Incremental, Transactive and Advocacy Planning

Presented by Muhamad Salaha Uddin Lecturer Department of Urban and Regional Planning Khulna University of Engineering and Technology

Incremental Planning
- Chief Spokesperson for the Incremental Planning approach is Charles Lindblom. - Describes it as partisan mutual adjustment or Disjointed instrumentalism. - Decentralized bargaining process, best suited to a free and democratic political economy.

Incremental Planning
Central Assumptions There is not a right solution as time, money, information and mental capabilities of the planners are not sufficient (Kinyashi 2006; Mitchell 2002). Thus, only a few options are identified and evaluated which differ only marginally from each other as well as from the existing situation. There are different views and interests as well as multiple problems (Mitchell 2002). Big changes are carried out best in little, practicable steps over a long period leading to satisfying results (not necessarily the maximum) (Mitchell 2002).

Incremental Planning
Assumptions and Role of Planner
The planner is considered to be bounded rational (Larsen 2003; Mitchell 2002) who simplifies the complex world to an easier model. often does not know the right problem and thus is not always able to determine a clear definition of goals and measures and thus tries to find a satisfactory solution rather than the best one (Mitchell 2002). Thus, the planner is considered less as the expert. His task is particularly to determine the type of problem to be solved and to mediate between different views and interests to reach a consensus (Mitchell 2002; Hostovsky 2007).

Incremental Planning
Role of Polulation
The civil society can make a contribution to planning as the provider of information (strategic/functional participation for generating information, relieving administration, increasing social acceptance) (Kinyashi 2006).

Incremental Planning
Planning Process
Planning is carried out more decentrally than in the rational planning process. Both the population and more agencies are involved in planning.

Important features of the planning process are

There is no clear determination of goals and objectives; rather they are determined by a mixture of intuition, experiences, rules of thumb and a series of consultancies (Larsen 2003). Only a few options are considered and evaluated (Mitchell 2002). Analyzing and evaluation are distributed among more agencies and organizations within society (Fainstein and Fainstein 1996). The problem is redefined at regular intervals (Larsen 2003; Mitchell 2002). A satisfying solution is one for which substantive consensus can be attained. The process is an ongoing chain of incremental decisions (evolutionary approach) (Mitchell 2002). Simple analyzing and modeling techniques as well as communication techniques are used.

Incremental Planning Criticisms

no radical changes are possible; solutions cannot be optimized; the focus is on what can be implemented (Slusser 2007).

Comparison Between Incremental and Rational Planning

Rational Comprehensive Excessive focus on production of master plan and inflexibility makes it unworkable for a shift from product oriented to process oriented planning Incremental approach Incremental model is based on successive limited comparison. Therefore, it favors the shift from government to governance

It focused on the use of scientific and Encourages public participation theoretical approach which results in thereby more accommodating to the production of master plans. It is process oriented planning therefore product oriented It is very mechanical and paternalistic with a high degree of control over decision-making. It is more of government. Stakeholder participation result in more cooperative process of policy and decision making which technically converts government to governance.

Transactive Planning
Transactive planning is another alternative to comprehensive rational planning. The transactive planning model is based on communicative rationality. This type of rationality is based on human communication and dialogue between planners and the people affected by planning (Kinyashi 2006; Larsen 2003). The transactive approach was developed by Friedmann (1973) in response to the problems posed by centralization in social planning situations relying on rational-comprehensive models. Transactive planning is very decentralized and emphasizes grass-roots involvement of people who may be affected by planning decisions

Transactive Planning
Involvement , How? The transactive planning approach focuses on the intact experience of people's lives revealing policy issues to be addressed. Planning is not carried out with respect to an anonymous target community of beneficiaries, but in faceto-face contact with the people affected by decisions. Planning consists less of field surveys and data analyses, and more of interpersonal dialogue marked by a process of mutual learning.

Transactive Planning: Model Adapted by Friedman

Transactive Planning Central assumptions There exist various interests within society. The interpersonal dialogue triggers a mutual learning process leading to an intensive communication about measures.

Transactive Planning
Assumptions and role of the planner Planners act as supporters and participants among many (Mitchell 2002). Equipped with technical knowledge, communicative and group-psychological skills, planners are able to reduce the disparities between the participants and reach consensus (Kinyashi 2006). Planners are the centre of systematic knowledge; they also mediate between different interests and communicate information between the actors in the planning process (Larsen 2003).

