Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation
A Case of Delhi
Submitted By
Shashikant Nishant Sharma
BP/461/2008
Department of Physical Planning
School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi
New Delhi July 2012

i
CONTENTS
CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...........................................................................................iv
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................................vi
CERTIFICATE.....................................................................................................................................vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................................ix
सार....................................................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
1.1 NEED FOR STUDY.................................................................................................................4
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY...................................................................................................5
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................6
1.4 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING................................................................8
2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ...............................................................................8
2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................14
2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................18
2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............................................................................19
2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING........................................................................20
2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING........................................................................22
2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OFPARTICIPATORY PLANNING..............................................................25
2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHES............................................................................27
2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATION ......................................................................28
2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC CHOICES .................35
2.11 ADOPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS...............................................................................39
2.12 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING EXPERIENCES IN SELECTED PROGRAMMES..........................44
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................44
3.2 CASE STUDY OF KERALA .....................................................................................................45
3.3 CASE STUDY OF NPUSV, DELHI............................................................................................48
3.4 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................51

ii
3.5 CASE STUDY OF BHAGIDARI IN DELHI ..................................................................................52
3.6 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................54
CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLAN PREPARATION IN DELHI ..............................................56
4.1 STATUTORY PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.............................................................57
4.2 NON-STATUTORY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...........................................................................57
4.3 CASE STUDY: OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN MASTER PLAN, DELHI................................58
4.3.1 PROCESS OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTION................................................................59
4.3.2 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...............................................................................60
4.3.3 LOCATIONAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE OBJECTIONS/SUGGESTIONS......................................64
4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................66
4.4 A CASE OF OBJECTIONS/ SUGGESTIONSAND HEARING ON LANDUSE CHANGE FOR CIC .........68
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................68
4.4.2 ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................70
4.4.3 INFERENCES...............................................................................................................73
4.4.4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................74
4.5 CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN CDP, DELHI...................................................75
4.5.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................75
4.5.2 STAKEHOLDERS IN CDP ...............................................................................................76
4.5.3 PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................................78
4.5.4 SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS.......................................................................................79
4.5.5 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND FIGURES ...............................................................................82
4.5.6 MAJOR FINDING OF THE STUDY ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATION................................84
4.5.7 INFERENCES...............................................................................................................85
4.6 PROVISIONS FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING LOCAL AREA PLAN ..........................................86
4.6.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................86
4.6.2 STATEMENT ON LAP IN DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS..........................................................86
4.6.3 STAGES OF PLAN PREPARATION AND SCOPE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................87
4.6.4 Base Maps..................................................................................................................88
4.6.5 Mapping Of Secondary Data On Base Maps..................................................................88
4.6.6 Draft Lap....................................................................................................................88
4.6.7 Final Lap.....................................................................................................................89
4.7 INFERENCES.......................................................................................................................89
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................90
5.1 INFORMATION...................................................................................................................91
5.2 CONSULTATION.................................................................................................................93

iii
5.3 RESOLUTION AND CONSENSUS BUILDING...........................................................................95
5.4 OUTCOMES AND INFLUENCES ............................................................................................96
References.......................................................................................................................................97
Annexure:......................................................................................................................................103
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given below ......................................................7
Figure 2-1 Six Stagesfor effective Participation ..................................................................................36
Figure 2-2 Four Stepped Analysis Technique.......................................................................................39
Figure 3-1 Composition of proposed and actual Committees...............................................................50
Figure 4-1 Process of Objection/Suggestions in Master Plan for Delhi ..................................................60
Figure 4-2 Participation of various groups..........................................................................................61
Figure 4-3 Nature of Consideration....................................................................................................62
Figure 4-4 Spatial Nature of the Objections and Suggestions...............................................................62
Figure 4-5 Spatial attribute of the Objections and Suggestions............................................................64
Figure 4-6 Landuse Planfor Zone F and the location of CIClanduse change location.............................70
Figure 4-7 Multi Stakeholders Consultation Mechanism in CDP, Delhi..................................................76
Figure 4-8 Details of the Primary Stakeholders ...................................................................................78
Figure 4-9 Participants at CDP Workshop on 7 and 8 September 2006 .................................................82
Figure 4-10 Presence of Participants at the CDP Workshop ................................................................82
Figure 4-11 File photo of workshop on CDP, Delhi ..............................................................................83
Figure 4-12 Stages of Local Area Plan in Delhi which is being followed.................................................87
Figure 5-1 Dimensionsof the participationinMasterPlan,CityDevelopmentPlanandLocal AreaPlanin
Delhi................................................................................................................................................90
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Comparative Tablesfor Various Techniques for Participation ...............................................34
Table 3-1 Major Findings of the various Case Studies..........................................................................55

iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AMDA: Association of Municipalities and Development Authorities
B. Plan: Bachelor of Planning
BSUP: Basic Services for Urban Poor
CAA: Constitutional Amendment Act
CBO: Community Based Organization
CIC: Chief Information Commission
CDP: City development Plan
DDA: Delhi Development Authority
FGD: Focus Group Discussion
GNCTD: Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
GOI: Government of India
IDSSMT: Integrated Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns
JMI: Jamia Milia Islamia
JnNNURM: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
LAP: Local Area Plan
MCD: Municipal Corporation of Delhi
MDGs: Millennium Development Goals
MoUD: Ministry of Urban Development
MPD: Master Plan of Delhi
M.Plan: Master of Planning
MTA: Merchants and Traders Associations
NCTD: National Capital Territory of Delhi
NGO: Non-Government Organisation
NDMC: New Delhi Municipal Corporation
NPUSV: National Policy for Urban Street Vendors
PRI: Panchayati Raj Institutions
RWAs: Residents Welfare Associations

v
SPA: School of Planning and Architecture
ULB: Urban Local Body like Municipality, Municipal Council
UNCHS: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
VCs: Vendors Committees
ZDP: Zonal Development Plan
ZVC: Zonal Vending Committee

vi
DECLARATION
This is to declare that the Thesis report titled “Participatory Planning in Plan
Preparation- A Case of Delhi” has been undertaken by the author in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning. The research
work undertaken is original and authentic.
Shashikant Nishant Sharma
BP/461/2008
Date: 12 July, 2012

vii
(Deemed to be a University)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Thesis titled “Participatory Planning in Practice- A Case of
Delhi” has been submitted by Shashikant Nishant Sharma in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Planning.
RECOMMENDED BY: ACCEPTED BY:
(ResearchSupervisor)
Dr. Poonam Prakash
Associate Processor and Thesis Coordinator
School of Planning and Architecture
New Delhi
Dr. Mayank Mathur
Head of Department
School of Planning and Architecture
New Delhi

viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the constant interactive support
system forged with many people. In giving shape to the abstract ideas a form and
presenting it into writing needs a lot of interactions, deliberations and discussions with
many of the experts of the field and one who can genuinely help in streamlining the
ideas. I express my sincere thanks and deep gratitude to Dr. Poonam Prakash, my
thesis guide and thesis coordinator and co-guide Ms Mona Chhabra Anand for their
timely and valuable suggestions and guidance in streamlining my thesis in right
direction from the inception to the finalization.
I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Ashok Kumar, Dr. Mayank Mathur (Head of
Department, Physical Planning), Dr. Rabidyuti Biswas and Ms Taru Jain for untiring
efforts in giving feedbacks and comments, criticisms and suggestions at each and every
stages of the thesis which made my work and efforts worthwhile.
I am thankful to the officials of Urban Development Department of the GNCTD
(Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi) specially Sri P. Minj, (Project
Officer of BSUP, Slums Housing, DUSIB);Sh. H.K. Bharti (Deputy Director, Master Plan
Division) Delhi Development Authority; Sri Kamal (ATP) Municipal Corporation of Delhi
and various consultants (Sh. Sandeep Tyagi, Jamia Milia Islamia; Dr. Mayank Mathur,
SPA; Sh. Prakash Narayan and Sh Suman Jha, Association of Municipalities and
Development Authorities) engaged in the preparation of Local Area Plans in Delhi.
I express my thanks to my batch mates and family for their direct and indirect support
and cooperation at the crucial juncture of academic life. I extend my special thanks to
Bhavya Pasricha for helping in background study stuff, Sakshi Sedha for constantly
interacting on the various aspects of the study and report during classes and Imran
Basha Soudagar A.K for boosting morale.
The constraint of space prohibits from mentioning the name and designations of all who
helped in one way or the other and hence they are sincerely acknowledged.
(Shashikant Nishant Sharma)

