Collaborative Planning by Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Abstract

We build our conceptual model of successful collaborative planning from the theoretical framework developed by Judith Innes and her research colleagues and the broader 527621J PEXXX10.1177/0739456X14527621Journal of Planning Education and ResearchDeyle and Wiedenman research-article2014Abstract More than twenty years of case study research have produced a rich theoretical framework for understanding the outcomes that can be achieved through effective collaborative planning and the starting conditions, process characteristics, and participant attributes and behaviors that can facilitate achieving those outcomes. Multivariate modeling of collaborative development of draft long-range transportation plans by the technical advisory committees of 88 U.S. metropolitan planning organizations supports nearly all of the hypotheses that have emerged from this case study literature. In this context, however, while consensus building best practices contribute significantly to success, formal consensus-based decision making emerges as not critical.

Learning to Manage Common Resources: Stakeholders Playing a Serious Game See Increased Interdependence in Groundwater Basin Management

“…Second, there is a growing emphasis on collaboration with beneficiaries to achieve desired management outcomes-not only the sustainable management of CPR, but also the creative, flexible, "win-win" solutions that collaboration is believed to foster [15]. SGMA therefore implements a collaborative approach applied in many policy domains, including watershed management [16,17], hydropower licensing [18,19], marine conservation [20], transportation planning [21][22][23], as forest restoration [24], and regional land-use planning [25].…”

“…When collaboration levels are low, governance can be dominated by elite stakeholders, which raises normative concerns. In addition, a small but growing body of research suggests that poor collaboration leads to inferior policies, such as less creative plans [23], longer decision times [18], superficial or flawed use of scientific knowledge [30], and inferior results on objective goals such as water quality [31]. Even proponents of game-theoretic perspectives on conflict-which stress self-interested behavior far more than the creativity and mutual gains possible through collaboration-call attention to the importance of game fairness to explain stakeholder motivation for ongoing cooperation [32].…”

Urban planning from a top-down to a bottom-up model: the case of Mexicali, Mexico

“…Although created in the 1990s, it appears most clearly from 2000 to date, in a context where the state-market relationship is being strengthened, with the promotion of alliances between the public, private and social sectors towards the construction of desirable futures through the public agenda, the transition from vertical planning to governance is also put forward. The model is based on strategic, but it introduces two concepts: communicative rationality, directed to the creation of an objectivity based on the agreement between individuals, supplemented by a second concept, communicative action, regarding the process through which participants reach intersubjective understanding by the coordination of discussion and socialization, debates where the integration of objective knowledge and narrative is favored [5][6][7][8]. Planning is participatory, bottom-up, as different interest groups work together in solving their problems through communication strategies, and the planner acts as a mediator to reach agreed decisions.…”

Metropolitan Centers: Evaluating Local Implementation of Regional Plans and Policies

“…In their analysis of TACs from 88 MPOs, Deyle and Wiedenman (2014) found statistical confirmation of a series of hypotheses founded on collaborative process theory. Basing their work on , Innes and Gruber (2005), and , Deyle and Wiedenman surveyed TAC members on the degree to which the attainment of positive "collaboration space" attributes correlated with process outcomes.…”

“…Given the level of technical expertise of most TAC members and the regularity with which they typically interact with each other in professional settings, TACs tend to have a dominant influence on final decisions, over and above the other players in the process (Hamroun, 2006;Deyle and Wiedenman, 2014). Policy boards, which have the final say in the decision process, come in a variety of sizes.…”