Transactive Planning

Role of the population The population bring a central contribution to the planning process with their traditional knowledge and experiences. They plan and steer actively (Kinyashi 2006).

Transactive Planning
Planning process Planning is carried out decentrally. In an open atmosphere the expertise of the planner and the experimental knowledge of the population are combined and transformed into shared measures (Kinyashi 2006). The planning process is characterised by: interpersonal dialogue and mutual learning (Mitchell 2002); a central focus on individual and organisatorial development ( capacity building) (Larsen 2003; Mitchell 2002); partnership building; incorporation of traditional knowledge (Mitchell 2002). Planning in this model is considered less as a scientific-technical activity than in the comprehensive rational planning model. In fact, planning is considered as a face-to-face interaction between planners and the local population affected by plans. Thus, planning is more a subjective endeavour than an objective process.

Transactive Planning
Criticism Participation takes time which parts of the population do not have, especially the poorer ones. Their interests may be ignored; high participation costs; Sometimes the population may not be prepared to plan for the long run and thereby to postpone short-term satisfaction. (Hostovsky 2007).

Incremental Vs Transactive Planning

In contrast to incremental planning, more emphasis is given to processes of personal and organizational development, and not just the achievement of specific functional objectives. Plans are evaluated not merely in terms of what they do for people through delivery of goods and services, but in terms of the plans effect on people-on their dignity and sense of effectiveness, their values and behavior, their capacity for growth through cooperation, their spirit of generosity. By contrast, incremental planning adheres more closely to the economic logic of individuals pursuing their own self-interest.

Advocacy Planning
The advocacy planning movement grew up in the sixties rooted in adversary procedures modeled upon the legal profession, and usually applied to defending the interests of weak against strong-community groups, environmental causes, the poor, and the disenfranchized against the established powers of business and government. (Alinsky 19'71; Heskin 1977.)

Advocacy Planning
Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning," resonated with the frustration of many planners in their inability to meaningfully address the social and economic issues tearing at the fabric of American cities. Davidoff called for the distribution of planning services into low-income, minority neighborhoods through a cadre of advocate planners who would be physically located in neighborhoods and would represent the interests of neighborhood residents in city-level planning processes.

Advocacy Planning
Advocacy planning has proven successful as a means of blocking insensitive plans and challenging traditional views of a unitary public interest. In theory, advocacy calls for development of plural plans rather than a unit plan (Davidoff 1965). In practice, however, advocacy planning has been criticized for posing stumbling blocks without being able to mobilize equally effective support for constructive alternatives (Peattie 1968). One effect of the advocacy movement has been to shift formulation of social policy from backroom negotiations out into the open.

Advocacy Planning (Process)

In advocacy, it is important to be proactive, not reactive. This is not to say that an organization will never be caught by surprise. However, with planning, even unpredictable events can be met with a more systematic and informed response, which greatly increases an association's chances of success.There is no universal template for strategy development, in general, advocacy plans should answer the following questions:

What is the problem that is trying to solve? What does it want to achieve? How are policy-related decisions made? Who does the association need to convince? What does the target audience need to hear? What needs to be done?

Advocacy Planning (Process)

Advocacy Planning (Process)

1. Identifyinh and Analyzing Problem:

Consultation - Listening to members and consulting other stakeholders and experts to have a comprehensive understanding of the main issues and concerns. Focused Research - Supports the problem analysis with well documented facts and provides convincing evidence of existing or potential impacts of this issue.

Problem Analysis - Allows for the creation of an advocacy strategy that addresses the underlying causes and effects of a particular issue.

Advocacy Planning (Process)

2. Establishing Priorities and Goals

Setting Priorities - Listening to members and consulting other stakeholders and experts to have a comprehensive understanding of the main issues and concerns. Policy Goals - Supports the problem analysis with well documented facts and provides convincing evidence of existing or potential impacts of this issue.

Advocacy Planning (Process)

3. Mapping the Policy Landscape Political Context - Understand the impact of elections, the status of important officials, and the dynamics of different political parties. Policy Process - Advocates must be familiar with the policy-making process related to their issue.