ix
ABSTRACT
Participatory planning is very sought after concept in the domain of planning in current
practices. Delhi is a very progressive city and the city planners and administrators are
very active in adopting and implementing current best practices across the world. There
are many practices in Delhi which is seen as a good example of participatory planning
and the concerns arises when we want to replicate in other cities and towns then it
becomes imperative to look in detail the process and their allied pros and cons so that a
more effective model can be adapted and adopted for implementation. For Delhi also
we are in the process of preparation of ‘Local Area Plan’ an initiative of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi to realize the provisions of Master Plan for a planned development
taking into account the existing ground realities. The thesis cum research project will be
of great help in looking at the shortcomings of the participatory planning process and
the recommendations can give us an opportunity to strengthen the scope and
effectiveness of public participation in planning at local level. The author thinks that his
research work will be of some help in devising more efficient mechanism for public
participation and demand responsive planning by the local body of the national capital.
The need of the study has arisen due to the combined effect of various factors like lack
of awareness and understanding of the concept and applicability of the participatory
planning processes. Sometimes it is called is of ad hoc nature in the practice of
participation that is taking place in the current scenario where people are awakening to
the need and demand for more participatory planning approach. Case studies of
different practices in Participatory Planning arena viz. decentralized planning in Kerala,
National Policy for Urban Street Vendors and Bhagidari Scheme of Government of Delhi
has showcased how the plan or scheme has been able to deliver or fail. Further, the
author has developed a framework for analysis that will helps in judiciously considering
the case of Participatory Planning in Delhi.
The detailed analysis of the Participatory Planning mechanism used in the cases of
Master Plan, City Development Plan and Local Area Plan preparation in Delhi gives the
pros and cons of public participation and the loopholes in the planning processes. Here,
author feels he will be in a position to understand the virtues and shortcomings of the
different participatory practices and how they can be beneficially adopted and adapted
for the preparation of Local Area Plan in a more effective participatory manner.
Finally, author tries to evolve a realistic and implementable framework for effective
public participation in Local Area Planning which is undergoing its final stages. His
interactions with many consultants and planners engaged in this project can also be put
forward for better comprehensibility and feasibility of the framework.

x
सार
सहभागितापूर्ण नियोजि मौजूदा तरीकों में नियोजि क
े क्षेत्र में बहुत माांि है. ददल्ली एक बहुत प्रिनतशील शहर है
और शहर नियोजकों और प्रशासकों दुनिया भर क
े मौजूदा सर्वोत्तम प्रथाओां को लािू करिे में बहुत सक्रिय हैं. ददल्ली
में कई प्रथाओां जो सहभागितापूर्ण नियोजि का एक अच्छा उदाहरर् क
े रूप में देखा जा सकता है और समस्या
उठता है जब हम अन्य शहरों और कस्बों में दोहरािे क
े ललए सोचते है तो यह जरूरी हो जाता है की इस प्रक्रिया
को वर्वस्तार से देख जाये और उिक
े सांबद्ध पेशेर्वरों की सलाह ली जाये ताक्रक एक अगधक प्रभार्वी मॉडल
अिुक
ू ललत क्रकया जा सक
े और लािू करिे क
े योग्य बिाया जा सक
े .
ददल्ली में भी ,जमीिी र्वास्तवर्वकताओां को ध्याि में रखते हुए और मास्टर प्लाि क
े प्रार्वधािों को लािुकर
योजिाबद्ध तरीक
े से करिे क
े ललए ददल्ली ििर नििम िे स्थािीय वर्वकास योजिा बिािे क
े प्रक्रिया में
है. यह शोधपत्र सहभागितापूर्ण जोजि की खालमयेओां को रेखाांक्रकत करिे और उिक
े तदुपराांत सुझार्व हमें
स्थािीय स्टार पर योजिा क
े प्रभार्वशीलता को मजबूत करिे का अर्वसर प्रदाि कर सकती है . लेखक का
माििा है क्रक शोध कायण राष्ट्रीय राजधािी क
े स्थािीय निकाय द्र्वारा उत्तरदायी नियोजि की माांि को पूरा करिे
में अहम भूलमका निभाएिी . अध्ययि की जरूरत सहभागितापूर्ण नियोजि प्रक्रिया की अर्वधारर्ा और
प्रयोज्यता की अच्छी समझ की कमी जैसे वर्वलभन्ि कारकों क
े सांयुक्त प्रभार्व क
े कारर् उत्पन्ि हो िई है. कभी
कभी यह कहा जाता है की भािीदाररतापूर्ण योजिा बिािे की माांि को िाम क
े ललए ही क्रकया जाता है पर
आजकल लोि सहभागितापूर्ण योजिा क
े प्रनत जािरूक हो रहे है .
भािीदाररतापूर्ण योजिा क
े वर्वलभन्ि प्रथाओां क
े अध्ययि जैसे क्रक क
े रल में वर्वक
े न्रीकृ त नियोजि, शहरी िली
वर्वि
े ताओां और ददल्ली सरकार की भािीदारी योजिा क
े क
े अध्ययि से सफलता और वर्वफलता का आकलि
क्रकया जा सक
े िा .
इसक
े ललए लेखक िे एक प्रारूप तैयार क्रकया है जजसक
े आधार पे इिका मूल्याांकि
क्रकया जा सक
े िा. मास्टर प्लाि ,
शहरी वर्वकास योजिा और स्थानिय क्षेत्र योजिा क
े वर्वस्तृत वर्वश्लेषर् से
योजिा क
े तरीको में निदहत आच्छाइयों और खालमयों को मददिार साबबत
होिी
समझिे मे
.
. यहााँ, लेखक
वर्वलभन्ि भािीदारी प्रथाओां की आच्छाइयों और कलमयों का अध्यि करक
े उिक
े आच्छाइयों को अपिाया जा
सकिे योग्य और अगधक प्रभार्वीशाली और अिुक
ू ललत करिे का प्रयास क्रकया जा सक
े िा .
अांत में, लेखक जो अपिे अांनतम चरर्ों क
े दौर से िुजर रहे स्थािीय क्षेत्र योजिा में प्रभार्वी सार्वणजनिक भािीदारी क
े
ललए यथाथणर्वादी और कायाणन्र्वयि योग्य ढाांचा तैयार करिे की कोलशश करेिा. कई सलाहकार और इस
पररयोजिा में लिे हुए योजिाकारों से मशर्वरा करक
े योजिा प्रारूप को और भी यथाथणर्वादी और कायाणन्र्वयि
योग्य बिाया जा सक
े िा .

xi
Dedication
“This thesis is dedicated to my teachers and motivators who didn’t accompany but their
thoughts will always guide in my future endevours.”
“Think Global, Plan Local, Be Rational in Outlook and Approach”

1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Delhi is a large city-state with area of 1483 sq km and a population of 16.7 million where
more than two third of its area as urban. Rest of the area is fast urbanizing. For a city
like this the planning process is challenging and magnitude of problems is enormous. It
should be noted that Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated projects of preparation of
‘Local Area Plan’ for 36 wards through various planning consultants to address planning
issues and problems on identifying the ground realities. Development in Delhi is guided
by the Master Plan 2021 and various Zonal Development Plans. The increase in urban
population as a whole and increased migration to Delhi has led to a number of planning
and development issues as land are a scarce resource in Delhi bounded by other states
having their own development controls and guidelines. In order to counter the ill-effects
of urban problem diagnosis and rational planning model, the planners and policy
makers of Delhi started to engage public in various states of planning and plan
implementation in various forms and degrees. The engagement of public in planning
has stated long back in 1962 when the first Master Plan for Delhi was prepared. Even
after 50 years of planning for people the planners and policy makers thought for
evolving planning with people approach in planning and this culminated in Delhi in the
form of concept of Local Area Plan. In 2005, pilot project for the preparation of Local
Area Plan got initiated and got completed and the result was not satisfactory and again
in 2010 pilot project for the preparation of Local Area Plan started and by 2012 it got
completed. It should be noted that Delhi is one of the Indian city to have a Master Plan
and Zonal Plans for guiding and controlling the urban growth and development. The
need of the people and demand for the development goes hand in hand and this lead to

2
the participation of the public in the plan making process so as to entertain their
grievances and make them partner in the development.
Public participation can be materialized only when the public is capable enough to
express his views and empowered to participate in the working of the local governance
and this was envisaged by the policy planners long ago. In this direction, the enactment
of 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution is noteworthy. The amendments were
made to ensure decentralization of planning, planning at local level initiated to empower
local people to take action and participate in various stages of plan preparation and plan
implementation. This very act led to the planning and development by local bodies by
themselves.
Planning at lower level cannot be comprehensible before knowing about the
decentralization. Decentralization can be perceived as a process of devolution of power,
responsibilities, functions and finances to the local bodies. The primary objective of
decentralization programs is to improve resource allocation and service delivery by
bringing decision making process closer to the citizens. Participatory planning is part of
the decentralisation process and it aims to identify the critical problems, joint priorities,
and adoption of various socio‐economic development strategies for the development
and welfare of the community. As stated by Olthelen (1999), participatory planning is
the initial step in the definition of a common agenda for development by a local
community and an external entity or entities. Over the period, this initial step is expected
to evolve for the parties concerned towards a self‐sustaining development planning
process at the local level. The great authors have presented their views on the need for
greater public participation and the nature of such participation for optimal utilization of
the aspirations and the expertise of the local people for whom planning is being carried
on.

