be jointlydeveloped with the stakeholders.For the former, it is important that the analyt-

ical tools employed are trustworthy and trans-parent, that is, they are from reputably neutralsources, and they can be explained to laypersonswithout giving the impression of a black box.Although the exact nature of techniques dependson the context, examples abound where processeshave broken down because of complete disagree-ment of some stakeholders with the findings ofthe analysts3 (Andrews, 2002; Eskinasi andFokkema, 2006). In the case of transportationplanning, for example, urban simulation modelshave long been used to evaluate future impactsof present day choices. On one hand, their popu-larity has led to their mandated use in long-rangetransportation planning; on the other hand, theyraise continued scepticism among the generalpublic (Hopkins, 2001b). A new field, called plan-ning support systems, has now developed thatattempts to communicate the processes behindurban models to the public so that they can beused more commonly in participatory processes.Despite their adoption in many planning pro-

cesses (see, e.g. AtKisson, 1996; Barbanente et al.,2002), the use of planning support systems hasbeen a subject of significant debate. Buffeted bythe critics (Lee, 1973; Sayer, 1979; Schrijnen,2010), modelling of urban complex systems hasbeen on the defensive about its usefulness to thewider public. Many have suggested that themodelling community must engage with widerplanning practice and, at times, even questionedtheir relevance when they lack connections toestablished planning processes. These critiquesare summarized well by Batty (2004). He laments

the lack of implementation of technical insights inthe planning process and, also, more importantlyperhaps, suggests that models were still beingdeveloped without active local participation orbottom-up input, so they generallywere not affect-ing local planning decisions.

As remedy, Geertman and Stillwell (2009)identify four imperatives for urban systemmodel-lers and technicians to be more relevant: (i) inte-grate into the planning process; (ii) focus on theplanning problem at hand; (iii) meet user needs;and (iv) be accessible. This directly correspondsto the aforementioned considerations in settingup a participatory process—jointly developingthe subjective components of an analytical frame-work. When tools and facilitators in a planningprocess are inflexible on subjective choices, theyrisk pushing stakeholders into forming hardenedpositions instead of making compromises thatmeet their basic objectives. When problems are‘wicked’ (Rittel andWebber, 1973), that is, difficultor impossible to solve (in the mathematical senseof the word), stakeholders may fall into traps thatcan lead to increased conflict (Hammond et al.,2006). However, although value conflicts havebeen implicated in the wickedness of manyplanning processes, it can be argued that expos-ing the underlying objectives and designing aprocess around reconciling the differences mayhelp resolve conflict.

Scenario Planning and Conflict Management

Batty (2004) calls upon planners, modellers andscholars to innovate techniques where planningprocesses can combine a variety of mechanismsto communicate complexity. Many techniqueshave evolved that attempt to do this, such aslarge group interaction strategies, social multi-criteria attribute analysis and scenario analysis.These techniques have been used worldwideincluding in many planning processes such asNorwegian Long Term Program, SustainableSeattle, Oregon Shines, Metropolitan Tunis andEnvision Utah (AtKisson, 1996; Barbanente et al.,2002; Grow and Matheson, 2006; Kissler et al.,1998).

Although, their applications can be overlappingor complementary based on the context, their

3 Of course, such disagreement could be a matter of strategy. However,it is important to recognize the difference; if the analysis is clear, itshould be more difficult to strategize by calling it unconvincing.




principles are similar. Scenario analysis covers awide range of these principles. In their editedvolume, Engaging the Future: forecasts, scenarios,plans and projects, Hopkins and Zapata (2007)discuss various paths scenario analysis can taketo be effective in the planning process. They askplanners to devise a process that is inclusive andresult oriented, understanding the issues and forcesfor the future of a community. They also stress theimportance of generation and effective communi-cation of ideas and of having an implementationmechanism. Unlike mandated participation, aparticipatory scenario planning process presentsstakeholders the opportunity to affect the direc-tion of the planning process and, by extension,the future of their community.

Scenario analysis techniques are primarilyused to think about multiple facets of a problemsimultaneously and as a tool for addressing theuncertain future in light of the limited cognitiveand computational capacity of individuals andorganizations. In particular, it is a tool that fostersimagination as well as critical thinking abouthow a future might unfold. It is widely used invarious disciplines ranging from businesses tomilitary applications (Van der Heijden, 1996).

Chakraborty (2010) outlines a number of waysscenario planning can be used to enhance theplanning process. These include providing aframework to involve ‘the underrepresented,engaging the community from the earliest stages[of the planning process] and us[ing] technicaland other tools to communicate trade-offs’. Smith(2007) argued that scenarios can be used in a num-ber of ways, and in the planning context, it couldbe used as a tool for prioritization, oversight andconversation. In a participatory process, usingscenarios can be a way of thinking collectivelyabout alternative futures. This can be used for thefollowing: (i) to identify common ideas and form aconsensus around desired outcomes (Avin, 2007);or (ii) to harness divergent thinking (Bartholomew,2007; Chakraborty et al., 2011). The latter approachlends itself better to a richer analysis by providingthe opportunity to examine the outcomes of differ-ent assumptions regarding uncertainties. It can alsoallow the stakeholders to explore the implicationsof these outcomes on areas beyond the immediateproblem or interdependencies with other parts of

the system. This kind of scenario analysis also hasmuch potential in the local planning process, byadvancing equity and identifying more robustdecisions (Harwood, 2007).

In summary, much has been written aboutthe challenges and limitations of collaborativeplanning, even when such planning is mandatedfor public processes. Yet there are ideas, and someexamples, that combine technical rationality withempowered engagement that offer promise formore effective collaborative planning. Such meth-ods will have to balance complexity, accessibilityand nimbleness.

DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK

Participants in a scenario planning process areencouraged to share ideas and think about theirimplications. This may stimulate them to questiontechniques that often place undue emphasis on ex-tension of past trends and dominant norms, a kindof confirming evidence trap (Hammond et al., 2006).An engaging participatory process, on the otherhand, can challenge biases and test radically differ-ent trends. It could also help participants recognizewhen there is more commonality than difference.

