. I~J55 i ”Ira 3w y“ . ‘I. ‘ ‘ “,ka ”III 4.3! . '.~ I ”'c I.III 355% g I M . .5” .' II, ') II‘III‘I 5555' 5 “55 .$ 5.3333345... $35 “3??)- -5.-‘3 5%2553505’351- 5' 333 , I IIIIII 3“?“ I IF’II’I . “v3.5. {\uIIII,‘ II ‘3‘“? I. "53%?“ '. 3:3? 5 f, {:52 ‘ I“|' I] I.“ IIII":I\I 'SIIfI-tlfi 4 V‘. I" «\II ’3- [333K 5.1 .-'3" MIA” ‘IJQIII'J‘13'AI391III6‘firm A-II'J' 533.5 III. I. I 3 F? 355.3%“ 3; . II .II 3 I o 7 L. *I I H I‘ ‘It‘ I” ”N . I fig}, “$.05", 3" 30!;1}\ 3\§AL"J>I5 I. 3:43;” .“ WONG? ’§\'3I\I333‘I'; .I:III '1L4r‘i‘fifl‘lt‘ ‘III 5.1%. ('3 ' \ I\’I-T‘ "II 3353.5; “I" (35.31 I'YI I IQ. I'III:_I'3\ I .45.:- I “I“ I I V3"? I M IIEII . "If III'IIII'IIIIH If 5;, 34. II: III-I3: .I'éI'I. ~33” '3“ “I33"‘I135‘cw: I5 I. 3 33.551333333‘33'3.‘{II-If:3:““75.. Iluiflfjfilfi': I.I'I' I \:.‘I" 333.33% {Mb "3 ' IQMHWWWHMfiWSflwU; ( w;$$ 5 w. r III....;.:..I,,~,I,_.;..-. -I-»:I.I.I:I>I IIWI I' W“ I II: -.. II 33* . III‘II‘I‘II <2<3: III-III In: I: III: III Iggy III-III“? ~- I: III . MI I I», 4 '- " 'hu'm 3.3531 '5: $13.; 7’33 3:15;; I 3"‘1‘3'33‘3 )rh \(l .533}. In III-I 4, ‘I'. I, Rull'bl’. 1:3 Ii. 5ij Am 3'? (II‘AEI'. ”3% '3' LI. 0‘ .5351 " ‘13:? ’fl. IIIIII ”(5“I5' “353,3; 5‘3"" z:\£‘\: '3':j‘s‘$l .l. 31.. l:: 5 ”I3: 3 ’5“5="-"I II I“. 5 I. I. 'f'III I'EI‘VFI'I 'Ilr‘ I3; .33'3’3‘ “I," fl,“ I II: ‘7‘; “(.233)”; . (€9.35: “:3: I? 'III; (1355.” gage I .I’I i335: . r“ I [13.535.- | h' \c“: 'I‘I‘ 3:.2.“:.’ \‘III' :I'I'I I :H ' I‘ 3“" 5 I" I 512* . J 73*, N \ I K . V’I'- 'h it, I II] '. N“ II-III-II'EIIIH‘II I \II' 3I" 'I' V 3’ I" ‘ I‘I «(II w.) H 'I\.;r l . I I ,‘r'n ' L ._:_. . ; ., ' I5?" 'I‘“ 3V3§u “" "'I‘ l“: " ' “5‘53,“ 'I'33«L3$-$'35333'II'«.'I:3I. 1:“I¥'\""3 5‘3" 5 I" {33743 ‘. I WI”: 3" .‘.I I._ \I' '\' ' ' 'IIII 'I‘J‘.‘I3 ..‘ ' '. 'l 3—": . . FIJI" . I . 3'37‘3":g’353‘33§' II .\. 'III'II‘E' ;_I-I;} I33 .I. I'vI15'3J I 5. 5" I5‘Y"‘.‘:'5,38‘ III '1'] I}: 1‘05:ng w}... 33.: . 'I: I n‘ 5 'I " 3::5'3‘"' ' '3'I‘hh I‘ ' '5‘" 33¢: :. .%:’.. I‘ v '32.“ «ml. I; ,.:. , 5'- 13‘"qu I? , . ‘ ‘ (31%: on} III I.) ' III: I I I I“: I IIIH‘“ I: II:- III. I ;\ I. t! I. I ”(2.: , It .I:,I .I 3 35.2.; '3." L5: 1. ”W 3“" ‘t u, 'I III ‘I '1' ' 3 ”\III .\ I-V‘I l“‘.\ . .I I . I A v\ ‘ . ‘- .Y \ III III I; . v.2" ' ”‘3‘ :;I 33““ I’5'"( <, ,I III-IV “\QNI ”‘6 ""3, if: -. ' .f. gaz$ 2V '? Na". <'.' I}; 7’ gri‘ “3:224? 3 'I . ‘. I . .' \' Ilq'-\ -'I ' an, r, ' vc'p‘ W" 'I: i! 0’ “3}: I“\‘.r” . I. I‘V'SIII-I'I‘QI5331 {III-fix “3‘3 . III , , .I U I H I I. ; ,I‘ -,~,'I. 33233333- ;‘IjI.I-'.II':.‘-:I ‘39::«394 $2,353 :uIawmifiquI IV'&9-%~ IflhxhfiHFfiNWfi. 4434:” | 5"“."3I5H3 I?) 3330-: ‘ ‘I‘IIII'I" . I I'I‘I' I'II‘II' 53.333731“,"13338333’gyt.. I -. 'Y»: “5‘5: '33 I I h w :‘M3‘3, 3}'I, M" (3‘55”, 'I‘ 'I " .-”::I2“I3;'II"1' '- "III'I‘ ‘ " .3. ' I I 55.55 ’ '\I\ sz\k‘} 13:} I6“ :al'v‘.§333: 1‘"- ' VIII ' I'II' NINA??? 5: \ - I '33‘ ‘I‘ v 733‘ 3‘ {'3 ' 3. 3 \ I'VN'II‘I‘f l' {I I 35.31.“ I‘II'II' 33\I3' 333' ‘.II ‘ " ‘...I'I )Rl’ 55:31.. Ii;fc&s\I I c 3‘ \ ‘ 3:3 I'm}: ‘5'3335 “III" I'I WI '| 053-3I I I 'I . I; : III13'I':—3 . {WWI II I35. -" 'I- .. ., , 3 '.3 ('3'; 37'23‘3' I ... .~I I‘ll 'III'I'.:2|I‘.I.II.I'..II IV S .. 5533 5‘ 3“" '3 3'1? .3' 13 III 3 'l 3 _ ‘ .I .3 II ." 3-": 5' i. “3 3} 33 IIIIIIIIII; 33$” IIIIIIIII III Sgt-Id {Jam ,.,,I,,3,,I_ I'.‘ 33 {-3. .- ”1‘, II $3 5“ I ,:s “III \fim‘fi‘?‘ M I’L% 3‘ '33"14$3::|:I| I‘I'zk Iii: 4d }VH3 r ‘- 3:51.; ((3,333 I 3'» III. 9.1 952% III I III? {4334‘ IIIIQI (HM; III I, '.I I [35%;ng I " 3 YIII Iii:- : - 1'- ‘- II 3 I," 3334115? 2333: FESLIH'IVI J} II}; I; I‘. < . \I_— “, ‘I'ai- . . I‘ . _ Ir. .. v .I._. . I . g+£?$mflfifl:qu-WHI 75, I r3“ "IZI'r'V’ I‘",;’." “ :j...‘ -'I 1, . 4‘ \' f This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEARNED PLANNING BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS presented by CHARLE S LARRY TOMPKI NS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH,D. degree in SOCIAL SCIENCE QQZQQQWLLQ L Major professor Date 2-2h-78 0—7 639 © Copyright by CHARLES LARRY TOMPKINS 1978 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEARNED PLANNING BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS BY Charles Larry Tompkins A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1978 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEARNED PLANNING BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS by Charles Larry Tompkins The relationship between learned planning behavior and formal citizen training programs about the planning process is investigated. The Vision 2000 planning process of the Tulsa MetrOpolitan Area Planning Commission is the study environment. Components of planning knowledge identified by content analysis of training program materials and inter- views with planners who conducted the training form the basis for questionnaires mailed to a random sample of citizen participants and nonparticipants in the planning process. Appropriate statistical techniques are used for data analysis including analysis of variance. Major findings suggest (1) little difference in level of knowledge, understanding of planning language, and attitude toward bureaucracy between participants and nonparticipants, (2) little reinforcement or reward of learned planning behavior during training, (3) learning functions and elements were not incorporated or considered Charles Larry Tompkins significantiriplanning process, (4) training materials were redundant in content and offered little encouragement to acquire knowledge, (5) citizen participation and interest tended to decrease during training program, and (6) communi- cation and confidence within planning teams were high during the program. The Tulsa findings suggest learned planning behavior is an essential attribute of and should be considered a major design component in the planning process. Future research contributing to better understanding of learned planning behavior and its incorporation into the planning process is a major challenge to urban specialists. To Emily, Geoffrey, and Ross ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my sincere appreciation to Professor Sanford Farness, Professor Keith Honey, Dr. Roger Hamlin, Dr. Charles Press, and Dr. John Gullahorn for their time and patience both inside and outside the classroom to hear and discuss ideas and concepts which ultimately provided extremely useful research considerations and guidelines. I extend particular thanks to Dr. Carl Goldschmidt, my major professor, for his advice, critical research evalu- ations, and learning opportunities provided during my entire study program at Michigan State University. I also thank Dr. Richard Roessler, Dr. William Schwab, and Dr. Daniel Ferritor for their unselfish assistance in various research matters and Emily Parker Tompkins for her editorial comments. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. LIST OF FIGURES.0.0I.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO GLOSSARYOO0....00......000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... Scope of Research and Review of the Literature.......................... Research Goals and Objectives............. Interest in Community Planning Learning Behavior....................... II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION....... Learning Behavior......................... The Planning Process...................... Community Learning Behavior............... Learned Planning Behavior Hypotheses...... III. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN............. Study Area................................ Measurement............................... Study Population.......................... Research Design and Study Sample.......... IV. THE TULSA PLANNING LEARNING MODEL........... Model Analysis Approach................... The Planning Learning Model............... Learning Model Content Analysis....... ....... Content Analysis Summary.................... PAGE vii ix 11 12 20 29 37 4O 4O 43 44 46 51 58 65 67 91 TABLE OF CONTENTS--CONTINUED CHAPTER PAGE V. ANALYSIS OF LEARNED PLANNING BEHAVIOR DATA.... 97 Learning Environment Characteristics.. ...... 97 Learned Planning Behavior Analysis.......... 110 General Findings..... ....... .............. 110 Selected Variable Analysis................ 116 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN PI‘ANNERSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC0..0...... 131 Summary of Findings.......... ............. .. 131 conCluSionSOOOOOOOOCOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 132 Implications for Urban P1anners............. 134 APPENDICESOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 137 A. Citizens Training Presentation #1............. 137 B. Citizens Training Presentation #2............. 148 C. Citizens Training Presentation #3............. 158 D. Development Guidelines........................ 169 E. Balanced Metropolitan Growth.................. 186 F. Planning District Prototypical Bylaws......... 203 G. Learningvariable List.OOIOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO 208 H. Community Planning Process Inquiry..... ..... .. 212 BIBLIOGRAPHYCOOOOO...0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 221 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. General Sample Characteristics by District ..... 49 2. Training Subject Word Referents ..... ........... 73 3. Citizen Training Presentation 1 Number and Type of Major Planning Theme StatementSOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... .0... 78 4. Number of Learning Planning Theme Unit Statements by Theme Category................... 79 5. Citizen Training Presentation 2 Number and Type of Major Planning Theme unitSOOOOOOCIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000... 84 6. Number of Learning Planning Theme Unit Statements by Theme Category........ ........... 85 7. Citizen Training Presentation 3 Number and Type of Major Planning Theme unitSOOOOOOOO00....OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 87 8. Number of Learning Planning Unit Statements by Theme Category........................ ...... 88 9. Learning Model Thematic/Statement Summary of Presentations #1, #2, #3....... ..... 95 10. Theme Category Space Utilization by Training Presentation #1, #2, #3............... 96 11. Planning District Ranked by Type of Land [158.000.000.00000000000000IOOOOOOOOO. ..... 100 12. Summary of General Land Use Characteristics in Acres by Planning District.................. 101 13. Number of Years Education of Planning District Residents - 1976...................... 104 14. Planning Districts Ranked by Most Number of School Years Completed...................... 105 vii EDABLE 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. PAGE Planning District Areal Size and Density...... 106 Number of Families by Annual Family Income by Planning District................... 107 Number of Community Facilities Within Planning DistriCtSOOOO0.0000000000000000...... 108 Number of Workers by Class by Planning DistriCtOOOOOOOOOC0.0...OIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 109 Comparison of Urban Population Characteristics: Planning Process Participants-Study Planning Districts- MetropOIitan AreaOIOOOOOOC0.00.0000... ...... O. 111 Statistical Significance of Selected Participant/Nonparticipant Variables.......... 113 Main Effects of Learned Behavior Index........ 114 Summary of Variable Significance by Planning Learning Base Index............. ..... 117 viii FIGURE 1. LIST OF FIGURES Typical Concept of Community Planning Process......... ...... ...... ...... ... Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Districts..... ........ . .............. ix PAGE 25 41 GLOSSARY The following terms are more fully defined within the text of the study. Community: a social group having a common interest. Community Development: the deliberate attempt by community peeple to work together to guide the future of their communities, and the development of a corresponding set of techniques for assisting community people in such a process (Warren, 1963). Coorientation: a communication within a group of persons or between groups of persons which maintain simul- taneous orientation toward one another or toward objects of communication (Newcomb, 1966). Learning: occurs when a response shows permanent modifi- cation as a result of conditions in the environment (Travers, 1972). Learned Behavioral Attribute: is considered a charac- teristic(s) of an object of the planning process which influences collective human behavior such as c00peration, coorientation, competition, conflict, prejudice. Learned Planning Behavior: is the acquired knowledge base of an individual or group of individuals which con— tribute toward permanent coorientation with the community planning process and its activities. Planning: the making of choices among options that appear open for the future and securing their imple- mentation which depends on the allocation of needed resources (Roberts, 1974). System: a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes (Hall, 1956). CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The capacity for rational action is rooted in the learning process. Bertram M. GIOSSl In the recent past, several planning scholars such as George Chadwick (1971), Donald Michael (1973), John Friedmann(l973) and other students of the urban settlement began to examine planning as a function of human behavior rather than as a technical procedure necessary to produce plans. Their theoretical and applied concerns are reflected in their interest in the relation of social organization, management, and collective decision-making to the planning process. Significant behavioral questions suggested by their work include: How do decisions affect the planning process? What are the significant relationships among decisions within the planning process? How do collective decisions occur within the community planning process? How does the societal environment impact decisions made by groups responsible for community planning and programming? lBertram M. Gross, The Managing of Organizations: The Administrative Struggle Volume II (Collier-Macmillan Limited, London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), p. 749. What data and information are necessary for the various types of planning decisions? What is the influence of the number and diversity of organizations and institutions on planning behavior? Is the bureaucratic structure the leading determinant of community planning behavior? These questions emphasize the need to understand more fully the factors influencing the behavior of planning process participants. One important factor is the learning base of planning behavior. Interest in learned planning behavior and perhaps more importantly its relationship to the planning process has been brought into prominence in part by the generic activity "community development." Community deve10pment, which involves "citizen partici— pation," is becoming increasingly important in almost all phases of the community plan-making process. The degree of importance of citizen participation is exPressed clearly in recent policy of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) which reads: The Department in the performance of its responsibilities, will seek to become more sensi- tive and responsive to citizens. It will actively provide broad opportunities for citizen participa- tion in its processes and procedures before decisions are made and will carefully consider the public's views.2 The Department also uses, in part, basic citizen partici- pation strategies including "(1) soliciting citizen views, 2U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of the Secretary, Citizen Participation Part VI: Wednesday, November 10, 1976, Federal Register, p. 49775. 3 (2) disseminating information to the public, . . ."3 to implement this policy. The use of the words "citizen par- ticipation" is very broad and extends in meaning from the inclusion of all interested persons of a community to a "rather small group of citizens."4 To many planners "citizen" means the individual plus the roles as a member of a family and/or organization and institution. Because a primary function of urban planning in a democracy is the develOpment and continuance of a collective plan-making process, it is essential to identify and understand as many of the planning requirements of collectivities within urban settlements as possible. Most collective plan- making processes, such as citizen participation, attempt to satisfy known interests of the "citizen." One of the most important requirements is the establishment and maintenance of a learning process by which citizens, separately or collectively, can acquire planning knowledge for making rational decisions about their environment. It is only by continual acquisition of knowledge through learning that individuals and organizations can act rationally. The question of "What has been learned?" from using the planning process itself is as important as "What can be learned?" or "How can it best be learned?". It is to these questions that this study is addressed. 3Ibid.,p. 49774. 4Lee J. Cary, Community DeveloPment as a Process (Columbia, Missouri: University of MissourifiPress, 1970), p. 155. 4 Scope of Research and Review of the Literature Research activities of this study are directed toward learned behavioral attributes of the planning process. In reviewing planning process literature with Specific attention to identification of the inclusion of learned or learning behavior as a significant attribute of the process, one finds little has been written. In the well-prepared annotated planning process bibliography by McCloskey (1971) only one out of 90 selected planning definitions, references, and annotations between the years 1937 through 1969 used the term "learn" (-ed, -ing) to explain planning.5 The term "learn" plus its synonyms (knowledge, experience) totalled eight. Clearly, little attention has been given to the role of learning in plannhx; definitions. The single learning reference noted was the quotation by Lewis Mumford (1937), "we must learn to deal not with Specialized interests and atomic elements .. .."6 The role of learning in the planning process was brought out by Miller, Galanteen and Pribram (1960) in their work on structural relationships between plan and behavior. Of learned planning behavior significance is the importance the authors attach to the need for the individual to mold 5Michael C. McCloskey, Planning and Regional Planning--What Are They? Exchange Bibliography 174 (Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, 1971). 6F. MacKenzie (ed.), Planned Society, Taken from "Foreword" (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1973), pp. vii-viii. 5 together in the planning process "the description of what he (planning participant) is supposed to do . . . and learning how to do it."7 This concept is of major sig— nificance to the understanding and conduct of planning because it links both plan and plan implementation as a single behavioral process. McLoughlin (1969) also stresses the role of learning in the planning process; however, he places its importance mainly in plan guidance, control and review activities.8 Specifically, the learning process is important to the predictive aspect of a planning process because forecasting depends largely upon knowledge about the environment. The status of learning in the planning process in the late 1960's is summarized well in Cook's (1969) planning process model. Cook shows learning to be an educational process generally applied through communication mechanisms of public hearings and public participation.9 Learning is relegated by Cook primarily to the environmental survey and analysis and implementation phases of the planning process. 7George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1960), p. 83. 8Brian J. McLoughlin, Urban Planning and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), p. 292. 9Theodore Stuart Cook, The City Planning Theory: The Destiny of Our Cities (New York: PhiloSOphical Library, 1969), p. 81. 6 Learning as a characteristic of the urban planning process is implied throughout the systemic planning theory suggested by Catanese and Steiss (1970). For example, in discussion of the decision-making process, reference to learning is strongly implied in the quotation, "action commitments become doubly important when peOple have to change their behavior, habits, or attitudes in order for a decision to become effective." This point (behavior) again indicates the tendency to stress the role of learning to be in the implementation phase of the planning process. However, a significant planning behavioral question is raised by the authors in their discussion about the long- term impact of systemic planning. This question concerns the institutionalization of the planning process and ulti- mately the purposes and functions for which the process is used by municipalities and others. Human behavior and its value as the basic premise upon which the entire planning process is structured is very well presented by Chadwick (1971) in his systems theory of planning. Chadwick makes three major points: (1) planning is considered a general method and independent of the field within which it is practiced, (2) planning is "a process of human thought and action (behavior) based upon that thought,"10 and (3) ". . . apprOpriate and relevant models of social systems in a planning context 10George Chadwick, A Systems View of Planning (New York: Pergamon Press, 1971), p. 24. 7 will be derived from models of the human learning process . . . ."11 Chadwick presents two important concepts which were only alluded to by previous authors. First, he makes clear that planning is a human behavior activity which is influenced by a larger social system environment. Second, the learning process perspective of planning provides a very useful concept by which to View planning behavior over time. Chadwick refers to this as an "options-open strategy." The importance of learning in the community planning process is also supported by research of Lichfield, Kettle and Whitebread (1975) on the importance of evaluation in the planning process. They state, "Evaluation may embody a substantial learning process in the case of recycling within the planning process and provides guidance on further design work that may usefully be pursued."12 The aspect of learning is well recognized as a fundamental part of evaluation of plan alternatives by Boyce, Day and McDonald (1970) in their studies of metrOpolitan plan- making. They consider alternatives as a means to explore and understand the planning process. The authors further suggest that the evaluation of alternatives, as part of a continuing planning process, is essentially a learning llIbid., p. 371. 12Nathaniel Lichfield, Peter Kettle, Michael Whitebread, Evaluation in the Planning Process (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975). P. 8. 8 mechanism.13 As such, it assists the decision-making process by manufacturing information within the planning process, thereby influencing planning behavior. John Friedmann (1974) also makes significant con- ceptual contributions about planning behavior. He suggests a model for the analysis of behavior based on the idea that social structures (e.g., organization of political insti- tutions) influence forms and types of planning. Behavior such as rationality is discussed as a factor of process-oriented planning.14 The planning process is still taken by many practitioners to be primarily the conduct of a sequential set of activities necessary to identify, analyze, and institute actions required to produce change. The activi- ties or phases common to many planning processes are organization, inventory, analysis, forecasting, design, implementation programming, monitoring, and evaluation. However, few critical examinations have been made of the attributes of the planning process itself or of the rela- tionship and influence of the attributes on the behaviors of the user or user environments. It is to the general study of learned planning behavior as an attribute of the 13David E. Boyce, Norman Day, Chris McDonald, Metropolitan Plan Making (Philadelphia, PA: Regional Science Research Institute, 1970), pp. 7-10. l4John Friedmann,"A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning Behavior" in A Reader in Planning Theory, ed. Andreas Faludi (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973) pp. 36-67. 9 planning process and its influence on the decision-making environment of the human settlement that the following study is directed. The general approach is the analysis of learned planning behavior as a characteristic of planning which contributes toward the coorientation function of the planning process. Research Goals and Objectives The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze the influence of a formal planning training program on cooriented planning behavior of citizen participants and citizen nonparticipants in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, metropolitan area planning process. Primary objectives of this research are (l) to identify and describe significant community planning interests of citizens who represent the familial and business sectors of the human settlement, (2) to investigate learned planning differences, if any, between citizens who have participated and those who have not par— ticipated in formal planning training, (3) to examine the use of learned planning process elements in solving problems, and (4) to suggest additional hypotheses which may be studied, tested, and evaluated for their potential contribution to the development of better planning and management structures for use in the urban environment. Interest in Urban Learned Planning Behavior Research about relationships between planning participants' learned planning behavior (familial-business 10 sectors) and the community planning process can contribute toward development of positive planning theory and pro- fessional planning practice in several ways. First, increased understanding of learning as a fundamental attri- bute common to all phases of the planning process would lead to greater conceptual compatibility between theoretical and Operational planning activities. Second, recognition of the importance of the learning process elements and their incorporation as a basic function of the planning process could lead to greater opportunities for collective decision- making within the human settlement. Third, planning pro- fessionals could be of greater assistance to their clients as they become more conscious of the different learning requirements of different sectors of the community and thereby consciously design planning agendas and activities which better meet the needs of their clients. Fourth, execution of the urban planning process requires the directing, coordinating, controlling (persuasion) and budgeting (management) of human activity. Knowledge about the capability of all actors (individuals and organizations) within the community is essential to the reasonable functioning of the community planning process. Learning is an essential element for the acquisition of this knowledge. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS The important planning problems of both past and present concern human behavior. Consider for example the impact of the industrial revolution, public housing, and present energy crisis on the behavioral relationships of individuals to groups, organizations, and institutions designed by society to c0pe with problems. Human behavior underlies most forms of organized planning efforts used by local, state, and national governments in an attempt to solve complex problems. Major problems of planning organizational policy, structure and effectiveness can be best solved if human learning behavior is understood. Important learning behavioral questions include: How can the needs and purposes of citizens be integrated with the needs and purposes of the planning organization? How can the planning organization best adapt itself to environmental change with a minimum of conflict, cost or stress? The answers to these questions depend upon the technique and societal means for creating tolerance control and c00peration among indi- viduals and groups. One major means of achieving these aspects is the incorporation of learning into the theorethxfl. ll 12 and Operational concepts of the planning process. Learning as defined by Louis Thorpe (1954) ". . . can be regarded as the total changes which occur in an individual as a result of his responses to representative stimuli, present or "1 This definition is useful and of value to the past. planning process in that it includes (1) both formal and informal aspects of learning and (2) learning of all kinds which takes place throughout the continuing range of experiences during one's life. Learning Behavior A brief review of the learning theory literature provides background for examination of learning in the planning process. Henry Morrison (1935) suggested that the early theories of knowledge were concerned with the notion that learning is becoming. This concept is in agreement with Alfred North Whitehead's theory of process and movement of thought toward reality which could be considered to be based upon learning. John Dewey believed learning to be a prerogative of society and that no substantial progress can be made within society until this fact is acknowledged. Richard Meier (1962) holds a similar View as is evidenced 2 in his concept of "cultural capital." Many educational 1Louis Thorpe and Allen M. Schmuller, Contemporary Theories of Learning (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1954), p. 8. 2Richard L. Meier, A Communications Theory of Urban Growth (Joint Center for Urban Studies: M.I.T. Press, 1962), p. 116. l3 psychologists believe learning is a matter of social adjustment in that it involves the securing of knowledge for individual purposes and hence some social process. Likewise, other psychologists are of the opinion that learning must be directed so as to meet the needs of indi- viduals. They also view learning as a developmental process and consider the learner to be part of a society which influences the actions of the individual. Louis Thorpe (1954) suggests a useful classification system3 of American learning theories to include (1) connectionism, (2) conditioning, (3) field theory, (4) functionalism, and (5) problem—solving. The learning theory of connectionism as conceived by Edward Thorndike (1914) begins with the concept of stimulus and response, to which is added the concept of associative or connection learning. Learning as perceived by Thorndike depends directly upon the strength of any connection between a stimulus situation and a response condition. Theories of conditioning in learning are well represented by Ivan Pavlov and Edwin Guthrie. Their learning concepts are both based upon a physiology of learning through a system of conditioning. Guthrie sees learning as an adaptation in behavior resulting from a given 3Ibid., p. 22. 14 stimulus.4 Clark L. Hull (1943), also a conditionalist, presented the thesis that learning can be described in conditioning tenmsonly if the many stimulus-response processes which enter into it are accounted for.5 Hence, behavior theory relates directly to the interactions between the organism and the environment. Hull also advanced the learning thesis of reinforcement. Louis Thorpe and Allen Schmuller6 in their evaluation of Hall's learning theory suggest learning should be considered as a set of behavior factors resulting from: 1. Perception: organism perceives world through cue stimuli. 2. Habit-Formation: all conditioning materials arranged so as to be connected with prOper responses. 3. Instruction: prOper selection of learning stimulus. 4. Curriculum: material content selected on the basis of potential contribution to desired conditioning of the learner. 5. Higher Mental Processes: "best guarantee of learning on an intellectual level is the provision of appropriate stimuli." 6. Personality: need to continually provide stimulating situations to the learner which will permit (learned) adjustment to society. 7. Drive: activity toward action which arises from basic needs such as pain, hunger, thirst. 4Louis P. Thorpe and Allen M. Schmuller, Contemporary Theories of Learning (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1954), p. 97. 51bid., p. 123. 6Ibid., pp. 158-165. 15 8. Cue: factors which determine when, where, and what responses will be made. 9. Response: reaction to a rewarding situation. 10. Reinforcement: satisfaction of needs leads to reinforcement of stimulus-response connections. Field theories of learning include (1) gestalt psychology, (2) organismic learning, and (3) purposive learning.7 Purposive learning, because of its relevance to the planning process, is discussed briefly as best representing "field" learning theory. Edward Chase Tolman (1949) advanced the view that learning is purposive,8 that is, learning is but the overt manifestation of some kind of action toward achievement of a goal. This learning theory is behaviorally based and can be evaluated only through observation of goal-directed actions. Tolman further pro- poses two kinds of variables which affect condition learning, demand variables and cognitive variables. Demand variables include human-related needs of hunger, safety, rest, sex. Cognitive variables include complex human activities such as apprehension of experience, learning recall, and skill acquisition. Spatial relationships or "place-learning" are of basic importance in Tolman's concept of learning. Functional theories of learning include concepts of functionalism and problem-solving. According to the concept of functionalism (Dewey, 1896), learning is not a matter of 7Ibid., pp. 205-324. 8Ibid., p. 292. 16 a mechanical stimulus and response but a process in which the whole person takes part. James Angell (1907) suggested along these same lines that (1) learning is an activity requiring a coordinated effort of the learner's whole sensory and motor apparatus, (2) physical activity is to be encouraged because of the dependence of learning upon biological functioning, and (3) learning is a social process in which practical results are fundamental. Problem—solving, as a functional learning theory, is of major relevance to planning learning theory because planning influences and is influenced directly by the material environment. John Dewey (1913) suggested that problem-solving with respect to learning places emphasis on pupil freedom and self-reliance; it stresses initiative and independent thinking.9 Dewey suggests five phases in thinking about a problem: 1. Realization of the problem 2. Search for clarity 3. The hypothesis 4. Rational application 5. Experimental verification. B. F. Skinner advanced two fundamental concepts related to descriptive behaviorism known as static and dynamic behavior.10 Central to these concepts is the reflex which is a descriptive unit of behavior of the organism responding to its environment. Within this 9Ibid., pp. 363-366. loIbid., p. 173. 17 structure Skinner proposes two response elements, "operant" and "respondent.“ The former are responses which appear without benefit of immediate stimuli, such as loyalty. The latter are responses which an organism makes to recognizable and related stimuli, such as a reply to a greeting of "hello." Skinner's concepts have direct theoretical value to planning process theory and learned planning behavior. The concept of Operant behavior includes the ideas of "reinforcement contingency" and "operant conditioning."11 These two factors are key elements in the acquisition, maintenance, or elimination of Operant behavior (e.g., citizens' greater understanding of and participation in the planning process). Reinforcement contingency refers to conditions under which reinforcing stimulus is available (training). A schedule of reinforcement, defined as the relationship between behavior and its consequences, can be classified as either "intermittent" or "nonintermittent." Intermittent schedules consist of situations in which all responses desired by a trainer are followed by a reinforcing stimulus. Four major types of intermittent schedules of reinforcement suggested by Robert Karen are of theoretical significance to this study: (1) fixed-ratio schedules, (2) variable-ratio schedules, (3) fixed—interval schedules, and (4) variable-interval schedules. Fixed-ratio schedules 11Robert L. Karen, An Introduction to Behavior Theory and Its Applications (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1974), pp. 50-90. 18 are those in which a systematic relationship is planned between the number of times an apprOpriate operant is emitted and number of times the reinforcing stimulus is presented. In variable—ratio schedules a varied number of appropriate responses are given before a reinforcement action is taken. A fixed-interval schedule provides for a reinforcement response to occur after a fixed time interval has ended. A variable-interval schedule provides for rein- forcement of a response after variable intervals of time. When only one of the schedules is used it is a single schedule. Hence, reinforcement contingency is considered to be the environmental conditions under which the rein- forcing stimulus is available and includes (1) consequences that follow operant behavior, (2) relationship between behavior and consequences, and (3) the influence of the consequences upon the response of the operant. Operant conditioning, the other major concept of Operant behavior, requires a distinction between Operant acquisition and operant maintenance. In operant acqui- sition the Operant is not normally a part of an organism's behavior but perhaps should be according to the trainer. Operant acquisition involves both overt and covert operant behavior. In Operant maintenance the Operant is already a part of the organism's behavior but perhaps should be strengthened. In planning, the major behavioral concept being presented is that regardless of the trainer's training 19 goal, be it the acquisition Of new planning knowledge on the expansion or elimination Of previously acquired planning Operants, attention must be given to (l) the definition Of the planning Operant as a response class, (2) the conse- quences following the response class, and (3) the frequency Of reinforcement contingency. The concept of the elimi- nation Of an existing planning behavioral Operant is very important because one of the functions of the planning process is to respond to and direct environmental change. Operant learning behavior theory provides a very useful and dynamic operational model with which to study and analyze learned planning behavioral aspects Of the community planning process. Further, such a model accounts for learning by experience. As planning knowledge is acquired through new experiences and is appropriately rein- forced, the probability that the capacity Of the individual or group to perform reasonably well in new planning situations and conditions would be expected to increase. The Conceptual Framework Of Learned Planning Behavior Learned planning behavior is defined as the result Of the continuous acquisition and maintenance Of planning Operants by all participants in the planning process to produce a set of common planning Operants and a system Of Operative relationships