3
Arnstein often quoted article “Ladders of Citizen Participation” that “the idea of citizen
participation is like eating spinach: no one is against it as it is good for you”. But
question arises whether citizen participation is serving some purpose or it is just for
custom in planning exercise. There is considerable confusion about what looks like in
practice, and little consensus about what exactly citizen participation is supposed to be
accomplish (Day, 1997). Kweit and Kweit (1981) assert this confusion is mirrored in the
attempts empirically evaluate citizen participation programs. Furthermore, Catanese
(1984) states that the problem with the public participation is that, it is difficult to know
how to carry it out effectively because there are no specific goals. But I will take public
participation in one field say Urban Planning they it might be somewhat easy to devise
some mechanism for assessing the public participation.
Participatory planning involves conducting planning with the involvement of a number of
people. These people can be a whole range of different stakeholders, and it obviously
depends on the nature of the thing we are trying to develop or refine, and the context as
to who should be involved. The role of the consultant in this process is that of facilitator
and coach. There is a general consensus for increasing public participation in the
process of planning and development and this has been substantiated time and again
by a number of national and international policy making bodies. In this regards we can
see the provisions of the Indian Constitution and United Nations sponsored Millennium
Development Goals.
Citizen participation is a part of our constitutional provisions and democratic heritage.
People should share in decisions affecting their destinies. People participation, involving
the constituents in the politico-administrative and planning processes, means their
needs and aspirations are heard and mainstreamed in the development agenda.
Empowerment of citizens and their involvement in the decision-making processes, from

4
central to local level, is regarded as vital for supporting pro-poor policies, improved
service delivery, poverty reduction, and the attainment of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs).
The participatory role of civil society groups with government and planning agencies has
evolved over recent years. Citizens groups, Community based organizations (CBOs)
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become active participants in
national and local development planning activities and the implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of policies, programs, and projects. People participation should starts at
the grassroots level and should work in harmony for fostering needs-based local
planning activities.
1.1 NEED FOR STUDY
There has been increasing demand and need for greater public participation in planning
processes as discussed in the introduction i.e., devolution of power and finance to local
bodies. Delhi Development Authority Act also emphasizes the need for greater public
participation. The civil society is getting active and people are willing to participate in the
planning process. The problem arises when we try to implement the public participation
in the planning process. The limited understanding of the scope and viability of the
public participation in the government officials hinders the smooth execution of the
participatory planning.
The current practices of public participation seem more or less customary or ad hoc in
nature. Public participation seems to be done to fulfill the bare requirement of the plan
and it is not used and implemented in true spirit of term. There seems to be some
resistance by official for sharing information and power of planning with the general
public.

5
Now that planning and development is mostly done by a more democratic body like the
municipal corporation, the expectation for greater public engagement has raised. The
outcome of democratic process at the various levels has made the general public aware
of their rights and duties and they want to be a part of the development process which is
evident from the greater turn out of citizen for voting and filing objections/suggestion
against the development which they think is not conducive to them or the environment.
The need of time and public must be taken into account for effective planning and
development.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Local Area Plan is a project first time undertaken by a big Urban Municipal Corporation
like Delhi and its success and failure will be reflected in many ways. This will set an
example for other local bodies to initiate the local level planning. The public participation
and involvement in the plan preparation becomes crucial to understand. The objectives
of the study are as follows:
 To understand the operationalization of Participatory planning.
 To assess current status of participatory planning in Delhi
 To identify issues related to participatory planning in context of Local Area Plan
Preparation in Delhi
 To suggest the recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of Local Area
Planning.

6
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope would include studying the concept of participatory planning and its process.
Study of the concept of participatory planning and participatory frameworks for
assessing the public participation will be undertaken. Its applicability in our Local Area
Plan preparation is another thrust of the research. The general perception that public
participation is not up to mark, in the Local Area Plan preparation going on in Delhi, will
also be assessed. The research will finally come out with some concrete framework for
effective public participation in the planning process for LAP.
This is an academic study and there is natural constraint of time and resources. The
concepts studied are from western countries and case studies are from India thus, there
is natural variation in their applicability. The study is limited to case studies of urban
areas of Delhi. The data analyzed are mostly from secondary sources. Local Area Plan
Preparation in still going on and thus limits its study in terms of outcome and influences
of participation.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
For the research on the above mentioned topic, more or less the prevalent process will
be adopted. The entire study is divided into four stages. The first stage comprises of
establishment of need of study and development of objectives. In this stage, literature is
studied to understand the concept of participatory planning- its need and its processes.
Some case studies are looked at for their participation process, structure responsible for
participation and factors responsible for participation. This literature review fulfills the
first objective.

7
Second stage is an extended literature search. In this stage, various models to measure
participation are looked at and a model to measure participation in the study is devised
thus fulfilling the second objective.
In the third stage, a case study is chosen to apply the model devised in the earlier
stage. Data from various sources and interactions with people and agencies involved in
plan preparation various processes.
Final stage gives recommendations for achieving effective participation in local-level
planning based on the issues arising in the previous stage.
Figure 1-1 A schematic diagram of the methodology is given below
Source: Author, 2012

8
CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
2.1 CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Here, it becomes imperative to clearly understand the different terms used to indicate
some form of participation of the public and their differences so as to use them in a
proper context wherever it is used. The following paragraphs attempts to distinguish
between commonly used terms in order to arrive at the appropriate term for the purpose
of the study of participatory planning process in plan making.
Public participation may be defined as "It is distribution of powers which enables the
have-not citizens presently excluded from political and economic processes to be
deliberately included in the future. It is a strategy by which the have-nots join in
determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are
allocated, programs are operated and benefits like contracts and patronage are
parceled out. In short, it means by which they can induce significant social reforms
which enables them share the benefits of the affluent society" (Arnstein, 1969). Here the
author has stressed on the redistribution of power as participation enabling process.
Now let’s see some more definitions by some other authors and agencies.
"Participation is an active process by which beneficiary/ client group influence the
direction, execution of a developmental project in a view of enhancing their well-being in
terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or any other value they cherish" (World
Bank, 1987). Here, participation leads to influencing the decision making process.
“Empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather than
passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions and control the acts that affect

9
their lives. It involves people directly and actively in all stages of the management and
decision-making process” (Uganda Project Team, 2007). Here, empowerment of the
public is sought after for making public efficient in taking decision and controlling the
acts that affect them more often directly.
“Participation is the process through which stakeholders influence and share control
over priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods and
services” (World Bank, 2000). Here, participation means taking a shared responsibility
for controlling and influencing policy making which leads to proper resource allocation
and access to serves.
“Participation is a voluntary act that occurs when people become conscious of the value
of participatory action and deem it desirable to become involved in the different activities
undertaken in participatory project or initiative” (Wiesenfeld and Sanchez, 2002). Here,
authors feel that participation is a voluntary action and depends on them to decide to
what extent they should participate in the development initiatives.
The term community participation had been in use for a long time and this refers to a
limited number of participants ensuring efficiency of participation. Here, we will explore
the views of some of the authors and World Bank on the term community participation.
"Community participation as the process by which individuals, families and communities
assume responsibility for their own welfare and develop capacity to contribute to their
own and community's development" (Oakley and Marsden, 1984). Here, different
individuals or groups on their own resume responsibility for the development of capacity
and finally contributing to the development of the community as a whole.