Consider a few common characteristics of deci-sion problems: (i) assumptions about uncertain-ties or unknowns; (ii) limits on the scope (bothin framing the problem and in looking at impactsof proposed solutions); and (iii) criteria andweights (implicit or explicit) for arriving at deci-sions. All are necessary and important compo-nents of analysis; yet in public decision making,if the problem is difficult or controversial, it canbe imagined that stakeholders might disagreeabout each one of them. Instead of emphasizingthe value of technician’s decisions, these differ-ences can be better resolved by explicitly recog-nizing them and making place for them in theanalysis. Let us consider each of them in orderusing some common examples.

Uncertainty

Assumptions about uncertain conditions are com-monly used in analytical methods. A common




assumption in local planning decisions is theprojected future population growth.4 To use asimplified example based on the case discussedlater, say, an agency is interested in constructing aroad based on projected growth. In a traditionalapproach, the agency might conduct a narrowlydefined cost–benefit analysis and decide that theestimated benefits from the projected growthjustify the costs. However, participants in ascenario planning process will question theuncertainties, frame their own criteria, and maystructure decision choices to make the uncertain-ties explicit and useful in the analysis.Unlike many planning methods assume, future

is not a given. It is an outcome of both choices wemake and forces we cannot control. By identifyingchoices that stakeholders’ want to test and mul-tiple projections they consider possible, they cancomparemultiple futures.5 Using these principles,Table 1 presents a simplified analytical frameworkshowing multiple scenarios.Table 1 illustrates the value of thinking about

decisions and uncertainties systematically. Itshows that building a road is useful if and only ifprojected growth materializes but if the road is notbuilt but growth happens, there are some down-side risks of haphazard development. Not onlydoes the approach allow testing the no growthcondition, it also shows the trade-offs involved inthe opposing position of no build. This frameworkcan, of course, be extended to improve its analyt-ical ability. For example, the choices may be tobuild a four-lane road or a two-lane road or buyinga four-lane right of way but building a two-laneroad in the short term.

Linked Decisions

In most public decisions, there are interdepend-encies with other parts of the urban system. Forexample, the cost-effectiveness of a highway

may be determined by how much travel demandit accommodates and how much new develop-ment it attracts. However, at the time of con-struction decisions, there may be little morethan assumptions of future demand. Because aroad development process is often expensiveand irreversible, it is important to consider thelinked decisions carefully. The extent of linkeddecisions to consider often goes hand in handwith problem framing and choice of the keydecision to analyse. Together, they can be reasonsfor conflict in public decisions.

Consider the above discussed case, where thestarting decision problem could be as follows:(i) whether to build a road; (ii) where to buildthe road; and (iii) how long/wide a road tobuild? Each of these will have a long list ofrelated concerns and linked decisions; each mayattract a different group of stakeholders, and theresponse to each question may affect subsequentdecisions. On the question of whether to build aroad, for example, the competing choices maybe to spend on other kinds of investments orprograms or not spending the funds. There mightbe other agencies in the city or organizations inthe area competing for the same funds for verydifferent purposes. The question of where tobuild the road assumes a number of aboveconcerns settled and may engender questionson property rights and land acquisition, currentuse of those lands, and so on. Consideration ofthese linked decisions and responses therein willframe the problem and the stakeholders itprovokes. Notwithstanding the hierarchy of thesequestions and related analyses, it is possible thatthe stakeholders, especially the ones perceiving anegative outcome of the process, put all the abovequestions on the table. Awell-designed processwillattempt to take these questions in order and movethrough them with a high degree of resolution.

Evaluation Criteria

In addition to their choices or assumptions regard-ing uncertainty, each stakeholder may also havetheir own set of evaluation criteria. Such criteriaare often reflected in the key arguments theymakein favouring or opposing a choice. Analysing them

4 Usually, the assumptions are embedded in projection estimation cal-culations (econometric models) in the form of birth and death rates, inmigration because of employment growth, and so on.5 For the stakeholders, choices or internal components of the systemare those over which they have some control such as policy choicesand investment decisions. Forces or external components are thosethat are wholly uncertain but have important implications for the deci-sions at hand.




in detail can help identify disagreements andcommonalities between stakeholders. It might alsohelp illuminate their best alternatives in case theydo not get what they want in a negotiated process.These processes are often iterative in which stake-holders should be encouraged to identify theirbasic objectives rather than their positions. Thatwill allow stakeholders to be more flexible onpositions provided their basic objectives are beingmet. If the resources allow, trained mediators maybe considered to lead parts of this process.

Once the basic objectives have been identified,the stakeholders may be asked to identify thecriteria on which to judge a decision that connectswell with their basic objectives. For example, iflong-term fiscal health of the city is a basic object-ive in the above example, then cost of proposeddevelopment and budget implications of recoveryof those costs will be the useful criteria. Additionalmeasures, such as loss of open space and loss offunding to other projects, can be added to theabove framework. For a different stakeholder,say, a small business owner in the downtownarea, the concern might be that of potentialloss of future revenues to new competitors. Inaddition to identifying the criteria, understand-ing the value each stakeholder places on themis important. Often, the stakeholders weigh thecriteria implicitly or roughly. Asking participantsto explicitly assign weights to each criterion mayhelp dispel inherent biases or miscalculationsinvolved.

The process organizers should keep in mindthat the discussion over values and criteria oftenends up being a negotiation, albeit over abroader set of choices. They should be familiarwith negotiation strategies and exercise cautionin keeping the overall process fair. Sometimes,negotiations can be lost or won in the pre-processstage. The so-called game before the game is wherestakeholders’ may attempt to enhance their

position by improving their access to informa-tion, colluding with other stakeholders and influ-encing the structure of the process.