between the Operants that are institutionalized by the participant collectivity. Institutionalized planning actions are perceived as 20 behaviors which contribute directly and/or indirectly toward the coorientation function Of the planning process. The purpose of learning in the planning context is to promote self-activation of persons participating in the planning process. Self-activation is accomplished by influencing a person's level Of knowledge and interests. The extent to which self-activation is accomplished can be measured in the capacity of the recipient Of learning tO become more capable Of overt acceptable participation in the planning and political decision-making process. The Planning Process Planning processes both theoretical and applied con- tinue to evolve in societal importance as a means Of directing and allocating scarce community resources. Planning process models can be classified into three groups to reflect the inclusion Of learned behavior importance. These are (1) role determined, (2) ecologically responsive, and (3) management-oriented planning models. This classi- fication system provides, for the purpose of this study, a reasonable behavior perspective and is intended to indicate behavioral emphasis rather than mutually exclusive cate- gories. Role-determined planning process models are a set Of procedures whereby statutory guidelines are so strongly adhered to that certain behaviors of a planning body have become a traditional or expected role. An example would be the reading Of the purpose of the planning commission, as 21 set forth by law, before every commission meeting. Ecologically responsive models are considered physical design planning models which reflect man's behavior tO improve his relationship with the environment. For example, planning process elements are presented as physical develOpment plans, rather than a policy statement. Management-oriented planning models emphasize sequential and procedural aspects Of process. These models are designed to reflect means-ends planning procedures which place emphasis upon the identification, scheduling and monitoring Of available resources necessary to carry out a plan. Decision-making provides the theoretical perspective for the ecological and management oriented planning models. Whether individual or community decisions are made, certain typical process steps Of rationality are assumed in each Of the above types. These steps include the community's intelligence system to (1)scan the environment to identify circumstances and conditions, (2) execute an evaluation process Of these conditions, (3) provide a capacity to set goals, (4) provide integrative mechanisms to resolve or avoid conflict and minimize stress, (5) dis- tribute limited resources, and (6) take action. A more detailed model consisting Of 11 main linear activities has been develOped by Lichfield, Kettle, and Whitbread12 to include: 12Nathaniel Lichfield, Peter Kettle, and Michael Whitbread, Evaluation in the Planning Process (New York: Pergamon Press, 1975), pp. 19-22. Process 1.3 Process 2.1 Process Process 4.1 4.2 Process 5.1 5.2 22 Activity 1. Preliminary Recognition and Definition Of Problems: Surveillance and analysis Of relevant problems. Comparison Of existing and forecast conditions, in order to identify problems requiring examination. Assessment Of problem significance. Activity 2. Decision to Act and Definition of the Planning Task: Decision to investigate the problems and alternative courses Of action. Definition Of the purpose Of the planning task. Formulation of goals for the plan. Formulation Of approach to the study and to the design and evaluation Of alternative plans. Activity 3. Data Collection, Analysis, and Forecasting: Collection and analysis Of data relevant tO the planning problems. Forecasting the scope for change in urban and regional develOpments. Determination and evaluation data requirements. Activity 4. Determination Of Constraints and Objectives: Determination Of constraints. Determination Of Objectives for the plans. Activity 5. Formulation of Operational Criteria for Design: Formulation of measures for the Objectives. Collection of evidence on the relative importance of Objective achievements. Process 6.1 6.2 Process 7.1 7.2 Process 8.1 Process 9.1 9.2 Process 10.1 10.2 Process 11.1 11.2 11.3 23 Activity 6. Plan Design: Selection Of one or more design methods. Use Of design criteria to prepare alternative plans. Activity 7. Testing Of Alternative Plans: Testing for internal consistency. Assessment of feasibility with respect to constraints. Activity 8. Plan Evaluation: Measurement Of levels of achievement Of Objectives. Appraisal of the evidence produced. Setting down Of findings in a logical framework. Making Of recommendations to decision-takers. Activity 9. Decision-Taking: Collaboration and debate among decision-takers. Collective choice Of the preferred plan. Activity 10. Plan Implementation: Establishment Of machinery for implementation. Initiation of planned develOpments. Activity 11. Review Of Planned Developments Through Time: Observation of consequences of the adopted plan. Comparison with predicted outcomes, and appraisal Of the significance Of any unanticipated consequences. Identification Of new problems arising. 24 "Recycling" occurs as necessary at any activity Of this process. The above model is significant in that it is essentially a decision-making methodology. As an urban planning methodology, it is concerned primarily with the process Of determining goals and designing courses Of action by which these goals and Objectives can be achieved. The setting Of goals is clearly basic tO this process. The concept of planning then can be interpreted by persons using the process to be a procedure for identifying and directing resources necessary to achieve a goal or objective. Inherent, but not consciously recognized by many users in the directing Of planning resources, are the important elements of purpose and learning characteristics Of the planning process itself. The primary purpose of any planning process is to provide a rational thought process by which acceptable decisions and actions can be determined and accomplished. This function is generally viewed as consisting of a set of ordered activities and procedures necessary to prepare a plan of action (see Figure 1, next page). The specific procedures and tasks used in the planning process depend on the legislative authority and the background and interests of persons responsible for preparation Of the plan, and therefore will vary greatly in content. For example, a change in transportation planning enabling legislation may redirect a planning program emphasis toward mass transit rather than expressway 25 mmmoomm Q 244m ho onBm H mmDUHh .l:!lcl.l.lflmv. mmmmmoomm ZOHBUHmmOO Q ZOHB / s maoakuaqdmno a mmaom / a mmnzposnpm chHpAdmne . Hdaoom a weapmso H _ pcmecoufi>cm Auanv oacmwnmosmn\flwaoom pson< zaqm oneoa moeHzoz caspasnomcH “magma $4. HEEmBo 2893185 55 11 Egmomm zaqm zOHeua s mqaou meaaq<>m oe Amm. so so ZOHeaezmzmqmzH mqumaemm s mgmzmmma mmHmmm weHzpzzou mmmzmmaza weHzpszoo \ M a engage/cm ZE % my page: Sop... oneoa so ezmzmogm>aq HMMMMWMMM caspasnompH.nmppau «\Hflv spa moondommm , a wmnsposnpm Haaoqacas o swam m scam 4 scam dazedpspdpmcH s OHeOcoom mpagnmpaa ppaznmpa< opagnopaa II. ...I. II mmoflfiowmm Pflmfifiofigflm zfim €5.50 83mm .1. SE. 23398 393% owcmzo . Hwoamoaocnome $595 911% 322.50 we. so E828 gages. 26 developments. Likewise, a specific plan Of action may require adjustment because of social or attitudinal change within the community. The planning process then can be considered to be an intellectual framework used in designing and accomplishing a task. As an intellectual activity, learning is an important characteristic of the planning process for both the user and recipient Of the planning process and its products. Supporting this basic learning function are several planning process subfunctions. First, the process provides for awareness Of community. It continually places existing environmental conditions and social interests Of the community in a position requiring decisions and action by elected Officials and responsible citizens. It assists these groups by requiring them tO think about the kinds Of community institutions and organizations and costs needed to meet anticipated problems. Second, the planning process provides a measure for performance evaluation. This is accomplished by develOping goals and Objectives which provide guidelines for the allo- cation Of community resources and criteria by which to determine whether or not goals and Objectives have been reached. This also can increase achievement levels Of individuals and various public agencies by providing guide- lines Of their expected contributions and responsibilities in the planning process. Effectiveness, efficiency, and 27 efforts may be enhanced as a result Of the establishment Of goals, Objectives, and evaluation activities. A third function Of the planning process is to provide coordination. Coordination Of community decisions and activities can be achieved in several ways by the planning process. First, the process can induce coordi- nation through participatory activities Of persons involved in the process as occur in meetings, informed discussions, and debate. Coordination also results from methods used for the collection and development Of data and information and the kinds Of reports prepared and distributed to the community. Such reports tend to express common assumptions develOped and held by participants in the process. Moreover, policies developed and accepted by the community during the planning process serve as a strong coordinative device Of plans and programs Of various individuals and groups par- ticipating in the process, and also of others only indirectly related to process activities. A fourth function of the planning process is the preparation of plans. The plan preparation function can be considered to be the pivotal function Of the process in that plan development is its Objective. An accepted plan develOped by the planning process is an expression Of the needs and desires Of the community at a particular point in time. Plans developed during the planning process usually include an expression Of goals for the community, objectives to be achieved within a certain time period, activities and 28 schedule for implementation, areas of authority and responsibility, and cost. The expression Of community needs and guidelines embodied in an accepted plan is very significant in that it represents the status Of a community learning process. Planning Process Learning Attributes The planning process, as a learning system, has several important attributes. An attribute is considered a property unique to a particular Object of the planning process.13 For example, a planning goal has the attribute of direction by setting parameters within which future decisions and resources are allocated. Certain important learning attributes have been considered in discussing the planning process. First, a planning process is a systemic dynamic learning activity that is on-going. The fact that it is on-going, though Obvious, is sometimes forgotten during community planning activities. When it is forgotten, there is a good chance that the community process Of problem-solving will become a static or a one-time effort which may or may not solve the problem. If the community is dynamic and changing, then an equally dynamic and changing learning device must be develOped to solve problems. A stable or static learning device will not solve a dynamic or changing problem. For 13Arthur D. Hall, A Methodology for Systems Engineering (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962), p. 60. 29 example, a school curriculum designed in 1945 would not adequately prepare a child to participate in society Of the 19705. Second, attention must be given to learning rein- forcement within the planning process. Reinforcement can be thought Of as the continuing application Of a set Of rewards for accomplishment. For example, a planning commission or planning group which continually bases its recommendations on the comprehensive plan may receive credit from the city council or other such Officials. Communiterearning Behavior As seen in the previous section the planning process consists Of a set of rationally ordered activities. Each activity is designed and conducted so as to lead into another designed activity. The function of these activities or steps is to prepare a plan for action which will be implemented. It is equally important to consider the influence of the planning process on those who participate in or use the process as an approach to problem solving. This participant influence perspective is conceptually significant because of its reference to behavior as an important attribute Of the planning process. This viewpoint recognizes that the behavior of people is at the core of planning process and that the study of the planning process requires the study of man. Therefore, any study and analysis of the planning process must at least include the 3O purposeful behavior Of man. Bertrand Gross (1964) suggested that a general consensus within the social sciences is develOping with regard to fundamental propositions about the nature of man.14 These propositions are: l. Purposeful behavior Of human beings is moti- vated by a multiplicity Of interests. 