No abstract

No abstract

In this article, we examine recent efforts by the federal government to promote regional planning that incorporates social equity into sustainability and livability principles through the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant (SCRPG). We use a plan quality analysis framework to examine grant proposals from the 2010 awardees. The analysis asks whether these regional plan proposals represent a new equity planning or if regional-scale equity policy remains obscured in quality of life arguments. We conclude with respect to the Krumholz model that regional equity planning may signal commitment to equity policy, but that regional capacity to act for equity is lacking.

The use of scenario planning in urban and regional planning practice has grown in the last decade as one way to face uncertainty. However, in adapting scenario planning from its origins in the business sector, planners have eliminated two key components: (1) the use of multiple scenarios, and (2) the inclusion of diverse organizations, people, and interests through deep deliberations. We argue that this shift limits the ability of planners to plan for multiple plausible futures that are shaped by an increasing number of diverse actors. In this paper, we use case-study research to examine how uncertainty was considered in four scenario-planning processes. We analyzed and compared the cases based on analytical categories related to multiple futures and diversity. We found that the processes that used multiple, structurally distinct scenarios explored a wider range of topics and issues shaping places. All four relied heavily on professional stakeholders as the scenario developers, limiting public input. Only one of the processes that included multiple futures captured the differential effects that scenarios would have on diverse people and interests. Overall, the purpose of the scenario planning drove the participant diversity and ultimately the quality and use of the scenarios.

Power imbalances and cultural differences between community members can raise challenges for deliberative democrats who want to design equal and open dialogic processes. This article examines how one organization accounted for power and responded to cultural difference in its design of a deliberative planning process. My research indicates that a deliberative planning process can address power imbalances and cultural differences through several techniques. The hand-selection and strategic recruitment of participants ensures broad community representation within the process. The incorporation of storytelling, an emphasis on emphatic listening and the creation of a safe deliberative space, helps mitigate inequality and foster reciprocity. Power imbalances between participants can also be downplayed by focusing deliberations on broader planning and policy frameworks, as opposed to highly specified policy decisions. These techniques may best be implemented by focusing on dialogue instead of deliberation. Finally, this article reveals the importance of considering cultural difference, beyond its relation to power imbalance, to develop cross-cultural deliberative processes.