The exercise to identify and weight criteria,comparing them with other stakeholders andmaking trade-offs, can take multiple iterations(see Hammond et al., 1999 for a primer onmulti-criteria analysis). It can be done initiallywithin each stakeholder group (for those thatrepresent interest of multiple individual or organi-zations) and then jointly with other stakeholders.Through this process, each stakeholderwill receiveinformation on each group’s objectives and valuesoperationalized as specific criteria. Finally, ifthe exercise goes as planned, it can be expectedthat certain incommensurable concerns can beaddressed through dialogue.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

Road extension projects are often controversial,and the case study presented here is no excep-tion. It involves a planning process to extendand connect two major streets—Lincoln Avenueand Olympian Drive—mostly through currentlyfarmed land in Champaign County, Illinois. Amajor part of the proposed extension calledOlympian Drive Extension (ODE) project is beingplanned to go through the organic farms ofUrbana IL, a municipality in Champaign Countywith a 2010 population of 41,250. The remainderof the extension would go through the neighbour-ing municipality of Champaign, IL (2010 popula-tion: 81,055) or the unincorporated areas ofChampaign County. The Illinois Department ofTransportation and the County’s Regional Plan-ning Commission are also involved in this process.These two agencies are responsible to channel stateand federal funds into the project and to ensurethat environmental, public engagement and otherregulations are met. A map of the region with the

Table 1 Possible scenarios in a road investment decision

ChoiceUncertainty

A. Growth Happens B. Growth Does Not Happen

1. Build Road Scenario 1A: Contiguous development Scenario 1B: Wasted funds2. Do Not Build Road Scenario 2A: Haphazard development Scenario 2B: Saved funds




location of the proposed project is shown in Fig-ure 1. City officials of Urbana have strongly sup-ported the extension on the basis that it willprovide direct interstate access to the industrialareas in the north of Urbana, and given its proxim-ity to the business centres, it will allow a system-atic expansion of the urbanized area.Aversion of the planned project has been in the

regional vision for some time. The 1970 Transporta-tion Plan for the Champaign-Urbana Urban Areaprepared for the Champaign-Urbana UrbanizedArea Transportation Study (CUUATS) first recog-nized the need to establish a primary access routeto enable development of the northern portion ofthe Champaign-Urbana communities. The 1986Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update alsoincluded an east–west route north of Interstate 74.The first segment of the road was an interchangebuilt in its western extent in 1989 in collaborationbetween CUUATS and the Illinois Department ofTransportation (IDOT). In 2003, the City ofChampaign, along with the County, extended apart of the road to the western edge of Urbana.At that time, the Urbana officials chose to insteadfocus on a road and interchange development tothe south of the City.In 2009, the two cities and the county received a

notification from IDOT of an award for $5 000 000under the Illinois Jobs Now capital program grant(City of Urbana, 2010a, 2010b). The grant allowspaying for design engineering and land acquisi-tion, and Olympian Drive and Lincoln Avenueextension were considered by the two cities. Des-pite the opposition, the two cities had passed thenecessary intergovernmental agreement by theend of 2010. The project remains controversial,has gained popular interest and is currently beingplayed out at the Champaign County Board,where it has become a divisive issue6 (IllinoisPublic Media, 2010).The construction and specific alignment options

have been discussed since 1995. The planningstudies in 1997 led to the OlympianDrive LocationStudy and Design Report and public participationin that process was limited in scope. It involved a

variety of approaches including informationalmeetings for the public and invitation of commentsheets. Unlike the high present-day opposition tothe project, less than 10 per cent (6 of 69) whoreturned comment sheets favoured the no-buildapproach.

The planning staff at Urbana remains the maincoordinating entity with assistance from consul-tants and other local agencies. Among otherrequirement, the project needs to be approved bythe elected representatives of all three localgovernments—Cities of Champaign and Urbanaand Champaign County. Although no matchingfunds are needed, the local governments need toagree to an intergovernmental agreement andmeet federal and state regulations and timeline toaccess external funds. Furthermore, the roadextension will need land acquisition under eachof the alignment scenarios shown in Figure 2. Inevery scenario, a part of the alignment goesthrough small family farms, a burgeoning enter-prise in Urbana with broad support from thecommunity. The alignment options also face a num-ber of engineering, environmental and land usecompatibility challenges as also shown in Figure 2.

As the primary intent behind stimulus funding isto create jobs, only ‘shovel ready’ projects aredeemed eligible. Early objection notwithstanding,Urbana planners have argued that ODE projectwent through a detailed planning process in the1990s, and the extension can be readily constructedas long as one of the studied alignments is chosenand approved by the elected representatives of eachof the three local governments. The planners haveargued that significant changes from these alterna-tives would trigger additional costs including newenvironmental reviews, public involvement andso on that are likely to delay or derail the project(News-Gazette, 2011). However, the apparentimminence of this project’s implementation hasseen a number of stakeholders quickly coalesce intoan opposition group. Their arguments have rangedfrom questioning the need for a road extension tospecific alignment options (Kacich, 2010).

EXPLORING THE DISCONNECT

The recent opposition to the project has been farmore vocal than those of the past. This can be

6 A timeline of various events around the proposed road extension canbe found here: http://olympiandriveproject.com/site10/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=4.




http://olympiandriveproject.com/site10/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=4

http://olympiandriveproject.com/site10/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=4

attributed to the following: (i) the high likelihoodof implementation if the plan passes, because ofimmediate availability of funding; (ii) a high turn-over of community residents, many of whom feelthat they were not involved in the 1990s process(the non-student population of the communityturns over at roughly four per cent annually); (iii)greater awareness of fiscal issues, informed notonly by the challenges faced by many local gov-ernments nationally, but a few recent local projectsthat many residents feel overstretched govern-ment capacities. The opposition to the project isfrom people with a wide range of backgrounds.It includes those directly affected by the proposeddevelopment such as some farmland owners andrenters on the proposed right of way (who areunwilling to sell or move), their supporters, andthose who consider this needless or excessivegovernment spending (Daily Illini, 2010).