Advocacy Planning (Process)

4. Understanding the Target Audience Distinguish Target Audiences - The first step in identifying and understanding the target audience is to create a distinction between a campaigns primary audience and its secondary audience. Identifying Potential Allies / Opponents - Allows associations to channel their efforts appropriately and be prepared Audience Profiles - Contains information on the knowledge, beliefs, interests and constituents of each individual in the target audience and serves as a road map for future action.

Advocacy Planning (Process)

4. Developing a Communication Strategy Tailoring Messages - Involves communicating the basic arguments and objectives of an issue with the attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of the target audience in mind. Message Formats and Messengers - In order to appeal to large and diverse audiences, associations need to develop expertise in multiple channels of communication and choose an appropriate messenger. Media Strategies - Associations can influence policymakers and increase discussion of an issue by using different media strategies such as press releases, public events, interviews and opinion editorials. Developing a Message - A message is a concise and persuasive statement about an advocacy goal or goals that captures what an organization wants to achieve, why, and how.

Advocacy (Process)
5. Forming an Action Plan
Monitoring and Evaluation - Ongoing monitoring and evaluation is a central component of any successfully implemented plan. It ensures organizations learn from their successes as well as its failures and builds capacity over time. Short-Term Objectives - Action planning is the process of turning goals and strategies into short-term objectives that serve as interim benchmarks for associations and can be achieved through specific tactics and activities.

Advocacy Planning (Case Study)

Case Study : Advocacy Planning for Yosemite: Non- Governmental initiatives to resolve Conflict and Stimulate Governmental Action on Alternative Transit
The steady rise of tourism in Yosemite National Park in California, in the United States, has led to the increasing degeneration of the Park's environment. The direct impacts on the environment are a result of increasing numbers of visitors, use of private automobiles to access the Park, development of hotels and retail outlets, and illegal wildlife harvest. There has been a great deal of controversy focused particularly on transportation within the Park, with some groups advocating for restrictions on automobiles and others advocating for unimpeded access to the Park by private vehicles. The General Management Plan for the park, adopted by the National Park Service in 1980, calls for reductions in automobile use throughout the park and eventual elimination of automobiles from the heavily used Yosemite Valley. However, after twelve years, no action to implement this part of the Plan had been taken. At the initiation of The Wilderness Society (TWS), an environmental NGO, an "advocacy planning process" was conducted to develop a credible, alternative transit plan for Yosemite National Park in hopes of alleviating the damaging impacts of large numbers of private vehicles in the Park.

Advocacy Planning (Case Study)

The transit planning process, which involved input from the full spectrum of affected interest groups, involved the following steps: selection of a core planning team involving technical experts with strong credentials; data collection and analysis; briefings for key decision-makers within the National Park Service regarding the objectives and plans of the transit planning process; a five-day Planning Workshop early in the project to bring together representatives of major constituent groups and government entities in order to collaboratively develop a range of alternative responses to the transportation management for the Park; preparation of a transportation plan; and plans for public release of the project report following a series of briefings conducted for the U.S. National Park Service, key members of Congress, local government officials, and other NGOs.

Advocacy Planning (Case Study)

The project had the effect of increasing the attention paid by the National Park Service and surrounding jurisdictions to transportation issues, to help define the range of alternatives that should be considered by the National Park Service, and to tangible steps toward meeting the transportation goals of the 1980 park management plan. Specifically, as a result of TWS's project and the publicity it received, in 1991, the U.S. Congress funded governmental transportation planning at three parks, including Yosemite Consultants were hired by the National Park Service to conduct this planning, and the consultants utilized TWS's report in their work. Based on this consultant work, the National Park Service proceeded with formal consideration of alternative courses of action, including actions recommended by TWS.

Advocacy Planning (Case Study)

This "advocacy planning" effort was successful in meeting the goals of the project, (i.e., detailing alternative courses of action to manage transit and protect the Park's resources). It was also successful in helping to create and shape the political debate about implementation of Yosemite's General Management Plan and the need to move forward with a transportation system for the Park.

Advocacy Planning (Case Study)

Keys to the project's success included the willingness of the National Park Service to cooperate in the NGO effort, the assembly of a highly skilled and respected NGO planning team to give the effort credibility, and the early involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders in establishing the overall framework and scope of the study. The Planning Workshop was particularly important in this regard.