10
“Community participation is a process through which community groups help advance
their interests and the greater opportunity for it the greater the chance of making
improvements in living condition” (Sandhu, 2005). Here, the author talks of a practical
approach to the development initiated and advanced by the community themselves.
“Community participation is a process through which stakeholder’s influence and share
control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them”
(World Bank, 2000). World banks talks of the sharing of the control over the
development initiatives and decision making by the way of the involvement of the
stakeholders.
Participatory planning has been in practice for a long time in the field of the urban
planning. There have been a number of interpretations of the same term by different
authors and organization/authorities involved in policy framing. Here, we will explore the
different connotations of the term participatory planning as professed by various
authors.
"Participatory planning is a set of processes through which diverse groups and interests
engage together in reaching for a consensus on a plan and its implementation" (RTPI,
2001). The Royal Town Planning Institute of London sees participatory planning a set of
processes for consensus building.
Collaborative planning is a method designed to empower stakeholders by elevating
them to the level of decision-makers through direct engagement and dialogue between
stakeholders and public agencies, to solicit ideas, active involvement, and participation
in the community planning process (Innes, Judith, Booher and David, 2000). Modified
form of the participatory planning is collaborative planning and it stresses on the
engagement of various stakeholders for reaching at consensus.

11
"Participatory planning is the initial step in the definition of a common agenda for
development by a local community and an external entity or entities" (Olthelen, 1999). In
the article on Participatory Approaches to planning for Community Forestry, author
defines participatory planning as initial steps for deciding common agenda for the
development.
“Participatory Planning depends not on some virtuous ‘good planners’ but on struggle
and hard work, insight and imagination, moral sensitivity and political perception too”
(John Forester, 1999). Here, authors feel that there is something more than the thinking
of virtuous planners which leads to the practice of participatory planning.
Participatory planning can be defined as joint actions of local people and professionals
with the objective of formulating development plans and selecting the best available
alternatives for their implementation of the plan for the development of the community
and society at large.
Participation of the citizen is enabled by the social and political system of the country
and the local bodies which are primary players of the game of the development. In this
regards the concept of the local self-governance becomes a ray of hope.
“Local self-government is essentially the empowerment of the people by giving them not
only the voice, but the power of choice as well, in order to shape the development they
feel is appropriate to their situation. It implies maximum decentralization of powers to
the elected bodies to function as autonomous units with adequate power, authority and
resources to discharge the basic responsibility of bringing about ‘economic development
and social justice” (Sen Committee, 2001).
In 2007, the term Local Area Plans was included in the MPD – 2021 stating it as a plan
for ward/sub-zone. Zonal Plans also stated in their preamble that indication of uses

12
other than residential and facility corridor shall be undertaken at the stage of Local Area
Plans.
"Local Area Planning is … for addressing the unplanned and illegal urban development
… By combining neighbourhood-level data with stakeholder participation … to reform
Delhi’s entire building byelaw system including procedural, planning and building
performance components” (USAID, 2009).
“Local area plan is by definition a plan based on the local needs and characteristics.
Thus, it requires framing area specific objectives” (MCD, 2005).
"Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone to be prepared by the concerned
body” (Review of Draft MPD, 2007).
"Local area plan means the plan of a ward/sub-zone of existing built up areas where
redevelopment/ renewal/ rejuvenation etc. are to be done with public participation to
achieve the ultimate goal of planned development at the macro level” (DDA, 2008).
From the above definitions of the local area plan it becomes clear that it is a local level
planning by local urban bodies in a participatory manner. It has always been the
responsibility of top managers who prepare project proposals and plan interventions to
the stage of implementation, without consulting those whose very lives are to be
affected by such projects. As a result, such plans are usually considered
donor/government driven and hence the intended beneficiaries do not take full
responsibility for the process and outcome. The communities do not feel part of the
process, which leads to limited sustainability after the expiry of such projects or
interventions.

13
“The bottom-up planning process involves extensive opportunities for community
participation, surveys, focus group convened at neighbourhood level, active interest of
city’s youth, public hearings and public awareness campaign” (Wheler and Beatley,
2004). Bottom up planning is a methodology that seeks to involve communities in the
planning process right from the inception of the project idea, risk assessment, and
through proposal development to project implementation. Strategic planning is long term
planning. Closely related to the overall goals of the response and focusing on policy
priorities. This concept of planning, given the fact that resources are scarce, requires
that its priorities and objectives yield maximum benefit and impact.
It is assumed that citizen participation is a desired and necessary part of participatory
planning mechanism. As Spiegel (1968) noted, "Citizen Participation is the process that
can meaningfully tie programs to people.” In time, many of the urban settlements began
to grow and expand, both numerically and economically. This made it increasingly
difficult for every citizen to actively participate in all community decisions. To fill this void
in the decision making process, people began to delegate their involvement to a
representative, either directly or through a community group. Examples of this
delegation were seen in the establishment of our system of selecting officials by public
elections, and the increase of volunteer associations and organizations. In spite of the
fact that direct citizen participation has declined, ample opportunities for citizens to get
involved in their community's destiny. Let’s understand:
a) The importance of participation.
b) The conditions under which citizens will participate
c) The approaches to involving citizens in community improvement programs and
projects.

14
Citizen participation can be viewed from the perspective of benefits to be gained and
costs to be borne. Some of the benefits that participation can provide are as follows:
a. The citizen can bring about desired change by expressing one's desire, either
individually or through a community group.
b. The individual learns how to make desired changes.
c. The citizen learns to understand and appreciate the individual needs and
interests of all community groups.
d. The citizen learns how to resolve conflicting interests for the general welfare of
the group.
e. The individual begins to understand group dynamics as it applies to mixed
groups.
Additional reasons could be cited to emphasize why citizens should participate in
community decisions. However, the case is rested with these. In summary, decision
making that is delegated by others will not always be in the best interest of an individual
and his or her neighbors. Community betterment is a product of citizen involvement.
2.2 BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The benefits of public participation are many and it is not easy to categorise them. It is
important to note that public participation suggests direct involvement of the public and
takes place, preferably, in an open discussion with decision makers. The author has
tried to categorise some of the important benefits of public participation under various
themes development, management, conflict resolution etc. after studying extensively. In
general, a number of benefits can be listed which are given below for easy
understandability of the pervasive impact of public participation in the plan making and
plan implementation processes. According to an online source on public participation

15
(http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/benefits.html), the following are the main
benefits that public participation can help in achieving if conducted in an effective
manner.
Sustainable Development
The Aarhus Convention (under United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)
grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations
regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice
(http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-eng/boxes/sustainability.html).
Sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all
stakeholders in an effective manner. Ultimately the users have a greater say in the
development than a policy framer.
Environmental Protection
Principle 10 of the RIO DECLARATION recommended public participation to handle
environmental issues:
“Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens,
on a relevant level. On a national level, each individual should have appropriate access
to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including
information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the
opportunity to participate in decision making processes. States should facilitate and
encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available.
Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and
remedy, should be provided” (UNESCO, 1992).

16
Environmental issues can be addressed when valued by the public. It is important that a
party represents the interest of the environment in the public debate.
Conflict Management
Although conflicts cannot be avoided, they are made explicit in the public participation
debate and resolved through the process of dialogue and consultation with groups with
conflicting interests. The statement of the World Bank Technical Paper 139-
Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, are given below:
"The purpose of taking the views of effected people into account is to improve project
viability. The Bank has found that where such views have been incorporated in the
design, the projects are more likely to be successful. The Bank has not found
community participation to be an impediment to project execution. On the contrary,
projects in which effected peoples' views have been excluded, suffers from more
frequent delays and poorer quality" (World Bank, 1992).
Project Understanding andReductionof Public Opposition
The better understanding of the benefits of the project can surely minimize the
opposition by the local people. Very often the policy making and planning is done by
expert outside the local community which is a source of distrust and to overcome this,
there is need for public consultation.
“Public consultation, participation and involvement in the early stages of the project can
prevent the dissemination of rumours and the rise of negative perceptions which are
very difficult to change once they take root” ((http://www.biodiversity.ru/coastlearn/pp-
eng/boxes/sustainability.html).