There are also many supporters of the project,including many in the residential and businesscommunity of Urbana. Among other reasons,

many believe that in the past, city leaders ofUrbana have taken a backseat in attractingdevelopment and lost lucrative businesses toneighbouring Champaign; others consider thisas an opportunity to spur economic develop-ment in the city (City of Urbana, 2010a, 2010b).

To re-validate the logic and findings of pastplans and report, a number of recent studies havebeen conducted. For example, a 2010 economic im-pact study of the project done by Urbana planningstaff compared three possible outcomes—full,moderate and limited—to look at possible eco-nomic benefits under each. The study goes on toshow that even under limited build-out, the areawill receive 530 acres of new development, thatis, it will capture at least 20 per cent of all new de-velopment in the county. These assertions, how-ever, especially under the current economicclimate, have fed questions whether the projec-tions are overblown and whether the jobs wouldmerely relocate from another part of the regionand get created anew (Smile Politely, 2010). The

Figure 1 A section of the 2005 Urbana Comprehensive Plan showing the proposed Olympian Drive Extension (ODE; top)and expected land uses to the south of it (Source: City of Urbana)




number of projected employment computedlargely by extending the capacity of the land, not-withstanding the likelihood of the development,has been argued to be unconvincing. Althoughthe intent of the study may have been to capturethe long-term cost–benefit implication of capitalinvestments, it was quickly criticized by those op-posing the project on a number of aspects. Oppo-nents also cited that an assumption in theeconomic impact analysis that none of the pro-jected growth will come to the area under a no-build scenario is untenable.

STYLIZED ILLUSTRATION OF THEFRAMEWORK

Understanding and Framing StakeholderPositions and Strategies

The ongoing process has largely been an argumentover positions. Simply put, the Urbana position isto support the extension; some landowners are insupport, whereas others are in opposition. Eachside has mobilized its share of residents and busi-ness community members and is lobbying theelected officials to vote with their position. Withpassage of time, the approval process is slowingdown, whereas the positions are hardening.Whether a part of negotiation strategy, the

city’s planning staff is moving forward with theconstruction design phase, whereas the opponentshope that the economic conditions will lead todrying up of federal funds before the countyapproves the project.

Instead of focussing on positions, the literatureon collaborative negotiation calls for identificationof basic objectives of each stakeholder. That mayallow stakeholders to achieve a higher priorityobjective (or a higher weight criteria) whilemaking concessions on a lower priority objective.In the framework presented here, it will also letstakeholders see outcomes of each other’s choicesand may help them identify greater points ofagreement.

In analysing stakeholder positions, it is commonto organize them in a limited number of categoriesbased on the individuals they represent or theirpositions. For example, representative groups(e.g. Chamber of Commerce), individuals unifyingunder a strong position (e.g. environmentalistsagainst road) and those with high overlap of basicobjectives (e.g. economic development propo-nents) can be considered a stakeholder group. Inother cases, such as the city of Urbana (where theMayor is a strong supporter of the project) has alsobeen identified as a stakeholder.

In an actual application, effort should be madeto involve all viewpoints. Individuals or theirrepresentatives should then be taken through

Wider Floodplain CrossingIntersection on

curve

Not on existing Olympian Curved Bridge

Limits Airport

Curved Farm Severance

Curved Farm Severance Curved Farm

Severance

Longer Bridge

Commercial Impacts

Wider Floodplain Crossing

Intersection on curve

Residential Impacts

Figure 2 Possible alignment options and associated challenges for ODE (Source: City of Urbana, Hanson Consultants)




the steps to share views, positions and basic objec-tives. In this case, because the purpose is to illus-trate the approach, I include a wide enough set ofstakeholders that covers the major arguments. Iorganize and present their positions, objectives,and so on based on their stated preferences andarchival analysis. Following are the stakeholders,their positions and expected basic objectives:

• City officials of Urbana: As noted earlier, cityofficials of Urbana, most prominently itsmayor, is interested to induce developmentand economic growth. They expect this projectto have substantial fiscal benefits to the cityand economic benefits to the community. Theyare also interested to capitalize on availablefunding.

• City officials of Champaign: The city officials ofChampaign are interested to complete the effortthey started in 2005. They believe that extendingOlympian Drive will fulfil the promised poten-tial of the segment they have already investedin. They also expect the extension to improveaccess to North Champaign.

• Landowners supporting extension: Some ofthem expect Olympian Drive Extension toimprove the market value of their land. Othersbelieve that Urbana’s projections have consid-erable merit. They also believe growth to begood and a needed revenue source to the city.

• Landowners against extension: Those opposedbelieve that they will be directly and adverselyaffected. They measure the negative impacts interms of their loss of property value or qualityof life. Some believe that the road extension isnot necessary or the environmental impactand loss of farmland is too great. Some alsoblame the planners for what they perceive asinadequate public participation.

• Environmentalists: They are opposed to theextension, as they believe it will hurt small-scale and organic farming and encouragemore sprawl. Many of them believe thatthe money should be spent on encouragingsustainable development and maintainingexisting infrastructure.

• Economic development proponents: Finally, theProponents of Economic Development seek toprovide additional areas with infrastructure to

support commercial and industrial growth,while also improving access to and across thenorth side of the community. Like the cityofficials in support, they believe that the ODEproject fulfils a need for future populationgrowth and land use demands.

The following can be considered as the maindecision choices involved in this analysis:

• Alternative 1: Do not build ODE; do not buildanywhere else

• Alternative 2: Do not build ODE; spend fundson another construction project

• Alternative 3: Partial build: extend OlympianDrive to Lincoln Avenue only; extend LincolnDrive

• Alternative 4: Build the entire project7

Objectives and Alternatives

As discussed earlier, a simple way to frame theproblem can be to ask the stakeholders to rankeach of the alternatives on a set of criteria thatare based on their interests and values. Thefollowing table shows a stylized application of thisusing scores drawn from stakeholder’s interests.Note that, in an actual process, these criteria andscores will be provided by the stakeholders them-selves through the planning process (Merrick andGarcia, 2004).