2. Human beings are always part Of some specific group environment. 3. Conflict is an inevitable part Of human nature. 4. Human beings are unique personalities. 5. A large part Of human behavior is irrational and nonrational. Though all Of these propositions are important, prOposition number 2 is of major significance because of implications to the planning process and this study. First, participants in the planning process tend to act as a collective decision-making or decision-taking unit. This collectivity can be considered a "community," as does Joseph Gusfield (1975), when a social construction Of human associations meets the conditions Of a homogeneous culture and common territory. These two aspects are used as a system Of accounts15 by group members or others as a way of explaining or justifying the member's behavior or actions, hence, a sense Of community is established. Territoriality 14Bertrand M. Gross, The Managing Of Opganizations (London: The Free Press Of Glencoe, 1964), pp. 319-346. 15Joseph R. Gusfield, Community: A Critical Response (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975), pp. 23-33. 31 is a useful and generally accepted concept in the functioning and Operational aspects of the planning process. Cultural homogeneity (or heterogeneity) contains the additional community dimension Of collective values which greatly influence community behavior. Collective values, either implicit or explicit, are reflected in community planning behavior in various ways. For example, procedures used to allocate city funds to competing demands in a tax budget reveal community values toward support of the planning process. Values are also revealed in choices a community makes about energy conservation practices through its subdivision design criteria such as "straight" versus "curvilinear" streets requirements or number and spacing Of traffic control devices. Collective values perform the major planning process function Of coorientation regardless of whether community members are involved directly or indirectly in the planning process. Values help explain behavior and are Of major significance to planning organizations, such as citizen planning groups, because Of their directive influence on planning behavior. Values are also Of planning behavior interest as they contribute toward the institutionali- zation16 of planning as an organizing activity of collective community life. Institutionalization is a matter of the degree Of consensus with a group. F. H. Allport, social 16Jessie Bernard, American Community Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962), pp. 45—50. 32 psychologist, suggests that at least one-half of the peOple involved in a situation must conform (to a set Of group norms) before a conformity situation can be said to exist. Principal means through which community consensus is reached have been identified by E. Gordon Ericksen (1954) to include debate, discussion, persuasion, education, parliamentary procedure, negotiation, diplomacy, bargaining, adjudication, contractual relations, and compromise. Louis Wirth (1948) indicated five major ways that urban society could induce consent. These ways include (1) the police power, (2) identification with great leaders, (3) group cohesion through ideals and symbols Of identification, (4) tradition, and (5) public Opinion. Almost all Of these means Of community coorientation depend upon one common element of planning process interest--learned institutionalized behavior. Because Of the importance Of the role Of learned institutionalized behavior in the planning process and to this study, the concept Of learned cooriented behavior requires Special definition and examination Of its usage and relationship to the planning process. Learning Behavior Relationships to the Planning Process It is reasonable to assume that institutionalization Of the planning process by a community requires the acqui— sition Of certain planning knowledge through learning which promotes a coorientation Of planning thought and action among community participants. Coorientation is considered 33 for the purpose Of this study to be a communication process within a group of persons or between groups Of persons, the essential function Of which is to ". . . maintain Simul— taneous orientation toward one another as communicators and toward Objects of communication."17 The term "orientation" is used as equivalent to "attitude." For example, coorientation as used in the learned planning process refers to the degree Of Similarity of agreement and understanding about a planning object such as, "What is the neighborhood concept?" Coorientation also is considered to contain a measure of attitude (attraction or repulsion) about the planning object. Specifically, coorientation is considered to contain the three homogeneous group characteristics18 Of (1) homogeneity Of planning orientation, (2) homogeneity Of perceived planning consensus, and (3) planning attraction among members. The term "homogeneity Of planning orien— tation" as used in regard to learned planning behavior refers to expected decisions of a planning group after exposure to a training session and not necessarily to a similarity Of group action. For example, not everyone in a neighborhood planning group would be expected to contact the mayor about street improvements in the area, but each 17Theodore M. Newcomb, "An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts" in Alfred G. Smith, Communication and Culture (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 66-73. 18These characteristics have been adopted from the concepts develOped by T. M. Newcomb and modified for the planning process. 34 would be expected to take his/her own action. Homogeneity Of perceived consensus refers to the degree each partici- pant perceives he/she is in agreement with and understands planning materials presented in planning training sessions. Attraction among members of planning groups refers to positive relationships developed among planning process participants. For example, has respect between citizens and professional planners increased or decreased as a result Of joint training or learning planning programs? The planning learning base, which is essential to rational planning decisions within the planning process, is considered to consist Of three fundamental components-- (1) planning knowledge, (2) planning ability, (3) planning interests. The first component-—planning knowledge--is considered Unconsist primarily of facts about the Object to be planned, the environment Of the Object, attributes of the Object and its environment, and most importantly facts about the relationship between planned Objects and between Objects and environmental attributes. Simple planning facts about the elements are considered at the lowest level Of planning knowledge. These facts are used to develop planning concepts and provide information about plan problems and solutions. Planning ability as part Of the planning learning base is considered tO be the intellectual capacity or Skill to apply planning knowledge. It is the ability to imagine abstract and real purposive patterns and new action 35 sequences during the process Of planning. Ability also includes the capacity tO apply interpretative and evaluative skills to planning factors such as social change policies over long-range time spans. The acquisition Of new and different planning interests is considered to be the most important aspect Of the planning learning process. Planning interests are the motivating forces in purposeful planning behavior because interests structure and guide the acquisition of knowledge and abilities. For example, citizen input in city decision-making during the Model Cities Program created interest at all levels Of government sufficient to establish an expanded citizen participation planning process known as Vision 2000 in the City of Tulsa. The interaction of planning interests either within a planning group or at the city-wide scale provides a useful environment for both the generation and acquisition of new planning interests. This generation Of interest is the most fundamental form of learning. It is important then to recognize that the combination Of planning knowledge-ability-interest is essential to the capacity Of planning process participants to learn and expand their planning learning base. This expansion, Of course, may require the "unlearning" of useless facts and outmoded planning techniques including constraints to the learning process. 36 Human behavior as suggested by Floyd H. Allport (1933) consists Of two general classes,19 (1) the free, spontaneous, face-to-face behavior class which is conducive to personality develOpment at the individual level and (2) the common behavior class in which individuals tend tO behave like everyone else. It is the latter common behavior class that is involved in contemporary planning processes. This behavior is particularly relevant in planning for the "public interest" because "public" is defined as the "community." Hence the planning process must be conceived to be holistic and systematic in order to achieve rationality within the community. The common behavior class orientation is particularly apparent in instances where settlements have "institutionalized" the planning process. Though there are numerous approaches from which to view human behavior, Operant behavior theory appears most appropriate as the theoretical basis for the study Of behavior learned in the planning process. The primary reason is that Operant behavior "involves an ongoing, transactional process between the organism and its environment."20 It can be Simply illustrated as follows. Stimulus + Response + Consequence (Community school problem) (PTA meeting) + (Funding for new school) 19Floyd Henry Allport, Institutional Behavior(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1933b PH 337. 20Robert L. Karen, An Introduction to Behavior Theory (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,1974), p. 48. 37 The Operant behavior model is valuable as a means Of viewing learned behavior in planning because it is theoreti- cally compatible with both systemic and ecological (spatial and societal) approaches now used by many researchers as a basis for planning theory building and planning practice. Learned Planning_Behavior Research Hypothesis Research in this study is directed tO the determi- nation Of Significant learned planning behaviors within a participatory planning process and how learned planning behaviors relate to the planning process as a whole, within the context of a case study Of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Learned planning behavior is defined generally as coorientation. Coorientation, as an important attribute of the community planning process, is at any time a sum of the planning process participants' (1) level Of planning knowledge, (2) ability to apply planning Skills, and (3) interest in community. Planning knowledge (dependent variable) consists Of measures necessary to the understanding Of the planning process and related technical subject matter (e.g., intelli- gence systems, organization, forecasting and monitoring, impact evaluation and change). Planning ability (dependent variable) measures reflect the capacity of planning process participants to Operationalize learned technical planning aspects (e.g., zoning, plan preparation). Planning interest (dependent variable) is of particular importance inlearned planning behavior because the continual acquisition of 38 new knowledge is a major motivator for change in the planning process. These factors determine the structure Of the planning process learning base as defined by: 1. Degree Of technical knowledge of planning subject matter (e.g., infrastructure components). 2. Awareness Of societal and group norms. 3. Understanding Of planning terminology and communication networks. 4. Ability and capacity tO apply learned planning knowledge and skills. 5. Attitudes toward bureaucracy (public and private sectors). 