17
Social, Environmental and Economic Benefits
If the public is involved in the full decision making process, their concerns may be met
early on in the planning process when changes may be easier to make, rather than late
in the process when even small changes may cost both time and money. This is
possible in a participatory planning making process. Local people need to be made
aware of the economic, social and environmental benefits of the project or programme.
Effective Use of the Available Data
According to Budd (1999), public participation and consultation is an opportunity to
solicit the "hidden" knowledge of the wider community and their key concerns. This is
possible in an environment of public participation and consultation in plan making
process. Local people are more aware about the planning and development issues and
they might have some form of indigenous problem solving skills which can be better
harnessed in a participatory planning process.
Other Benefits
Effective community consultation, early on in the project cycle, creates ownership
(shared responsibility, involvement) for the project. It provides the opportunity to
accurately convey the implications of a proposal to all interested parties, thus enhancing
political credibility. Additionally, it is a mean to ensure full mitigation of significant
impacts, including due consideration of possible alternatives (Budd, 1999).
Acceptance of the public as a valued partner in the participatory process can inspire the
co-operation between citizens, their government, and industries that is crucial to the
success of planning. The benefits of public participation are both for short term and long
term planning and development. Skill learnt in one programme or project can be utilized
in other developmental works either initiated by the government or themselves.

18
2.3 PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Kurian Thomas and Ramkumar Bendapudi in their paper on participatory planning has
summarized the purpose of participatory planning as follow:
(1) Identification of the felt needs of the people
(2) Bringing forth consensus
(3) The empowerment of local disadvantaged groups
(4) Integration of local knowledge systems into project design
(5) Two‐way learning process between the project and local people
(6) Political commitment and support
(7) Accountability in local governance
Public participation serves various purposes in planning and coordination the combined
efforts of a number of stakeholders. It plays an important role in increasing awareness
and mutual recognition of interests of different stakeholders and reaching at consensus
after meetings and deliberations. It further helps in gathering information and enhancing
knowledge base of the community and experts. It has been found that increased public
participation leads to improved provision of goods and services to the community. It
stimulates involvement in decision making and in implementation processes of various
plans and projects. It leads to enhanced acceptance of policies, plans and operations
undertaken by experts and planners. It enhances the transparency and accountability in
decision making process which used to be solely in the hand of experts. Participation
helps in better identification and management of conflicts and resolution of issues and
problems in a fair and equitable manner. Increased participation of the citizens

19
broadens the scope for consideration and verification of planning and project
documents thus, ensuring a social auditing of the development projects. Participation of
the public serves a noble goal of education public about the development and making
them capable to participate general in planning processes and further strengthening the
roots of democratic values in the general public. Public participation can ensure legal
protection for the experts from the government if it violates some planning provisions
and serves the greater interest of the public. The most important purpose that the
participation of the public serves is that it ensures greater acceptance of planning
projects and ease of their implementation.
The nature and purposes of public participation cannot be wholly disregarded, however,
even when thinking more about methodology and mechanics than about its political
significance, because the purpose of public participation has a direct influence on its
practice (Acland, 2009).
2.4 THE NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation has diverse nature and the diversity of its nature and interpretability
has made it popular for the policy planners and authors alike. Public participation is an
inclusive rather than exclusive process as more and more stakeholders are involved
where only a few planners used to make plan for the multitude of population.
Moreover, a number of studies have determined that the majority of those who choose
to attend hearings actually represent organized interests with significant economic
stakes in the outcome (Fiorino, 1990). Although public participation is voluntary but
often is guided by the motives of the interest groups except where a legal requirement
specifies otherwise for the initiation of the process and to the implementation. It may be

20
a complement to legal requirements, but cannot conflict with legal provisions in force, in
particular with ownership and user rights.
As Kenney (1999:498) expresses: “While local governments and stakeholders are often
tangentially involved in these programs through mandatory public participation
processes, many of the most salient regulatory programs channel decisions almost
exclusively through federal agencies and, eventually, through federal courts where the
influence of national interest groups is paramount.”
It is fair and transparent to all participants and follows agreed basic rules applicable to
all. It is based on participants acting in good faith for the betterment of the community at
large. It does not guarantee or predetermine what the outcome will be as it involves a
great degree of consensus building and persuasion to common agenda. After
understanding the nature and forms of the public participation, now let’s look at the
basic benefits associated with public participation process and exercise.
2.5 PRINCIPLES FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
The principle underlying participatory planning has been explored over time and here,
we will discuss them in brief. According to the Parish/Ward Planning Manual of Uganda
the key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based on
include:
a) Inclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process and
promote gender equity
b) Plans need to be realistic and the planning process must be for projects which can be
implemented using available resources
c) Planning should not be a one-off exercise, but a continuous process

21
d) Plans should be people focused and empowering
e) Planning should start from vision and strength /opportunities not problems
f) Plans should be comprehensive covering all sectors (holistic) and integrated
g) Planning should promote mutual accountability between community and public
officers
h) Plans should be flexible, simple and learning oriented
i) The scheduling of planning activities at the lower local council levels should put into
consideration the recommended timeframe of the overall planning.
The key principles that this approach to participatory bottom-up planning are based on
inclusion of poor people and other vulnerable groups in the planning process and
promote gender equity in sharing of the benefits of planning and development. Plans
need to be realistic for involving public and the planning process must be for projects
which can be implemented using available resources and augmented by the local
expertise. Planning is a continuous process and thus for a fruitful result participation
starts. Participation of public will be greater if the plans are people focused and
empowering in nature. Planning starts from vision and strength /opportunities of an area
and them it tries to sort out the threats and weaknesses through the use of expertise
and participation of the users. Plans that are comprehensive covering all sectors and
integrated entails more public participation as people view this as an opportunity for
their redemption. Planning which promote mutual accountability between community
and public officers leads to increased participation of the stakeholders. Public
participation is feasible where plans are flexible, simple and learning oriented. The
scheduling of planning activities at the lower local levels should put into consideration

22
the recommended timeframe of the overall master planning for the town. After
understanding the principle underlying the public participation, it would be fruitful to see
how planners and policy makers have used public participation in different forms like
planning with people approach.
2.6 RATIONALE FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
Citizen participation is widely viewed as a key component in the planning process, and,
for the most part, planners accept the notion that participation is important to producing
enduring plans. Almost, all people agree that public participation is good but to what
extent and how we can ensure that the participation taking place should be in good faith
of the people and this very responsibility lies on the shoulders of a competent planner.
Participation mandates created and proposed by a competent planner and policy maker
do affect local government attention to citizen involvement. Administrators need
guidance for crafting citizen involvement requirements that will result in broad public
participation in planning. Over time, the planners also stressed the need for better
representation of the interests of disadvantaged and powerless groups in governmental
decision making. As stated by Diane Day (1997) collective decisions are more easily
accepted by the individuals, and a sense of belonging in the community will be fostered.
Burke (1968) asserts that citizen participants are sources of information and collective
wisdom, the probability of public interests being served is achieved through public
participation.
“The act of participation is held to be a form of citizen training, in which citizens working
together to solve community problems not only learn how democracy works but also
learn to value and appreciate cooperation as a problem solving methods” (Burke, 1968).

23
“It is much easier to change the behaviour of individuals when they are members of a
group than to change any one of them separately. Secondly, individuals and groups
resist decisions which are imposed upon them. They are more likely to support a
decision and, equally important, more likely to assist in carrying it out if they have had a
part in discovering the need for change and if they share in decision making process”
(Burke, 1968). Thus, public participation can act as a behavioral change mechanism for
inclusion of public in decision making.
Public participation can be an effective tool in supplementing the workforce in plan
making and plan implementation process. There are many experts in an area and their
knowledge and energy can be tapped efficiently if public involvement is carried out
rationally and judiciously.
Cooption as a technique in public participation will help in harnessing the existing citizen
groups for sanctioning the planning goals and objectives through absorbing new
element or potential obstructions in decision making process.
It can be seen that many strategy for public participation can be tried to ensure effective
and increased participation. There might be a need for adapting the various prevalent
strategies according to the demand of the situation or the working environment.
Some of the benefits of the public participation can be enumerated as follows:
a. It can enhance the quality of planning by creating processes that are more
democratic and equitable. The poor often have little, if any, voice in government
decisions. Consultation and dialogue between local government and interest
groups representing the poor can give the latter more voice and influence over
decisions.