The above table illustrates salient differencesbetween the stakeholders. Each stakeholder groupidentifies a list of criteria that is important to it andranks available alternatives on these criteria. Usingmulti-criteria analysis, dominant alternatives canbe identified. The initial analysis in Table 2 showsus that each stakeholder has a clearly defineddominant alternative and that there is no singlealternative that is dominant across all stakeholdergroups. Alternative 4 is the dominant one for amajority of groups. However, if the purpose is tofind more common ground and seek a consensus,additional exploration is needed.

7 There are other options not considered in the above set, based onwhich alignment is chosen. Although important to the specific project,such distinction has been ignored here, as it does not affect the concep-tual framing of stakeholders as illustrated here.




Table2Stakeholdercriteriaandalternatives

table(dom

inantalternatives

derivedusingequalw

eights

foreach

criteria)

Stak

eholders

Objective

sAlt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

Dom

inan

tAlt

Dono

tbu

ildODE;

dono

tbu

ildan

ywhe

reelse

Dono

tbu

ildODE;

spen

dfund

son

anothe

rconstruc

tion

project

Partialb

uild:e

xten

dOlympian

Drive

;extend

Lincoln

Drive

Build

the

entire

project

Cityofficialsof

Urban

aInduc

edev

elop

men

t4

32

1Alt4

Dev

elop

infrastruc

ture

41

31

Maintainfiscal

and

commun

itybe

nefits

41

31

Exp

editeplan

ning

process

14

23

Con

trol

sprawl

34

21

Cityofficialsof

Cha

mpa

ign

Com

pletealread

ystarted

road

project

44

11

Alt3/

4

Maintainfiscal

and

commun

itybe

nefits

44

11

Induc

edev

elop

men

ton

alread

ybu

iltOlympian

Drive

44

11

Lan

downe

rsfor

extension

Greatestincrease

inland

value

44

21

Alt4

Increase

resale

oppo

rtun

ity

44

21

Exp

editeva

luerealization

44

12

Lan

downe

rsag

ainstextension

Preserve

farm

land

and

busine

ssviab

ility

11

34

Alt1

Preserve

prop

erty

value

11

44

Maintaincommun

ity

relation

ship

14

44

Env

iron

men

talist

Prev

entsp

rawl

12

34

Alt1

Preserve

orga

nic/

sustaina

blefarm

ing

12

34

Preserve

localb

usinesses

12

24

Econo

mic

dev

elop

men

tprop

onen

ts

Preserve

localb

usinesses

andprom

otegrow

th4

21

2Alt4

Prom

otepu

blic

inve

stmen

tsan

djobs

42

21

Adddev

elop

able

land

supp

ly4

22

1




Using the above information, it appears thatAlternative 3 is easily substitutable for Alternative4 for two of the four groups in support of theproject: Champaign city officials and economicdevelopment proponents. Additional trade-offsmay also be possible.8 For example, Alternative 2is the second best alternative for the landownersagainst extension as well as for the environmental-ists (assuming the environmentalist believe thatalternative location for infrastructure investmentwill be potentially less damaging to their intereststhat both Alternatives 3 and 4). Note that Alterna-tive 2, using the logic of the above table, is not toobad from the perspectives of the city officials ofUrbana and the economic development propo-nents either (although it will likely have its ownset of challenges depending on the specific locationand details of the project).

The above analysis, although simplified, pro-vides two lessons: (i) although the original posi-tions of stakeholder may look starkly different,upon examining the fundamental objectives,there appears to be more common ground; and(ii) if these objectives are publicly developedand are available to different stakeholders forscrutiny, they may be more understanding ofeach other ’s positions and, as a result, they maybe willing to consider trade-offs commensurateto their counterparts.

A few caveats: (i) some may consider charac-terizing city officials as a unitary stakeholder asproblematic, given that many residents are inopposition along with, perhaps, a few city staff.In this case however, the city officials, particularlythe mayor, are seen as the leading promoter. Also,the individuals and non-governmental actors inopposition have been categorized in other groups.(ii) Certain groups (e.g. those who consider thisneedless and excessive government spending)have been excluded from the above table for thesake of clarity in explaining the framework with-out affecting its illustrative value. (iii) Finally,because the stakeholders (more likely to be groupsthan individuals) are asked to identify their owncriteria and rank different alternatives on them,

the nature of the group might affect the dynamicsof selection and ranking. The groups with strongleaders (e.g. Mayor of Urbana) might defer suchdecisions to its leaders, whereas others withcommon agenda or a unifying organization (e.g.Chamber of Commerce) maymake these decisionsthrough their established processes. Groups exist-ing for the purpose of solely supporting or oppos-ing the project might have to work harder forthis step. It is possible that there will be a lot ofvariation among the basic objectives of individualsmaking up such a group. In fact, the process ofidentification of basic objectives might see somerealignment of individuals into other stakeholdergroups and consolidation of basic objectives intoa smaller, more manageable set. If there are stilldisagreements regarding criteria and values, andno strong leader emerges, this group can choosefrom a number of organizing strategies, such asidentifying a lowest common denominator ofbasic objectives as criteria or attempting a returnto positional bargaining.