6. Interest in community/group norms (motivation, responsibility, values). The central research hypothesis relating tO learned planning behavior is: There is no significant difference in learned planning behavior, defined as coorientation, between citizens who have participated in formally structured planning training programs and citizens who have not participated in formally structured training planning programs conducted as part Of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Vision 2000 planning process. Significant corollaries Of the central hypothesis to be tested are: Corollary 1: The level of planning knowledge is not signifi- cantly different between citizens who partici- pate in formal Vision 2000 planning training programs and citizens who do not participate in formal planning training programs as designed 39 and conducted by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Corollary 2: Theability tO apply learned planning knowledge is not significantly different between citizens who participate in formal Vision 2000 planning training programs and citizens who do not par- ticipate in formal planning training programs as designed and conducted by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Corollary 3: The planning interest of citizens who partici- pate in the Vision 2000 planning process is not significantly different from the planning interest of citizens who do not participate in the Vision 2000 planning process. CHAPTER III RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN Study Area The Tulsa, Oklahoma, metropolitan area (Figure 2) was selected for this comparative study for several reasons. First, the Tulsa area has been involved in metrOpOlitan planning since the establishment in 1953 Of a city-county planning commission known as the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC). TMAPC has responsibility, among other activities, for the preparation and maintenance Of a comprehensive plan for the City Of Tulsa, all areas Of Tulsa County excluding those lands lying within other municipalities within the county, and land within Osage Countythat lies within a five—mile perimeter Of the corporate limits Of the City of Tulsa. Second, TMAPC has provided comprehensive planning and planning staff advisory services to most Of the 10 municipalities within the county on a regular basis since 1953. This activity provides one set of relatively strong planning administrative and com— munication linkages between planning areas. In addition, the transfer Of planning knowledge throughout community institutional sectors has been possible. Third, in 1972 a comprehensive plan update planning process designed to 40 41 FIGURE 2 TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA- PLANNING DISTRICTS _ DISTIIC! BOUNDARIES K. "It“ .[vlo'ouuu All: NANNINO COIMISS'CN 42 emphasize "citizen participation" through the use Of the 26 planning districts was established and made Operational. Thhsprocess is known as VISION 2000 and is still in Operation. Fourth, because Of the long period of planning involvement, a reasonable data base is available that permits analyses not otherwise possible. Assumptions of Study Assumptions pertaining to this study are: l. The planning process is essentially a rational process based upon articulate processes Of logic and cog- nition and can be identified. 2. Planning behaviors can be learned and changed. 3. Learned planning process behavior is unique to its specific local environment. 4. Learning is a continuous process and provides knowledge linkages between community and greater society. Study Limitations The scope of this study is considered limited in the following manner: 1. The number of small business sector representa- tives who participated in the initial plan-development process was small. 2. Although little change has occurred in planning team membership, recall of planning orientation and training activities conducted during 1974 and 1975 may be weak for some respondents. 43 3. Persons from the familial (citizen) sector and small business sector who have never participated in the formal planning learning process constitute the study con- trol group and are used to develop prelearning conditions, planning knowledge levels, abilities and interests. 4. The small sample of usable nonparticipating citizens (23) and small businesses (6) does not permit application of appropriate statistical significance tests and therefore findings relating to nonparticipants and small businesses are conjectural. Measurement The behavior of citizens and small business Operators (participatory aminonparticipatory) toward the Tulsa metropolitan area planning process is measured by use of the Likert scaling technique. Measurement Of behavior provides knowledge of (l) a planning participant's pre- disposition tO act toward the planning process in a par- ticular way, (2) the participant's knowledge about the planning process, and (3) the participant's feelings toward the learning process and planning process in general. Specific measures representative of the learning planning process will reflect citizen participants' and nonparticipants' learned coorientation behavior as measured by (1) level of technical planning knowledge, (2) level Of community/group norms, (3) understanding of planning language, (4) ability tO apply planning skills learned, 44 (5) attitude toward public bureaucracy, and (6) interest in planning. Study Population The study population consists Of citizens, small business and institutional representatives within 12 metro- politan planning districts Of the central city Of Tulsa (see Figure 2, page 41). These separate, relatively homo- geneous planning districts include districts numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l6, 17, 18, 25 and contain a population of approximately 315,500. Planning districts numbers 1, 10, ll, 12, l3, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 are not included in the sample because Of the lack Of consistent planning activity under the Vision 2000 program and/or desire for "self-guidance" planning by small towns within the metropolitan area. The study population includes participating citizens who have been and/or are now members of the district planning team which is responsible for citizen planning efforts within the district. The business sector includes representatives from small businesses defined as any business having 500 or fewer employees.1 Institutional representation includes the major community institutions of religion and education. Six Of the 12 districts studied include limited business and institutional representation on lU.S. Department of Commerce, Enterprise Statistics (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), Series ES67-l, Table 5-2, p. 526. 45 district planning teams. Six districts have never had business or institutional representation on the planning teams. Nonparticipants are citizens and business repre- sentatives who have never been members Of a district planning team. Both private planning consultants (4) and TMAPC staff members (4) constitute the professional planning sector and are not part Of the sample population. Data from this sector are used only as supplemental findings and to suggest areas for future research. The small business sector was proposed to include representation from the following categories: I. Retail Trade A. Convenience Goods: includes grocery stores, eating and drinking places, drug stores, and liquor stores. B. Shoppers Goods: includes department, furniture, "secondhand," book, Sporting goods, jewelry, fabric, and flower stores. C. Other Retail Trade: includes motor vehicle dealers, aircraft, farm and marine sales and supply, building materials, and hardware stores. II. Commercial Services A. Office-oriented Business Services: includes advertising, duplication, stenographic, etc. B. Industrial-oriented Business: includes construction and construction trades. 46 C. Other Commercial Services: includes personal services, such as laundering, barber and beauty shops; automotive services; repair shops for appliances and jewelry; hotels and motels. III. Professional Services Finance, insurance, real estate, medical and other health-related services, veterinary services without boarding facilities, legal services, architectural and educational services, corporations, administration, and government. IV. Wholesaling, Warehousing and Storage Wholesaling of products or stock inventories on the premises, such as automotive equipment, drugs, chemicauh etc. Warehousing includes covered weather-protected structures. Storage includes lumber yards, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and terminals. V. Manufacturing Manufacturing of durable and nondurable goods. Research Design and Study Sample The research design is intended to identify and clarify significant learned planning behavioral relation- ships acquired during formal training programs. The research method consisted Of (1) content analysis of formal citizen training materials, (2) construction Of self- administered questionnaire based upon content analysis findings, (3) Observation Of selected planning team 47 behavior, (4) personal interviews Of selected citizen participants, nonparticipants, and planning consultants, (5) appropriate test Of statistical significance, and (6) analysis of data. This approach was selected because it (1) permits identification Of learned behavioral factors resulting from training sessions, (2) provides for the measure Of a large number Of variables and their inter- relationships simultaneously, (3) permits the study of learned planning behavior in a realistic setting, (4) pro— vides information about the degree Of significance between learned planning behavior variables, and (4) is useful for exploratory studies. The following diagram shows the conceptual framework and major research variables to be measured. LEARNED <\ EXISTING PLANNING BEHAVIOR LEARNING BASE (produced acts of <7? (rationality) coorientation) I. New Knowledge I. Existing Knowledge II. New Ability II. Existing Ability III. New Interests III. Existing Interests PLANNING LEARNING MODEL (Human Relational-orientation) PLANNING LEARNING MODEL (Technical Plan-orientation) 48 Study Sample A study sample Of participating citizens2 and 3 totaling 276 cases was selected nonparticipating citizens from twelve Of fifteen planning districts within the study area. An equal number Of cases Of participating citizens (138) and nonparticipating citizens (138) were randomly selected from district planning team membership rosters and district residents who were not planning team members but were living in the district during the years 1972 through 1975. District planning team rosters were provided by the Tulsa Metropolitan Planning Commission. Nonparticipating citizens within each district were randomly selected from the Tulsa City Directory-l975. Table l on page 49 shows the general characteristics Of the pOpulation from which the study sample was drawn. Data Collection Process A self-administered mail-out/back survey question- naire (276 cases) was administered between June and July, 1977 with apprOpriate second follow-up letters to non- respondents. A postcard was also sent to nonrespondents in a third and final attempt to increase sample returns. A total Of 58 usable samples (42%) were returned by citizen 2A participating citizen is a citizen living in a particular planning district who was or had been an active planning team member between Jan. 1973 and Dec. 1976. 3A nonparticipating citizen is a citizen living in a particular planning district who had never been a member of a district planning team. 49 TABLE 1 GENERAL SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS BY DISTRICT District Planning Team Membership Dist. Population NO. Active Representation NO. Active Institutions NO. (1970) Citizens Citizen Ratio and Businesses 2 31,454 40 1:786 5 3 23,316 23 1:1014 2 4 40,889 29 1:1410 9 5 32,379 29 1:1117 - 6 48,179 53 1:909 5 7 4,641 30 1:155 3 8 3,990 19 1:210 - 9 16,376 15 1:1092 3 16 23,934 33 1:725 - 17 24,075 28 1:860 l 18 40,753 31 1:1315 - 25 25,548 14 1:1825 - Total 315,534 344 1:784 (i) 28 participants. Only 28 usable samples (20%) were returned by nonparticipating citizens. All 20 questionnaires (100%) sent to public and private planning consultants were returned and Of usable quality. Sixteen personal interviews were conducted tO supplement self-administered question- naires. Interviews were conducted with selected partici- pating citizens (4), nonparticipating citizens (4), par- ticipating planning consultants (4), and staff planners (4) of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Questionnaires were pretested in each of the 12 districts before being administered. Data were structured 50 and coded as necessary for computer-assisted analysis (i.e., analysis of variance). Data Analysis Data are analyzed using measures Of planning coorientation behavior (participating and nonparticipating patterns of citizens in the planning process) and learning base (planning knowledge, ability to apply knowledge and interests of participants) variables within the citizen and business sectors Of selected planning districts. The analytical process included (1) content analysis, (2) develOpment Of frequency distributions and related standard descriptive statistics Of mean, median, standard error, standard deviation, variance, kurtosis, skewness, and range, and (3) analysis of variance Of learning base indices. Cross—tabulation tables were used when dictated by nominal measurement level data. CHAPTER IV THE TULSA PLANNING LEARNING MODEL Early in 1970, the City Of Tulsa realized an update Of the comprehensive plan originally prepared in 1958 was necessary if the quality of life in the metropolitan area was to continue to improve. TO accomplish this update Mayor Robert J. LaFortune inidiated a strategic planning activity in 1971 which resulted in a proposed comprehensive urban management process concept.1 This approach was intended tO develOp a unique policy and management team which would bring together, in partnership, citizens, business, local government, and the federal government. The structure Of the management team would be as follows: MAY OR “I POLICY [Citizens Business ficcal Gov't. Federal Gov't.! (S'ch., Co., Region) ADVISORY & Management Dept. of Tulsa Urban COORDINATION Advisory ~—- --- Community ...