Planning to Participate: Exploring Discomfort in Participation

Planning methods designed to engage and encourage the active and meaningful participation of public individuals and groups have become more broadly valued and utilized in recent years. This increase has grown, in part, from an increasingly dissatisfied and civically aware public (Sorensen & Sagaris, 2010). Currently, in Ontario, there are very few formal planning exercises that do not require, by legislation, some level of public consultation. Concurrent with this shift many planning theorists have argued for and written about the benefits of including public citizens in the planning process. Resulting from this value-­‐laden policy shift several corporations and government organizations have in the past and continue to attempt to develop new and exciting strategies to more effectively engage with the public. The primary aim of this research project is to better understand some of the barriers, which inhibit meaningful public engagement, within the field of planning, in order to better understand how planners can work together with members of the public to begin to overcome these barriers. \n \nWhile there are many barriers to meaningful engagement, this research project will primarily focus on the barrier of fear. As will be explained throughout this project, fear, or more gently described as discomfort, experienced by both the planner or facilitator and the participants, has the potential to discourage public citizens from actively engaging with the planning of their communities. \n \nIn order to better understand fear, how it can inhibit meaningful engagement and how it can be overcome, this research project utilizes a variety of research methods. First a review of the relevant literature is used to identify and describe some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with public participation in the planning process. Relevant literature is also used to explain some common fears, which are experienced by planners and members of the public when they interact with one another in the process of planning. \n \nSecond, a series of semi-­‐structured interviews with professional planners and private facilitators are used to better understand what makes these individuals uncomfortable when they invite members of the public to engage. These interviews also allow planners and private facilitators to speculate, based on their experience, as to what makes members of the public uncomfortable with participation. \n \nThird, this research project utilizes a two-­‐part focus group with public citizens. The first session of the focus group allows participants to describe their experiences with the act of planning in their community and explain what has made them feel both uncomfortable and comfortable about the process. The second session has participants explaining how they believe the process can be improved in ways that would make them feel more comfortable and in turn would increase their likelihood to participate in the future. \n \nThe majority of the research was conducted in the municipality of Clarington. Clarington, which is located approximately 80 kilometres east of Toronto, is a medium sized municipality with a population of approximately 85,000 residents and is made up of a number of small-­‐urbanized communities including Bowmanville, Courtice, and Newcastle. Clarington also encompasses a number of rural settlements. \n \nThis municipality was chosen for a number of reasons. First, I was born and raised in Clarington and therefore have strong connections to both the place and a number of the people, including municipal planners, who live and work in Clarington. These previously formed connections have allowed me to make new connections more easily and in turn have helped me to carry out my research. Clarington was also chosen due to the receptive attitude of many of the municipal planners and politicians who work for Clarington. I was fortunate enough to complete my field experience as a student intern planner in Clarington. During this time I had a number of conversations with the municipal planners who informed me that they are always looking for new ways to work with members of the community to ensure they are able to participate in a meaningful way. This receptive attitude has aided in the progression of my research. Finally, Clarington was chosen because its size. As a relatively small municipality it carries with it a number of unique perspectives that are not found in larger urban centres such as Toronto. One such perspective provided by Clarington is the form of interaction that takes place between members of the public and the planning staff. Members of the public can, on any given day, speak directly with planning staff, even the director, by simply visiting the planning department. This as well as the other unique perspectives provided by Clarington has contributed positively to this research project. For these reasons I believe Clarington is a prime municipality for me to carry out my research. \n \nFinally, this project concludes with a toolkit, which includes a review and analyses of the comments and insight provided by all the interviewee and focus group participants as well as a review of different engagement strategies, which aim to better connect planners with members of the public by improving the relationship between the parties through open and direct conversation. This toolkit, referred to as Appendix C has been produced for and provided to all the participants involved in this research project.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.