Uncertainty and Linked Decisions

Although the above analysis can be useful, it isbased on the assumption that choosing an alterna-tive will result in the outcome that is expectedfrom it. This premise has two weaknesses: (i) itignores uncertainties in external forces, a likelyset of which is generally considered as given forex ante estimate of outcomes; and (ii) it considersonly a selected set of interdependent or linkeddecisions, which limit the consideration of alterna-tives. Conversely, studies have shown that consid-ering a wide range of uncertainties using scenarioanalysis before arriving at a decision can helpidentify the following: (i) decisions that arerobust under multiple futures; and (ii) contingentdecisions that are specifically tailored to unlikelybut possible futures (Hopkins, 2001a; Bartholo-mew, 2007; Chakraborty et al., 2011). Observingthe debate on ODE, it can be argued that somestakeholders are basing their arguments on theassumption that growth will happen, whereasothers are assuming that it will not (e.g. environ-mentalists). Yet, others may believe, rightly orwrongly, that the act of investment will increase

8 Multi-criteria methods provide no mathematical resolution for in-commensurable criteria. They can only be resolved by making hardchoices, achieved through dialogue and going beyond the spatialand temporal boundaries of the system under examination.




the likelihood of the growth (e.g. economic devel-opment proponents).A related consideration is linked decisions

(Hopkins, 2001b). A number of factors, such asdemands on other parts of the city and likelihoodof available economic incentives needed to spurgrowth in the area, affect whether and how muchof the extension should be built. For example, asnoted earlier, the City of Champaign’s segmentof Olympian Drive was built more than 5 yearsago but has seen little development, partlybecause of missing connection on one end.Indeed, the ODE process is considering linkeddecisions in roadway design questions. Forexample, the designers are looking at whetherto acquire two-lane or four-lane right of ways,and if four-lane right-of-way is acquired, whetherto build two lanes now and expand later (ifdemand materializes) or to build all four lanesnow, although funding is available from the state.Let us extend the framework presented in Table 1to include these principles as shown in Table 3.This time the framework considers the possibilityof some variation in assumptions and choices.Because each of the above scenarios should

result in a different development outcome, theyshould each be considered separately. As a result,although there are still three choices, a greaternumber of scenarios need to be considered.Stakeholders can now rank their choices based onhow the resulting scenarios fare under differentconditions of uncertainty. It is possible that theywould rank these scenarios differently fromthe alternatives-only approach of Table 2. Forexample, on ‘control sprawl’ objective of the cityofficials of Urbana, Scenario 1C (Full Build/HighGrowth) will score high, but Scenario 1A shouldscore low (full build/low growth). Similarly, nowScenario 3A (no build/low growth) might actually

look better than Scenario 1A. For other scenariosand stakeholders, different rankings are likely.

There are many advantages to this approach.For participation—when the stakeholders see agreater range of outcomes, theymay be persuadedto explore potential opportunities not previouslyconsidered by them. The discussion could shifttowards the likelihood of assumptions and alter-native outcomes. For decision analysis, studyingmore scenarios can help identify choices that arerobust across a wide range of uncertainties as wellas choices that are beneficial only in certain contin-gencies. It may also help identify problems thatremain despite any of the choices that we make.This information can be used to identify comple-mentary approaches. Finally, the analysismay alsohelp identify if there is a clear winning choice that,despite its overall strength, puts unfair burden onsome stakeholders. Additional measures shouldthen be taken.

DISCUSSION

Considering fundamental objectives, uncertaintiesand linked decisions presents a way to identifycommonalities among stakeholders and advancecollaborative planning. Involving the stakeholdersto identify these for themselves and in a groupsetting may allow them to consider the following:(i) their basic objectives over positions; (ii) not onlytheir assumptions about uncertainties but otherstakeholders’; and (iii) linked decisions. As aresult, such a process can remove biases of insularsingle-future driven analysis and position-baseddiscussions. It may also help identify the under-lying value conflicts among stakeholders thatnegatively affect many public processes.

Table 3 Nine simplified scenarios for ODE project using choices and uncertainties

Choice

Uncertainty

A. Low growth B. Moderate growth C. High growth

1. Full build Scenario 1A Scenario 1B Scenario 1C2. Partial build Scenario 2A Scenario 2B Scenario 2C3. No build Scenario 3A Scenario 3B Scenario 3C




But sometimes, value conflicts may indeed be asfar apart as specific positions make it seem. Stake-holders when building their positions often makeuse of unifying themes or stories to rally the publicaround them. These can be mechanisms to chartdifficult conflict situations. In this project, forexample, groups both in support and in oppositionto road extension have called their position ‘sustain-able’. Different conceptions of the term aside, ouranalysis found that while one set of assumptionsmay render one group’s position as economicallyand fiscally sustainable, a change in assumptionscan quickly turn it the other way. Similar conclu-sions can be drawn for other positions. However,as the analysis demonstrates, it is possible to iden-tify some of the underlying agreements by adopt-ing a process similar to the one developed here.The method described here provides a systematicapproach for the participants of a public processin comparing the outcomes of their own choiceswith those of other stakeholders.

Finally, although the logic of the techniquesdeveloped here are sound, applying them in prac-tice will need careful consideration. Long-termgrowth projections, their spatial distribution andredistributive impact of investment choices on suchoutcomes can be technically onerous. Explainingthose processes to the public and stakeholderscan also be difficult, especially when they mightbe coming to the process reluctantly and with astrongly opposing position. Selecting limits ofwhatshould or should not be part of the public discus-sion will remain in the domain of the processdesigner. Above questions will understandablycompete with temptations for a simpler, position-driven and majority dictated process.

Yet, time and again, public processes have turnedadversarial and deadlocked because positions aretoo different. Also, with increasing complexity oftechnical analysis, some stakeholders can easilyfeel alienated. In resolving these challenges, newmodels of collaboration are needed. They buildon tested principles of conflict management—engaging early and engaging often. Yet, in provid-ing a structure to some of the primary issues behindconflict, scenario analysis techniques and the frame-work developed here provide a way to illuminatenot only the differences and biases but also theagreements among stakeholders in a public process.

SPONSORS

None.

REFERENCES

Andrews CJ. 2002. Humble analysis: the practice of jointfact-finding. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Arnstein SR. 1969. A New Ladder of Citizen Partici-pation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 221–228.

