Table of Contents
Urban Studies Research
Volume 2011, Article ID 687834, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/687834
Research Article

Use of the Planning Outreach Liaison Model in the Neighborhood Planning Process: A Case Study in Seattle's Rainier Valley Neighborhood

1Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 7910 Swartz Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA
2School of Education and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 485 Lasuen Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
3Sharon Ryan Communications, 29 President Avenue, Providence, RI 02906, USA

Received 6 May 2011; Revised 31 August 2011; Accepted 22 September 2011

Academic Editor: Michelle Thompson-Fawcett

Copyright © 2011 Molly Oshun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. C. Howard, M. Lipsky, and D. R. Marshall, “Citizen participation in urban politics: rise and routinization,” in Big-City Politics, Governance, and Fiscal Constraints, G. E. Peterson, Ed., pp. 153–159, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  2. J. Hou and I. Kinoshita, “Bridging community differences through informal processes: reexamining participatory planning in Seattle and Matsudo,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 301–314, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. J. Burby, “Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 33–49, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
  5. P. Davidoff, “Advocacy and pluralism in planning,” Journal of American Institution of Planners, vol. 31, pp. 331–338, 1965. View at Google Scholar
  6. J. L. Uyesugi and R. Shipley, “Visioning diversity: planning Vancouver's multicultural communities,” International Planning Studies, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 305–322, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. A. MacLaren, V. Clayton, and P. Brudell, Empowering Communities in Disadvantaged Urban Areas: Towards Greater Community Participation in Irish Urban Planning (Part I), Combat Poverty Agency Working Series, Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin, Ireland, 2007.
  8. C. S. King, K. M. Feltey, and B. O. Susel, “The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration,” Public Administration Review, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 317–326, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  9. B. Born, Planning for a Successful Process: Updating Seattle's Neighborhood Plans, 2008, http://courses.washington.edu/studio67/planning_for_a_successful_process.pdf.
  10. T. Mazzella, “Innovative public engagement tools in transportation planning: application and outcomes,” in Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board's 89th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  11. R. A. Irvin and J. Stansbury, “Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?” Public Administration Review, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. van Meter, “Citizen participation in the policy management process,” Public Administration Review, vol. 35, pp. 804–812, 1975. View at Google Scholar
  13. J. E. Innes and D. E. Booher, “Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century,” Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 419–436, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. E. L. Evenhouse, “The people know best: developing civic participation in urban planning,” in Paper Presented at the Breslauer Graduate Student Symposium “The Public Interest”, University of California, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 2009.
  15. J. Forester, “Challenges of deliberation and participation,” Les Ateliers d'Ethique, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 20–25, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  16. S. D. Brody, D. R. Godschalk, and R. J. Burby, “Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 245–264, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. F. Fischer, “Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: the cultural politics of discursive space,” American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19–40, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. R. Arnstein, “A ladder of citizen participation,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 4, pp. 216–224, 1969. View at Google Scholar
  19. J. P. Kretzmann and J. L. McKnight, Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets, Institute for Policy Research, Evanston, Ill, USA, 1993.
  20. J. E. Innes, “Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 460–472, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. Stall and R. Stoecker, “Community organizing or organizing community? Gender and the crafts of empowerment in gender and social movements,” Gender and Society, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 729–56, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  22. N. Salafsky, R. Margoluis, K. H. Redford, and J. G. Robinson, “Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science,” Conservation Biology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1469–1479, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Trusted advocates: a multicultural approach to building and sustaining resident involvement,” Series from the Technical Assistance Resource Center of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2007, http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/trustedadvocate.pdf.
  24. M. A. Nemcek and R. Sabatier, “State of evaluation: community health workers,” Public Health Nursing, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 260–270, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. P. T. Giblin, “Effective utilization and evaluation of indigenous health care workers,” Public Health Reports, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 361–368, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. I. SenGupta, “Principal 5: there is clear, open and accessible communication between partners, making it an ongoing priority to listen to each need, develop a common language, and validate/clarify the meaning of terms,” in Principles of Good Community-Campus Partnerships, Community Campus Partnership for Health, pp. 41–46, 1998, http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/principles.html#principles. View at Google Scholar
  27. N. Ashan, Sustaining Neighborhood Change: The Power of Resident Leadership, Social Networks, and Community Mobilization, Baltimore, Md, USA, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008, http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/Authentic_guide_r14.pdf.
  28. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, Seattle's Population and Demographics, 2000, http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/Research/Population_Demographics/Census_2000_Data/Data_Maps_for_Locally_Defined_Areas/DPDS_007015.asp.
  29. City of Seattle, Parks and Recreation, Seattle Parks and Recreation Census 2000: A Demographic Overview of Seattle's Communities, 2006, http://cityofseattle.net/PARKS/Publications/Census/2000/Report.pdf.
  30. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, Characteristics of Language Neighborhood Districts. Characteristics of Language Census 2000: Summary File 3, 2000, http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds_007708.pdf.
  31. R. Morrill, “Gentrification, class and growth management in Seattle, 1990–2000,” in Global Perspectives on Urbanization, G. Pomeroy and G. Webster, Eds., University Press of America, Lanham, Md, USA, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  32. S. Pollack, B. Bluestone, and C. Billingham, “Maintaining diversity in America's transit-rich neighborhoods: tools for equitable neighborhood change,” A Report prepared by the Dukakis Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, Rockefeller Foundation, Boston, Mass, USA, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  33. M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1990.
  34. S. J. Taylor and R. Bogdan, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1998.
  35. City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods, Neighborhood Plan Areas, 2011, http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/npi/plans.htm.
  36. L. VeneKlasen and V. Miller, “Power and empowerment,” in A New Weave of Power, People & Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation, pp. 38–59, 2007, http://www.justassociates.org/ActionGuide.htm. View at Google Scholar
  37. City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods, Community Feedback Report: On Process for Neighborhood Plan Updates, 2008, http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/pubs/cfr042208.pdf.
  38. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, Neighborhood Planning Overview, 2010, http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/Planning/Neighborhood_Planning/Overview/.
  39. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, Neighborhood Plan Updates, 2010, http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/Planning/Neighborhood_Planning/NeighborhoodPlanUpdates/default.asp.
  40. City of Seattle, Department of Planning and Development, Neighborhood Plan Update-Planning Outreach Liaison: Community Workshops, 2009, http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@neighborplanning/documents/web_informational/dpdp017744.pdf.
  41. City of Seattle, City Clerk's Online Information, City of Seattle Legislative Information Service: Resolution Number: 31085, 2008, http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us.