— -——l Development Committee Development Bank L Greater Tulsa Business Local Gov't. Federal Council (Town Community Operation Agencies Hall Dists.) (Free Enterpr. (City, Co., INCOG, in Tulsa System) TMAPC, Authorities) ' SOURCE: City Of Tulsa. Concept '22 (Tulsa, Okla., Office Of the Mayor, 197 ), Exhibit III, p. 5. ,1CitK Of Tulsa Oklahoma, Cancept ' 72-i The Tulsa Approach tO Managinth e Urban Environment 11 sa, a oma: ice 0 the Mayor, February 297,1972), pp. 1-2. 51 52 To implement the citizens' component of the manage- ment/policy element, a formal citizen structure known as the Greater Tulsa Council (GTC) was formed in May 1972. This formal structure consisted Of one representative from each Of the 25 planning districts (see Figure 2, p. 41) within the Tulsa metropolitan area. Each planning district has an elected citizen chairman and appropriate Officers (see Appendix F). The organizational structure is similar in principle to the Model Neighborhood citizen component. Small incorporated towns in the metropolitan area are con- sidered planning districts in themselves. The mayor of each town acts as the chairman Of the reSpective district. This planning district concept is a formalization Of a neighbor- hood level Of government with review and comment procedures about planning activities. The function of the district structure is tO provide a formal forum for lay citizen input into the preparation and implementation Of urban strategy. TO achieve citizen input, administrative and technical planning assistance is provided the Greater Tulsa Council and each planning district by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and its staff. Interest and commitment to planning district activities by the city were evident in the fiscal year 1976 funding of approximately $650,000 for all districts. Ths first major planning project to be undertaken by the citizens within this structure was assisting in the update Of the metropolitan comprehensive plan. The project 53 was called VISION 2000 and emphasized citizen involvement through the preparation Of comprehensive plans for each district. Each district would develop a "neighborhood" plan that would become part Of the total comprehensive plan for the city. To date all efforts have been devoted to planning process activities within the 16 districts com- prising the City Of Tulsa. Participation in the Vision 2000 process by the 10 county districts has been limited tO activities of the Greater Tulsa Council (GTC), which is comprised Of one elected representative from each Of the 26 planning districts. The update process was designed to include three essential phases: Phase I, to select an urban form: Phase II, to establish a set Of develOpment guidelines; and Phase III, to conduct district detailing. Phase I, Urban Form Selection, was carried out in 1972 to develop a general policy about the physical Shape of the city which defined the direction of growth and the amount of development in various areas throughout the city. Three alternative forms were discussed by residents of the metropolitan area: (a) "Trendline" (continuation Of southeasterly growth and development), (b) "Balanced Growth" (redirect growth to less developed areas to make better use of public investments, and (c) "Satellite" (encourage growth in surrounding communities). The final urban form selected was known as "Balanced Metropolitan Growth," a combination of the satellite and balanced growth forms (See Appendix E). 54 Phase II, Development Guidelines, established guide- lines for growth within each district Of the metropolitan area. These guidelines were to provide a planning founda- tion for further detailed planning within each district and to establish policies which would assist the Tulsa Planning Commission and City Council in making development and zoning decisions. Phase III, District Detailing (1973), was the last phase in updating the Tulsa comprehensive plan. District detailing is identical to neighborhood planning and involved citizen input from each district over a period of about two years (1973-1975) to develop a comprehensive plan for each district. Neighborhood planning teams were organized in each planning district. Planning team membership was to consist of 70% district citizens representing the residential community and 30% from the business and institutional community. Each citizen planning team would be assisted by a professional planning consultant during development of the "neighborhood" plan. The basic planning procedure to be used in the development of neighborhood plans was: Step 1. Orientation or training to become familiar with general planning terms and good planning principles. Step 2. Review of current information related to the district (e.g., population, public facilities, how land is used, zoning, traffic patterns, drainage patterns). Step 3. Identification Of issues and problems. Step 4. Development Of goals and Objectives. 55 Step 5. Development Of land use, transportation, and facilities plan alternatives. Step 6. Review, possible revision, and adoption Of a plan by citizens living in the planning district. Step 7. Forwarding Of plan to the Greater Tulsa Council (GTC) for review and comment. Step 8. Submitting plan tO the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, City Of Tulsa, and County Commission for adOption as part Of the comprehensive plan update. The district plan then becomes the guide for zoning matters, public improvements. It is particularly important to note the possible critical stress relationships created by steps 7 and 8. First, these steps provide for a change in the citizens' neighborhood plan. Second, the procedure permits Simul- taneous consideration Of several neighborhoods as well as the neighborhood and the greater community (City Of Tulsa) interests and priorities which may or may not be Similar. Thus, time and cost Of the planning procedure could increase due to the resolution of differences when the citizen neighborhood plan is incorporated with other surrounding neighborhood plans or the city's comprehensive (master) develOpment plan. Meaningful citizen involvement in the preparation and implementation Of a planning process which results in a comprehensive plan for the planning district requires the training of citizens in all aspects of planning. 56 Special attention was given by both the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and Greater Tulsa Council to the education Of district citizens and promotion Of urban issues discussions. Formal educational activities within districts consisted Of panel discussions and workshops on tOpics relating to comprehensive planning, zoning, housing, community organization, and development guidelines including market conditions. A set Of formally planned and executed training presentations which were part Of the initial phases of the Vision 2000 planning process provides the learning model for this study. This training model consisted Of seven separate but related formal training presentations titled "Citizen Training Presentation Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7" and one "Development Guidelines" presentation. Examples Of selected taped presentations can be seen in Appendices A, B, C, and D. Presentation Number 5 concerning a new charter form of government was not used because Of its controversial nature at the time. These presentations were prepared from materials contained in A Citizens Handbook for Neighborhood Planning2 prepared as part Of the Vision 2000 planning process. Both the citizens' training handbook and the citizens' training presentations were prepared by the same private planning consultant.3 The Development 2City and County Of Tulsa, Oklahoma, A Citizens Handbook for Neighborhood Planning prepared by Community Planning Associates (CPAT, 424 South Cheyenne Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 3Note: The planning firm Communi Planning Associates is no longer in bus1ness as Of July ; was partcfi Briesch Engineering Company which usstill in business. 57 Guidelines presentation was prepared by a different con- sultant. The medium used for training was a 35-minute taped (cassette) conversation between a professional planner (Mr. Russell Roach, CPA) and a citizen representative (Pastor Howard Shroeder) supplemented by relevant slides. The taped presentations and Slides were presented indi- vidually to each Of the 15 Planning District citizen planning teams during 1973 and 1974 by a professional planning team consisting Of a private planning consultant hired to assist the citizen planning team and a public planner from the staff Of the Tulsa MetrOpOlitan Area Planning Commission. The same training presentation was used in all districts with no modifications. All presen- tations were held in public locations within each district. Early citizen training sessions (#1, #2, #3) were reasonably well attended by citizens with high interest in planning. Interest declined in later sessions. Approximately 3,300 citizens were exposed to training materials.4 The average attendance per session was approxi- mately 55 persons. The largest average attendance was 80 citizens in Planning District 18. Large attendance also was found in DistrictsESand 6. The smallest average attendance of 30 citizens occurred in Planning District 3. Small attendance was typical in Districts 24 and 25. 4Estimate based upon available records in Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Offices and inter- views with training consultants. 58 Because Of the stated training intent and the unique planning structure and approach, the Tulsa Vision 2000 process was selected as the learning model for this study. The study is not intended to evaluate the Vision 2000 training program as a planning tool per se, but to use it as a guideline by which to test learning behavior concepts. Model Analysis Approach The Tulsa planning learning model is analyzed by content analysis methodology.5 Content analysis is defined as a "research technique for the Objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication."6 This technique was considered most appropriate for this planning study because Of its manifest communication orientation and the basic assumption that content analysis requires the communication to be analyzed to be accepted as a common meeting ground for the communi- cator (professional planner), audience (citizen planning team), and analyst. Content analyses Of the training presentations are limited primarily to "what" training materials were presented although consideration is given to "how" training materials were presented where appropriate to the analysis. Specific content analysis Objectives are 5Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication Research (New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1971), pp. 26-29 0 61bid., pp. 18-19. 59 (l) the identification of training (learning) intentions and Objectives and (2) a description Of substantive characteristics and content form in terms Of planning subject matter and methodology. The findings are used to determine appropriate criteria for identifying and describing the attitudinal and behavioral responses to the citizen training presentations. The content analysis pro- cedure also includes the analysis Of attitudes, interests, and values Of participating professional planners (producers of training communications) responsible for the conduct of training sessions and the comprehensive plans for each planning district. Inasmuch as the value Of content analysis depends heavily on the prOper establishment Of analysis categories, a detailed explanation of the cate- gories is necessary. Although modified substantially for planning purposes, the categorical classification system used for this study is based on the commonly used categories suggested by Bernard Berelson.7 The unit selected for the planning process training analysis is the planning theme. A planning theme is defined as an assertion that conveys information about a single type Of planning process subject matter (e.g., policy orientation). Because of training material structure and SCOpe Of planning subject matter, this thematic approach required the detailed study Of presentations by sentence, including assertions by parts Of sentences or single-word cues. 7Ibid., pp. 147-162. 