AtKisson A. 1996. Developing indicators of sustainablecommunity: Lessons from sustainable Seattle. Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment Review 16(4–6): 337–350.

Avin U. 2007. Using scenarios to make urban plans. InEngaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, andprojects, Hopkins LD, Zapata M (eds.). Lincoln Insti-tute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA; 103–134.

Baer WC. 1997. General Plan Evaluation Criteria: AnApproach to Making Better Plans. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 63(3): 329–344.

Barbanente A, Khakee A, Puglisi M. 2002. Scenario build-ing for metropolitan Tunis. Futures 34(7): 583–596.

Bartholomew K. 2007. Land use-transportation scenarioplanning: promise and reality. Transportation34(4): 397–412.

Batty M. 2004. Dissecting the streams of planninghistory: technology versus policy through models.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(3): 326–330.

Batty M. 2005. Cities and Complexity: UnderstandingCities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models,and Fractals. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Batty M. 2008. Fifty years of urban modeling: Macro-statics to micro-dynamics. In The Dynamics of ComplexUrban Systems, Albeverio S, Andrey D, Giordano P,Vancheri A (eds.). Springer: New York; 1–20.

Beebeejaun Y. 2006. The participation trap: The limita-tions of participation for ethnic and racial groups.International Planning Studies 11(1): 3–18.

Berke PR, Conroy MM. 2000. Are we planning forsustainable development? Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 66(1): 21–33.

Brody SD, Godschalk DR, Burby RJ. 2003. Mandatingcitizen participation in plan making: Six strategicplanning choices. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 69(3): 245–264.

Chakraborty A. 2010. Scenario Planning for EffectiveRegional Governance: Promises and Limitations.State and Local Government Review 42(2): 156–167.

Chakraborty A, Kaza N, Knaap GJ, Deal B. 2011.Robust Plans and Contingent Plans. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 77(3): 251–266.

Chapin FS. 1972. Urban Land Use Planning (2nd edn).University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL.

Chazal J. 2010. A systems approach to livability andsustainability: Defining terms and mapping




relationships to link desires with ecological oppor-tunities and constraints. Systems Research and Behav-ioral Science 27(5): 585–597.

City of Urbana. 2010a. Olympian Drive - FrequentlyAsked Questions. http://olympiandriveproject.com/site10/index.php?option=com_content&vie-w=article&id=12:frequently-asked-questions. [10December 2011]

City of Urbana. 2010b. Olympian Drive ImprovementAgreements. http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/default/files/attachments/Olympian_Agreements.pdf. [10December 2011]

Cooke B, Kothari U. 2001. Participation: The newtyranny? Zed Books: London, UK.

Daily Illini. 2010. The Daily Illini: Council, communityto address Olympian Drive project. http://www.dailyillini.com/index.php/article/2010/04/council_-community_to_address_olympian_drive_project.[10 December 2011]

Eskinasi M, Fokkema E. 2006. Lessons learned from un-successful modelling interventions. Systems Researchand Behavioral Science 23(4): 483–492.

Florida Statutes. 2009. Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes2009. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS09/CH0163/Section_0163.3167.HTM. [10 December 2011]

Friedman J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: FromKnowledge to Action. Princeton University Press:Princeton, NJ.

Geertman S, Stillwell JCH (eds.). 2009. Planning SupportSystems Best Practice and New Methods. Springer: NewYork.

Grimble R, Wellard K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologiesin natural resource management: a review of princi-ples, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricul-tural Systems 55(2): 173–193.

Grow RJ, Matheson A. 2006. Envision Utah: Layingthe foundation for quality development. Urban Land65(4): 63.

Habermas J, McCarthy T. 1985. The theory of communi-cative action: Reason and the rationalization of society.Beacon Press: London, UK.

Hall P. 1988. Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history ofurban planning and design in the twentieth century.Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H. 1999. Smart choices:A practical guide to making better decisions. HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA.

Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H. 2006. The hiddentraps in decision making. Harvard Business Review84(1): 118–126.

Harwood SA. 2007. Using Scenarios to Build PlanningCapacity. In Engaging the future: Forecasts, scenarios,plans, and projects, Hopkins LD, Zapata M (eds.).Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA.135–154.

Helling A. 1998. Collaborative visioning: Proceed withcaution!: Results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision

2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Associ-ation 64(3): 335–349.

Hicks D, Larson C, Nelson C, Olds DL. 2008. The influ-ence of collaboration on program outcomes. EvaluationReview 32(5): 453–477.

Hopkins LD. 2001a. Urban Development: The logic ofmaking plans. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Hopkins LD. 2001b. Planning as science. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 20(4): 399–406.

Hopkins LD, Zapata M. (eds.) 2007. Engaging thefuture: Forecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects. LincolnInstitute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA.

Illinois Public Media. 2010. Champaign County BoardDivided on Extending Olympian Drive. http://will.illinois.edu/news/spotstory/champaign-county-board-divided-on-extending-olympian-drive/. [10December 2011]

Innes JE. 1996. Planning through consensus building:A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal.Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4):460–472.

Innes JE, Booher DE. 1999. Consensus building andcomplex adaptive systems. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 65(4): 412–423.

Jacobs J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities.Random House: New York.

Johnston DM, Hopkins LD. 1987. Expert Systems inPlanning Analysis: The Logic of Uncertainty. TownPlanning Review 58: 342–346.

Julian DA. 1994. Planning for collaborative neighbor-hood problem-solving: A review of the literature.Journal of Planning Literature 9(1): 3–13.

Kacich T. 2010. Opposition voiced to Olympian Driveplan. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2010-08-20/opposition-voiced-olympian-drive-plan.html. [10 December 2011]

Kelly ED, Becker B. 2000.Community Planning: an Introduc-tion to the Comprehensive Plan. Island Press: Washington,DC.

King CS, Feltey KM, Susel BN. 1998. The question ofparticipation: Toward authentic public participationin public administration. Public AdministrationReview 58(4): 317–326.