24
b. Participatory planning encourages the poor to be more responsible for, involved
in and aware of their role in local governance. It can help reduce potential conflict
and build local people’s feeling of ownership in the government’s plan.
c. Participatory planning can result in programmes that are better and more
efficient. By consulting the poor and giving voice to their concerns and needs, the
resulting actions are more likely to be relevant and appropriate to the conditions
they face. For instance, simply consulting people about their daily schedules can
help government provide services at times when people are likely to make best
use of them.
d. Participatory planning can increase the transparency of governmental decision
making. This allows citizens to understand how and why the local government is
making certain decisions. It is also a way of holding government members
accountable for what they planned to do. It can improve mutual understanding
and trust between the poor and local government.
e. User involvement raises awareness and is particularly important to enable an
“informed choice”, and for the proper operation of on-site systems, as neglecting
their needs and preferences can result in the non-use of the system with users
reverting to open defecation.
f. Working with a participatory planning approach improves motivation, learning
and self-realization, feelings of ownership and self-esteem, and the possibility
that the identified problems and solutions will truly reflect the felt needs of the
stakeholders.
Citizens can be used as instrument for the attainment of specific end of development
and in other we can say that public participation can be an strategy for mobilizing the
government in framing or sanctioning development projects. Sometimes, public

25
participation can be used as instrument for stability, educational tool for changing and
modulating attitude, supplementing staff, cooperation for development.
After having gone through the various benefits and the rationale for enhanced public
participation in planning process, it will be wise to study some of the negative aspects of
the participatory planning process from the next section.
2.7 NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY PLANNING
Even those who are most sympathetic towards participatory planning have pointed out
some shortcomings of the process. High degree of citizen mobilization will heighten
political conflicts rather than consensus (Grant, 1994).
As stated by Day (1997) there is the problem that the outcomes of participatory
processes will not truly reflect the aggregate of citizen preferences as few people take
the advantages of the opportunities for participation that do exist. Also Grant (1994)
explains that participation is a luxury in modern societies because it requires skills,
resources, money and, time that many citizen do not have. People tend to become
involved in planning issues only when they perceive that the issue is in their immediate
and tangible interest (Catanese et al, 1984). Sometimes, objectives of participation are
those of experts and being possessive of their ideas often planners and policy makers
are unwilling to admit nonprofessional interference in decision making. Some of the
shortcomings of the participatory planning can be enlisted as follows:
a. The participative approach has not been yet validated in real case studies,
therefore its actual application is still unknown
b. To start each of the steps, a set of technical and non-technical requirements
need to be met, which in many cases might not be in the hands of the planner

26
and the sanitation team. This situation could discourage the team, and the
process could be stopped
c. In order to carry out such a process, it is necessary to train the community
workers in participatory techniques
d. To carry out a participatory decision making process, it is necessary to
continuously involve the stakeholders and organize meetings for discussion. This
will need the availability of sufficient funds and time
e. There is the risk of concentrating the decision making process only on those
stakeholders who have a technical background (such as sanitation experts) and
the authorities, leaving the end users out of the process
Thus, we can see that participatory process is not a fool proof mechanism for planning.
It can be seen that the need of public participation arises due to two main reasons so far
as I can perceive and they are either the plan/planning is inadequate to serve the
purpose of the general public or we want to share responsibility or to counter the
bureaucracy and political stalemate. This also reflects that planners’ expertise in interest
articulations fails and then the need for greater participation arises. In society, there
exist far greater differences than assumed equality of resources, access to information,
capacity to articulate and present issues, capacity to organize into groups that forms the
conceptual foundation upon which participatory methods and processes are built
(Beatley, 1994 et al). Participation is often skewed in the interest of the influential
classes or some powerful groups active in decision making. If few groups participate
then it is sure to get skewed plans and if many groups participate then it become
unmanageable and sometimes it take a lot of time in arriving at consensus or common
agenda.

27
2.8 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING APPROACHES
Participatory planning processes can have many goals with a variety of communication
modes, as well as the decision- making actions taken by stakeholders during such a
process. Parties involved in a planning process have their own goals based on political,
cultural and economic factors that are relevant for them. The overall challenge is to
define how to support these processes. One approach to tackle this challenge is to
make a careful definition of the needs of the intended audience. These needs can be
roughly divided into three main orientations that are described below (Geertman, 1996,
Wachowicz, 2002).
Decision-OrientedApproach
The central paradigm in this approach is that planning is a process of choice in a
situation of uncertainty. This uncertainty is present in the knowledge of the planning
environment. In this case, one is not sure about the physical and socio-economic
structure of the environment and its response upon the actions of actors. The goal of
planning is mainly to inform actors about future decision- making and make future
operational decisions interpretable
Action-OrientedApproach
In this approach, planning is defined as the result of actions between actors, which are
part of the socio-spatial system. Their actions need to be compliant to and embedded in
the society. Decisions are based upon interactions among actors. This means that the
focus of planning is not per se on a critical evaluation of the spatial organization itself,
but on the analysis of the intentional actions and knowledge of the actors involved in
planning.

28
Search-OrientedApproach
The aim of planning as search for direction is not directly to prepare for an operational
decision given a well-defined problem, but to reveal alternatives and new solutions
outside the direct scope of the observed problems. It is meant for actors to learn and
become wiser (Kleefmann, 1984).
2.9 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF PARTICIPATION
The following paragraphs will discuss some of the prevalent tools and techniques used
in the participatory planning process being undertaken by various authorities across the
world. Public participation has a vast theoretical and practical tools and techniques.
Let’s look at some of the tools and techniques for public participation discussed in the
document of (European Union Water Directors’ Meeting, 2002).
Citizens Jury/CitizenAdvisory Committee
Group of 12-20 randomly selected citizens, gathered in such a way as to represent a
microcosm of their community, who meet over several days to deliberate on a policy
questions. They are informed about the issue, hear evidence from witnesses and cross-
examine them. They then discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach a decision
through consensus.
Strengths of this technique are many It creates informed, active, engaged citizenry and
promotes common good as a societal objective. It promotes self-transformation and
development and provides opportunities to introduce new perspectives and challenge
existing ones. It helps in consensus building and promotes communication between
governments and governed. It also brings legitimacy and democratic control to non-
elected public bodies

29
Weaknesses of the technique are fewer than benefits. There is no formal powers; lack
of binding decision accountability to act upon decision /recommendation. It is exclusive -
only a few individuals participate. Potential problems lie in initial stages of preparation
(i.e., jury selection, agenda setting, witness selection) - these have to do with
representation (who participates?) responsiveness (what jury is asked to do); and
information transfer (how jury is informed?)
The technique can be recommended for use when sponsoring organization are clear
about what issues it wants to address, how much it can spend on process, and whether
it can follow through on the advice. It is better for focused questions about concrete
issues, than on large scale issues and should be part of a wider public involvement
strategy. The development of the agenda should be overseen by an advisory board
made up of key stakeholders
Planning Cells/Committees
This technique is similar to a citizens’ jury in form and function. It is sponsored by local
or national governing authorities to help with the decision making process.
Discussions/deliberation takes place in Cells of about 25 participants in size. Results
are articulated in a report that is presented to the sponsor, the media, and any other
interested group. Local/national sponsor has to agree to take decisions into
consideration.
This technique is good for small size of individual cells and its non-intimidating nature
allows for innovative ideas and active participation. Participants represent all citizens
and not special interest groups. Anyone in the population has a chance of being
selected to be a part of this process. It makes decision makers more accountable
because they have to defend their position resulting decisions are frequently

30
implemented. Weaknesses of the technique are that problems are defined by local
authority and only useful for problems in need of unique decisions. Decisions not always
feasible and it becomes hard to keep bias out of information dissemination process. It
can be used when other methods fail to resolve a conflict. It is best in situations that
require a quick response to an urgent issue where there are a number of possible
decisions that can be made.
Workshops and Seminars
The authority or the consultants invites the stakeholders. Usually 2-6 hour workshop is
held. The authority or the consultants talk about their plans and proposals and seek the
opinion of the participants in writing or oral. Strengths of the technique are that it can be
used effectively for communicating information about the plans and proposals. It is
useful method for obtaining informed opinions from stakeholders. Weakness of the
technique is that it is exclusionary process as selected participants are invited for the
workshop or seminar. There is ambiguity in the process of selection of stakeholders and
participant for the workshop. It is recommended as a tool for encouraging discussion
and deliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problems
associated with it.
DeliberativePolling
It builds on the opinion poll by incorporating element of deliberation. It involves larger
numbers than citizen’s juries and may involve less time. It measures what public would
think if it was informed and engaged around an issue. Strength of the Technique is that
it provides insights into public opinions and how people come to decisions. It helps in
seeking informed opinions, does not force people to reach consensus. Weakness of the
Technique is that it requires a lot of preparation time. Although sample size is large and
random, ensuring representativeness is difficult. It is recommended for drawing insight