Kissler GR, Fore KN, Jacobson WS, Kittredge WP,Stewart SL. 1998. State strategic planning: Sugges-tions from the Oregon experience. Public Administra-tion Review 58(4): 353–359.

Klosterman RE. 1985. Arguments for and AgainstPlanning. Town Planning Review 56(1): 5–20.

Krumholz N. 1982. A retrospective view of equityplanning. Journal of the American Planning Association41(3): 298–304.

Krumholz N. 1999. Equitable approaches to local eco-nomic development. Policy Studies Journal 27(1): 83–95.

Lee DB. 1973. Requiem for Large-Scale Models. Journalof the American Institute of Planners 39(3): 163–178.

Lindblom C. 1959. The science of muddling through.Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.




http://olympiandriveproject.com/site10/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:frequently-asked-questions



http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/default/files/attachments/Olympian_Agreements.pdf

http://urbanaillinois.us/sites/default/files/attachments/Olympian_Agreements.pdf

http://www.dailyillini.com/index.php/article/2010/04/council_community_to_address_olympian_drive_project



http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS09/CH0163/Section_0163.3167.HTM



http://will.illinois.edu/news/spotstory/champaign-county-board-divided-on-extending-olympian-drive/



http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2010-08-20/opposition-voiced-olympian-drive-plan.html



Loukopoulos P, Scholz RW. 2004. Sustainable future urbanmobility: using ‘area development negotiations’ forscenario assessment and participatory strategic plan-ning. Environment and Planning A 36(12): 2203–2226.

Manzo LC, Perkins DD. 2006. Finding commonground: The importance of place attachment tocommunity participation and planning. Journal ofPlanning Literature 20(4): 335.

Margerum RD. 2002. Collaborative Planning: Buildinga Distinct Model for Practice. Journal of PlanningEducation and Research 21(3): 237–253.

Meck S. 2002. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook:Model Statutes for Planning and the Management ofChange. APA Press: Chicago, IL.

Merrick JRW, Garcia MW. 2004. Using value-focusedthinking to improve watersheds. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 70(3): 313–327.

Müller DB, Tjallingii SP, Canters KJ. 2005. A transdisci-plinary learning approach to foster convergence ofdesign, science and deliberation in urban andregional planning. Systems Research and BehavioralScience 22(3):193–208.

Munda G. 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation:Methodological foundations and operational con-sequences. European Journal of Operational Research158(3): 662–677.

News-Gazette. 2011. Board must move on OlympianDrive. http://www.news-gazette.com/opinions/editorials/2011-02-27/board-must-move-olympian-drive.html. [10 December 2011]

Oregon SLUPL. 1973. State of Oregon, Oregon State-wide Land Use Planning Law 1973. http://www.orgov.org/landuse.html. [10 December 2011]

Pitkin S. 1992. Comprehensive Plan Format: A Key toImpacting Decision Making. Environmental andUrban Issues 19(4): 8–10.

Quick KS, FeldmanMS. 2011. Distinguishing participa-tion and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 31(3): 272–290.

Ramirez R. 1999. Stakeholder analysis and conflictmanagement. In Cultivating peace: conflict and collab-oration in natural resource management, Buckles D(ed.). International Development Research Center:Washington, DC 101–126.

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. 1973. Dilemmas in a generaltheory of planning. Policy sciences 4(2): 155–169.

Rowe G, Frewer LJ. 2000. Public participation methods:A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology &Human Values 25(1): 3–29.

Sandercock L. 1998. Towards cosmopolis: Planning formulticultural cities. J. Wiley.

Sayer RA. 1979. Understanding urban models versusunderstanding cities. Environment and Planning A11(8): 853–862.

Schiffer M. 1992. Towards a collaborative planningsystem. Environment and Planning B: Planning andDesign 19(3): 709–722.

Schrijnen PM. 2010. From planning support systemsto mediated planning support: a structureddialogue to overcome the implementation gap.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design37(1): 3–20.

Shan C, Yai T. 2010. Public involvement requirementsfor infrastructure planning in China. Habitat Inter-national 35(1): 158–166.

Smile Politely. 2010. Olympian Drive: Whipping adead horse? http://www.smilepolitely.com/culture/olympian_drive_whipping_a_dead_horse/. [10December 2011]

Smith E. 2007. Using a scenario approach: From busi-ness to regional futures. InEngaging the future: Usingforecasts, scenarios, plans, and projects, Hopkins LD,Zapata M (eds.). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy:Cambridge, MA. 79–101.

Susskind L. 2010. Complexity Science and Collabora-tive Decision Making. Negotiation Journal 26(3):367–370.

Thomas JM. 1994. Planning history and the blackurban experience: linkages and contemporary impli-cations. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(1): 1–11.

Timney MM. 2011. Models of Citizen Participation. InGovernment Is Us 2.0, King CS (ed.). M. E. SharpeInc; 86–100.

Uitermark J, Duyvendak JW. 2008. Citizen participa-tion in a mediated age: neighbourhood governancein the Netherlands. International Journal of Urbanand Regional Research 32(1): 114–134.

van der Heijden K. 1996. Scenarios: The Art of Stra-tegic Conversation. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester,UK.

Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R, Lopes R. 2010. A par-ticipatory modelling approach to support integratedsustainability assessment processes. Systems Researchand Behavioral Science 27(4):446–460.

Weir M, Rongerude J, Ansell CK. 2009. Collabo-ration Is Not Enough. Urban Affairs Review 44(4):455–489.




http://www.news-gazette.com/opinions/editorials/2011-02-27/board-must-move-olympian-drive.html



http://www.orgov.org/landuse.html

http://www.orgov.org/landuse.html

http://www.smilepolitely.com/culture/olympian_drive_whipping_a_dead_horse/

http://www.smilepolitely.com/culture/olympian_drive_whipping_a_dead_horse/