31
into public opinion and helps useful input into public decision processes. Best suited to
issues with options and about which the public is not knowledgeable.
Citizens Panels
It consists of statistically representative sample of residents in a given area. Most
comprise several thousand citizens who represent the general population of an area.
Panel views are regularly sought using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, telephone
surveys). It is an expensive and effective way to learn about citizens’ needs and
preferences. Panel data can be analyzed for multiple purposes and disaggregated for
sub-level analysis (i.e. ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic, geographic area). Weakness
of the Technique is that there is exclusivity of participant selection process. Consultation
agenda determined by decision-making body (i.e. top down) and under-representation
of hard-to-reach groups who refuse to participate. Due to the expense as well as the
design, the panel is best suited for the development of major community wide policy
documents. Limit to new policy areas, where community opinion and policy direction
have yet to be determined and mobilization has not yet occurred.
Focus Groups
It is a onetime discussion of a particular topic. It involves 6-12 individuals selected to
meet specific criteria in order to broadly represent a particular segment of society. One-
time face-to-face meeting structured to be informal to encourage open discussion
among participants. Successful focus group may lead to consensus and feelings of
enrichment among participants. It provides good venue for learning about needs of a
particular group. It remains largely informal, so participants can discuss issues in
relaxed atmosphere. It is a good way to gauge the opinions of the public. Lack of

32
informed participants produces superficial discussion. Selection criteria can create bias
in eliciting opinions. Limited number of participants limits representativeness of
opinions. There is always potential for ideas expressed to be influenced/shaped by
interaction/exchange with others. It can be a tool for encouraging discussion and
deliberation, but needs to be used with much caution because of the problems
associated with it.
Surveys
This is a process of soliciting information from a given representative sample of citizens
through questionnaires. Same questions are asked of ever individual surveyed. There
are a variety of survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone. It helps in soliciting
information from representative sample of citizens. Same questions are asked of ever
individual surveyed and thus results represent the ground realities. There are a variety
of survey types: postal, interviewer, telephone. The lists may not be representative or
comprehensive. Questions need to be somewhat simple and straightforward. Survey
results are often not comparable. The effectiveness of surveys is affected by the rates
of response. Fundamental decisions have to be made before the survey begins which
limits the scope. As it is a time consuming process, it is not a good method if quick
results are required. It can be used during the beginning phases of a study (useful in
detecting issues that need to be addressed).
Public Hearings
It is a form of public meeting limited in size. It tends to involve only interested citizens
and usually experts. It has great potential to inform citizens and potential for improved
decision making. It helps in minimizing the conflicts. It may be dominated by special
interest groups and feed-back obtained from this format needs to be treated carefully
because it may not be representative of the community. It leads to exclude the

33
inarticulate and perhaps disadvantaged groups. It is recommended when there is a pre-
submission phase which allows the public time to become familiar with the issues. This
process has been used more frequently as the number of the complaints are increasing
day by in the public offices for various planning projects. The expert members are better
equipped to handle such hearings.
OpenHouses
The public is invited to drop by at any time at a set location on a set day(s) and times.
They can speak with staff, view the displays set up in the room and break into small
discussion groups. The technique provides a relaxed atmosphere for discussion and
debate. It enables staff to tailor responses according to the needs/questions of the
public There is potential for lack of clarity in purpose and it is staff-resource intensive
exercise which needs trained facilitators to co-ordination the various conflicting interest
groups and helping them reach for consensus after the deliberations and discussions.
CitizenAdvisory Committee
It can be made up of a variety of different organizations (e.g. from governmental to
public). It is intended to represent the broader public. If committee is balanced,
deliberations can be fruitful. Their advice should influence decision making process.
Informed citizens can boost trust in institutions and reduce conflict. It may not be a
representative group of people but comprises of the expert members of the community
and the government agencies undertaking planning process.
Referenda
It is a process wherein an issue is put to popular vote. It can be initiated by
governmental or other organizations, or sometimes the citizenry. Results may or may
not be considered binding. It incites discussion and interest in public. It is a way to learn
public views and way to get citizens directly involved with the legislative process. All

34
voters have equal influence. It can potentially involve all members of a local or national
population Results may not be representative if there is low voter turnout Limited
number of times you can use it. It has potential for undue influence if one organization
has greater resources than another when campaigning for or against a proposed
referendum.
Here is the recapitulation of the important points regarding the various tools and
techniques of public participation in the table given below.
Table 2-1 Comparative Tables for Various Techniques for Participation
Source: Compiled from European Union Water Directors’ Meeting, 2002
The above table no. 2.1 gives us some details on the level of participation, their major
nature and character of participation process and finally authors has suggested their
uses at various stages of public participation processes like informing, consulting and
resolution of the differences i.e. consensus building. The choice of the various tools and
techniques of the public participation depends on various factors like nature of the
participation, scale of the planning, understanding of the needs, expertise and capacity
of the authority and agency undertaking such initiative, provisions of the guidelines and
the willingness of the authority to engage public in what manner.

35
In context of urban development, we will use the tools and techniques adopted in
Master Plans and City Development Plans. This will form the basis for our study and
further adaptation for Local Area plans. Hence, we will discuss the following tools and
techniques will be dealt in greater details in the succeeding chapter.
a) Objections and Suggestions
b) Stakeholders Participation
c) Workshop Based Methods
It has been a great experience exploring the various terms and definitions related to
public participation and the minor distinction among them. From the definitions
discussed above we have reached to a consensus that participatory planning a process
of engaging various stakeholders and empowering them so as to make them an integral
part of the process of information sharing and decision making through the process of
consensus building and other forms of consultations.
While discussing the various methods of the public participation which evolved over
time and which had been popular during some period of time under the prevailing socio-
economic and political conditions. For the purpose of plan preparation, we have come to
conclusion that the prevalent techniques and tools that can be effective used and which
is being used in various planning exercises like open house discussion, workshops and
seminars, invitation for objection and suggestion and stakeholders’ consultation with
experts are more relevant.
2.10 MANDATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLAN MAKING: SIX STRATEGIC
CHOICES
For testing a hypothesis or comparing different types of qualitative data need a rational
and generally accepted frame of reference which can be deducted through the study of
various techniques and tools or adopting and modifying the existing one. Here, we have

36
tried to evolve a framework for analyzing the effectiveness and extent of public
participation in planning process. The valuation technique can be credited to Samuel D.
Brody, David R. Godschalk and Raymond J.Burby in their article Mandating Citizen
Participation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Choices published in American Journal of
Planning Association in 2003. The framework for analysis has been further developed
after the study of different techniques and necessary adjustment was made.
Figure 2-1 Six Stages for effective Participation
Source: 11. Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and Burby Raymond J.(2003)
Let’s discuss them in somewhat detail to get what we really indent to get and evaluate.
And simultaneously make a checklist of intended objectives for various stages or steps
which we are going to use for evaluating the effectiveness and extent of public
participation in planning.
Program Administration
There should be specified level of resources committed to public participation. The
exhaustive guidelines for Citizen Participation have to be developed. There should be
identification of probable groups. Clearly defined opportunities to express their interests

37
and trained staff members to conduct participation. There should be provision for
external consultant to monitor participation.
Program administration is a vital stage where a planner or a policy maker can intervene
for ensuring public participation. The capacity building of urban local bodies for such
participation exercise in needed in many small and large towns. The ineffective conduct
of participation exercise may be of no importance. The purpose of the participation
should be transparency and two way feedback mechanism.
Communicationto Target Groups
The method of communicating to the target groups should be defined. The duration and
frequency of informing the public or participants has to be defined.
Communication to the target groups become the deciding factor in public participation.
Inefficient participation may lead to an unjust and biased planning giving advantage to
some and making others disadvantaged. Unbiased and transparent mechanism of
communication will serve the purpose. But it is the duty of planners to ensure that those
who can give positive inputs to the plans must be there and those who can’t vent off
their issues and problems are given adequate opportunity to do so. Enough time should
be provided with adequate information so that people can know well before on what
topic or issue they have to talk.
Stages of Public Involvement
At what stages participation desirable or opted and when the first participation should
start has to be framed well in advance. In general, scholars believe that to ensure
meaningful stakeholder involvement, it must occur “early, often, and ongoing”
(Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000, p. 103). Early participation injects community knowledge
and expertise into the planning process when it is most needed, before policies are set

38
in stone. Furthermore, early stakeholder involvement allows plans to reflect public views
and preferences. Participation that begins at a later stage, although capable of eliciting
clear and focused responses from participants, may come too late to make a lasting
impact on the final plan (Alterman et al., 1984). Participation that does not begin until
public hearings at the end of the planning process may generate an adversarial,
reactionary atmosphere that reduces support for implementing the plan. Basically there
will be three stages of participation which are pre-planning, planning and post planning.
How Many and which Type of Groups
There should be identifications of groups who are affected and who can benefit the
planning process. What specific contribution a stakeholder can make can also be
worked out to take maximum benefits.
The skill of identification of stakeholders should be developed as in all the societies
there might not be same type of stakeholders and sometimes the so called
representative might not represent the views of all the groups under his supervision. So,
it become the task of the planner to pin-point such stakeholders and their local
representatives. Sometimes, it becomes the job of the planner to interpret the views of
such people who can’t express their views or simple dissent the meeting.
Techniques for Citizen's Input
Different techniques and tools for participation should be used at different stages to take
the maximum benefits of the public participation and simultaneously facilitate it. “It is
important to note that planners use a variety of citizen participation techniques to
accomplish any given objective. Some techniques are used more frequently to
accomplish multiple objectives, such as subcommittees or workgroups, educational
workshops, and talks to community groups. These techniques are broader in their focus

39
and serve a number of purposes. Some participatory techniques serve only certain
objectives, such as visioning and household surveys to learn citizen preferences. These
techniques are more specific in their intent and are more tailored to achieving a specific
objective”( Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and Burby Raymond J.,2003). Now
look at the nature and type of information sharing.
Nature and Type of Information
The nature and type of information to be shared should be clarified. There should be
possibility for maximum transparency and sharing of information with the users and
participants. Information is power, and the way it is collected, stored, and disseminated
is a vital for making people aware of the ground realities and they might feel free to
participate through different channels of communications. Information should be widely
accessible and highly integrated into all stages of the process of developing a plan by a
public authority which gives transparency to the planning process.
On the basis of the model developed by Brody, Samuel D., Godschalk, David R. and
Burby Raymond J.(2003), author has evolved a framework for analysis purpose of the
study undertaken to know the various facets of the participatory plan making process.
2.11 ADOPTED FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
A four stepped analysis for inquiring into the effectiveness of the existing practices of
statutory and extra-statutory public participation techniques used in planning for cities. It
will be discussed in a bit brief for better understanding of the underlying concepts.
Figure 2-2 Four Stepped Analysis Technique

40
Source: Author’s Proposition
Information
• Types of information to make public
• Educating the public
• Informing the public
• Existing and proposed map; Vision document; Summaries of plan; Growth
projections; Summaries of citizen participation and; Alternative plans or proposals.
Information is power, and the way it is collected, stored, and disseminated is a vital for
making people aware of the ground realities and they might feel free to participate
through different channels of communications. Information should be widely accessible
and highly integrated into all stages of the process of developing a plan by a public
authority which gives transparency to the planning process. There should be conscious
efforts by the authority dealing with such process to educate the public so that he can
give a better input and feel that he is welcome by the agency in the planning process.
Informing is very important as selective informing or informing in such a manner that few

41
can access such information then it becomes less worthwhile unless there are
conscious efforts for such response in sensitive matters.
Consideration
 Composition of the board of inquiry
 Method of hearing people’s concerns
 Methods of inputs of the citizen’s views
 Ground for consideration of a particular view
 Who considers
Consideration of views expressed by the participants is vital in effective participatory
mechanism. So far as possible there should be impartial, independent and qualified
board of inquiry and hearing. There should be transparency in the process so that
people have a greater say. If board of hearing decides to incorporate a particular criteria
for consideration and it must be communicated well in advance. Who considers the
objections and suggestions become important in assessing the impartiality and
comprehensiveness of the process? Participatory planning enables us to answer
questions like, “Who else needs to be in this discussion? How can we engage all of our
stakeholders? Who has previously been silent that needs to be heard? What are the
many voices that constitute our organization or community”? Consideration is the true
reflection of the participatory approach of the planning. No matter how well the public is
informed if he is not heard he will feel cheated which can be overcome by resolution.
ResolutionandConsensus Building
 Identifications of groups who are affected and who can benefit the planning process
 What specific contribution a stakeholder can make

42
 Business groups; Local Elite; Local elected Representatives; Development groups;
Local authorities; Neighbourhood groups along with RWAs; Media; Social and
environmental groups; NGOs; Professionals and experts in the field; Disadvantaged
groups
 Process of dissemination of information and judgment
 Channels of communication
The skill of identification of stakeholders should be developed as in all the societies.
There might not be same type of stakeholders and sometimes the so called
representative might not represent the views of all the groups under his supervision. So,
it become the task of the planner to pin-point such stakeholders and their local
representatives. Sometimes, it becomes the job of the planner to interpret the views of
such people who can’t express their views or simple dissent the meeting.
The inclusion of multiple stakeholders demands that participatory planning values and
understands diversity; that it encourages and finds ways to create harmony among
differences; and that it defines success as everyone wins. Relational integrity
challenges participatory planning to be sure that all voices are heard and that all people
are ‘whole’ in the process and with the results. Whenever one person or group of people
is compromised for the benefit of another person or group, the organization or
community is out of integrity. Participatory planning walks the essential line of integrity
while balancing many diverse needs, akin to a juggler on a high wire. “Successful
participatory planning requires relational integrity. When organization or community
members are involved in a process they expect, and rightfully so, that their voices will
be heard, their dreams will be considered and their lives will be enriched” (Whitney,
2007). Then, there comes the need for effective dissemination of information and
outcomes of the review and inquiry committees to the public and the people concerned.

43
Influence and Impact
 Influence of the participation
 Changes in the plans or proposal
 Awareness among public
 Trial of alternate plan
 Modifications in the process
 Public Acceptance
 Redressal of the grievances of the affected group
The real test of public participation is the influence and impact that it makes on the
tradition authoritarian planning system and planning process. The level of participation
will increase if the participation is well entertained by the planners and the policy makers
for the betterment of the society and development of civic life and environment. The
transparency in communicating the changes and modifications will embolden public and
this will raise their level of faith in the participatory planning system and mechanism.
2.12 CONCLUSIONS
Going through the four steps of analysis, we will be in a position to judge and assess
the effectiveness, intensity and extent of participation in the planning process which is
very crucial in modern democratic societies where aspirations of different groups have
to be taken into account simultaneously vis-à-vis the vision and goal of a well-balanced
development of the society. There are various methods and techniques for engaging
public in planning process. But, here we will be using and studying the statutory and no-
statutory public participation prevalent in our city planning domain. Every methods and
techniques have their merits and demerits and this will surely help us in devising a
better way for public participation through the modification in the existing mechanism.

44
CHAPTER 3 PARTICIPATORY PLANNING EXPERIENCES IN SELECTED
PROGRAMMES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Participatory Planning has been in practice for a long time in various forms in different
planning and development programmes and projects. For the sake of better
comprehension and understanding participatory planning in the context of India, case
studies studied have been selected keeping in view the participatory approach in
programmes administration, planning policy, decision making and plan implementation
and maintenance of public facilities and services. The selection of case studies is such
that it will be easy to interpret the pros and cons of the engagement of the public in the
process. This will help in further perception of the true nature of the public participation,
how it is affected, how it is enabled, what makes it difficult to practice. The case studies
will highlight the informing process, objectives of the programme or participation,
consultation process and selection of groups or stakeholders, process of consideration
and resolution of conflicts and finally the impact and outcomes of the public participation
in the policy and programme. The selected case studies are Kerala Rural Development,
National Policy for Urban Street Vendors, City Development Plan in general, Bhagidari
Scheme in Delhi and Local Agenda 21 for public participation. The cases will be
discussed in detail to find out the components of public participation like purposes of
participation, extent and intensity of the participation that took place or such provisions
in the policy or planning practices undertaken. Sample of program administration,
planning policy, development plan and consequent implementation strategy adopted by
local bodies will be discussed in subsequent sections.

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Semelhante a Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma (20)

Mais de Shashikant Nishant Sharma

Mais de Shashikant Nishant Sharma (12)

Último

Último (20)

Participatory Planning in Plan Preparation: A Case of Delhi by Shashikant Nishant Sharma