60 The following planning thematic categories and sub- categories were used for training material analyses. The categories listed are considered exhaustive and mutually exclusive with regard to training subject matter. Content direction (pro or con) is selectively considered because the training Of citizens in the planning process itself is assumed to be a positive action and therefore few negative intent statements would be used except to support a positive point or statement. Content intensity (emotionalism, excitement value, sentimentalization) is referenced in cate- gories where deemed apprOpriate and significant to the learning process. Planning propaganda is treated Similarly. Space content within the learning model is considered only as a supplemental factor. Category I. Strategic Planning Process Theme: Intent: Refers tO actions required to set directional policies, cause and effect reasoning, and planning procedural aspects essential to fulfilling the purposes and functions Of the planning process itself or its plan product. Subject matter representative Of this planning category includes statements and words referencing the Tulsa Vision 2000 planning process. Planning policy structure elements and aspects include elements such as satisfaction Of com- munity interests, output of goods and services, and cost-effectiveness. 61 General Planning Process Steps8 Step 1. Existing Conditions: Use Of maps, reports, studies and figures to understand problems, Opportunities, trends, and unique features of the community. Step 2. Egglg: The specific goals that the com- munity desires, such as more parks, diverting traffic that does not belong in the neighborhood, protection against negative industrial encroachment, and stabilization Of some critical residential areas. Step 3. Principles and Standards: Understanding and incorporating various technical measurements for all develOpment activities within a planning unit (e.g., city). Step 4. Alternatives: Identifying various ways available to the planning unit to achieve the stated goals. Step 5. Plggg: Selection Of the district plan best suited for the community, utilizing some or all Of the possible alternatives. The plan will comprise land use, traffic ways, and public facilities. Step 6. Financing: Determination Of funding necessary for the completion Of the plan. Step 7. Implementation: Conduct of detailed actions and projects necessary to complete the plan. 8City Of Tulsa and County of Tulsa, A Citizens Handbook for Neighborhood Planning (Community Planning Associates, 424 South Cheyenne, Tulsa, Oklahoma, no date), pp. 3-7, 12, 66-77. Category II. 62 Plan Elements Theme: Intent: Refers to the creation Of technical means and/or maintenance Of intermediate (3-6 years) and long range (7 or more years) plans needed to assist in the continuing functioning and enhancement Of the community's infrastructure (i.e., circu— lation Of pOpulation and goods, civic services). Subject matter representative Of this planning theme includes statements and words referencing plan subject matter such as A. Plan Subject Matter: 1. 2. Plan report (i.e., clmprehensive plan, master plan) Essential plan subjects a. Natural features (e.g., rivers, flood plains, rock outcrOps, terrain, unique physical barriers) b. Transportation systems c. Land use (housing, commercial, industrial, public, etc.) d. Civic facilities, schools, parks, and services e. Economic/financial Industrial Development--jobs Market/property values Land ownership/restrictions Supply/Demand Systems f. Societal Systems Organizations Institutions g. Demography 63 B. Plan Elements and Characteristics 1. Plan elements9 a. Ends to be Obtained b. Feasibility c. Situational givens d. Commitments e. Provision for uncertainties f. Responsibility for action 2. Plan characteristics10 a. Complexity b. Comprehensiveness c. Significance d. Time e. Frequency f. Specificity 9. Confidentiality h. Formality i. Authorization j. Ease Of control Category III. Evolutionary PlanningyTheme: Intent: Refers to the creation and/or attainment of planned Shortlived Objectives (1-2 year plans) through a series Of managed inter- mediate systems (e.g., enforcement Of zoning ordinance requirements relevant to annual community development, capital improvement programs). Subject matter representative Of this planning category includes statements and words referencing planning subject matter such as . Capital improvements programming Zoning Market/prOperty values Land use attraction/repulsion IbWNI‘ O 9Barnard M. Gross, The Managing Of Organizations: The Administrative Struggle (London: The Free Press Of Glencoe, 1964), p. 181. 10Preston P. LeBreton and Dale A. Henning, Planning Theory (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 23-53. 64 Category IV. Human Values Theme: Intent: Describes belief systems, ideas, wants Of individual citizens, family and other groups Of individuals which are considered readily definable desires that motivate behavior (e.g., an individual desires to be elected to the city council). Subject matter representative Of this planning category includes statements and words referencing planning unit considerations Of attitudes about 1. Prosperity 2. Income 3. Social status 4. Social rank 5. Social equity 6. Power (participation) 7. Prestige 8. Kinship 9. Security 10. Health 11. Safety 12. Morality (good/bad, honesty) 13. Quality of life/deterioration Category V. Community/Interaction Theme: Intent: Refers to a sense Of community (common interest Of individuals) and neighborhood, district, city, or metrOpOlitan-group functioning, group decision-making methods, and responsibility for initiating planning action. Subject matter representative Of this planning category includes statements and words referencing interactive considerations Of 1. Community 7. COOperation 2. Neighborhood 8. Antagonism/conflict/stress 3. Planning district 9. Racial transition 4. City 10. Consensus/solidarity 5. MetrOpOlitan 11. Culture 6. Social equity 12. Society 65 The Planning Learning Model The citizen training (learning) model was designed primarily to foster understanding of the Vision 2000 process and as an aid to the citizens' decision-making process. The training model was initially designed to include seven training sessions but only three sessions were used in all planning districts. Selected sessions were shown in selected districts. All presentations were approximately 35 minutes in length and consisted Of a tape recording and supplemental slides. Taped presentations were in a conver- sational form between a professional planner and a citizen. Almost all presentations were shown to citizens at a loca- tion in their particular district. Some training presen- tations were held in city hall for planning district citizens in the general vicinity Of the central business district. Sessions averaged approximately 90 minutes with substantial time for questions and answers between trainers and citizen participants. Goals and Objectives The stated intent Of citizen training presentations was somewhat diverse but generally related to the general citizen participatory concept Of teaching citizens about decision-making and planning processes within the city. It is important to stress that the training process has been designed for the "lay" citizen and not for elected 66 city Officials, municipal employees, or professional 11 were to: planners. Major goals (1) increase the knowledge level Of citizens about the decision-making process, (2) provide the citizen with a technical knowledge base sufficient to make informed land use develOpment decisions (e.g., zoning), (3) increase rapport between public planners and citizens. NO specific planning Objectives were set forth for the training process, such as the knowledge level to be Obtained by citizens or the number of citizens to be trained during the program. Little attention was paid to assumptions about citizen participants other than (1) they would consist primarily Of district planning team members, (2) there would be a diversified level Of planning knowledge among planning districts of citizens who would voluntarily participate in the training process and (3) the education level Of expected participants would be a high school education. For several reasons, the analysis of the citizen learning model is limited to training presentations numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and the develOpment guideline presentation rather 11The intent of the citizens training program was determined from interviews with TMAPC planners and study of Vision 2000 files and reports. 67 than all six training presentations originally designed during the initial Vision 2000 planning process. First, all district planning team members were exposed to training presentations numbers 1, 2, 3 and develOpment guidelines. Presentations numbered 4, 6, and 7 were given only to a few selected districts depending upon the decision of the planning consulting teams and interests Of the particular district planning team. Presentation 5, Governmental Base, was not used as part Of the learning model because Of its contro- versial political nature relating to potential charumrchange issues at the time. Second, citizen attendance was greatest during the first three sessions (presentationslq 2,3, 4) and diminished rapidly after the fourth presentation. The planning content analysis structure explained heretofore was used tO derive the following description Of learning content, by presentation. The basic procedure is the counting Of thematic instances as referenced by a statement, part of a statement, or term and tallying. Learning Model Content Analysis The following planning subjects, concepts and quotes were taken from the Citizen Handbook for Neighborhood Planning12 as being of significant conceptual and subject interest in planning training sessions and were used as the basis for analysis Of each citizen presentation. 12Community Planning Associates, A Citizens Handbook for Neighborhood Planning (Tulsa, Oklahoma: City and County Of Tulsa, no date), pp. 1-44. 68 TRAINING PLANNING SUBJECT MATTER Presentation 1 Planning Process Comprehensive Plan Work-Living Areas Public Facilities Circulation Citizen Participation Plan Report Purposes Presentation 2 Physical Elements River Rock OutcrOp Terrain Wind Land Holdings Attraction Economic Employers Income Institutional Anchors Social Age Lifestyle Values Presentation 3 Market Prestige Supply and Demand Schools Racial Transition Zoning Neighborhood Concept Location Theory Downtown Suburbs Attract and Repel KEY TERMS Game DevelOpment Decisions Comprehensive Plan Planning Process Policy Standard Ridgeline Barrier Prestige Urban Farmer Racial Transition Leap Frogging Implements Neighborhood Concept Location Theory Zoning 69 TRAINING PLANNING SUBJECT MATTER KEY TERMS Presentation 4 Policy Ordinance Zoning Ordinance Precedent Courts Spot Zoning Spot Zoning Strip Zoning Strip Zoning Clustering Subdivision Regulations Capital Improvements Programs Capital.ImprovementsiProgram Urban Renewal Renewal Criticisms Eminent Domain Eminent Domain Relocation Market Slum Training Concepts and Opinions The following 15 planning concepts and opinions are quoted from the authors Of the training program13 and are used as being generally representative Of the major thrust Of the learning model. 1. "The concept Of the citizen playing in the game (planning) Opens up a whole new era in Tulsa" (p. 3). 2. "You have to live with the results of the game, so you better learn how to play, and play tO win" (p. 2). 3. "People in Tulsa want to return to the town hall and be involved in their community" (p. 2). 4. "The kind Of city we have reflects on you, the Tulsa citizen" (p. 6). 5. "Doing things differently involves the threat Of losing status" (p. 22). 6. "Social values come to bear on market values and zoning" (p. 24). 13%” pp. 1-44. Page numbers following each quote indicate the page upon which the quote may be found in the training handbook. 7O 7. "If your neighborhood school is shabby or closed down, you're hurting and hurting bad" (p. 25). 8. "Planning and zoning should be as close to the same as possible" (p. 28). 9. "Zoning is a universal concept; hated, feared, cursed, praised, and lauded . . . . Basically zoning '1ocks in' the land use" (p. 27). 10. ". . . institutional anchors, large concen- trations Of investment not only supply jobs but attract other investments" (p. 18). 11. "The history Of expressway relocation makes urban renewal lOOk like the candy man" (p. 41). 12. "In zoning, the courts don't correct mistakes, they compound them" (p. 34). 13. "Subdivision regulations are in one sense a form of consumer protection" (p. 34). 14. "The urban renewal program has generated a dramatic change in tax revenue in downtown Tulsa" (p. 40). 15. "Urban renewal is probably the most controversial and misunderstood implementation tool ever known" (p. 38). A large number, 12 Of the above 15 (80%), Of the above planning concepts and Opinions are presented as factual statements (i.e., numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, l3, 14, 15). Statements 3 and 5 are considered to be Of expectation orientation. Statement 2 is considered a preference statement. The main point being presented is the predominance of sureness with which training materials are presented Uncitizen participants. This "correctness" approach is supplemented by expectation (futurity) statements which could reinforce planning subject matter discussed during training sessions. 71 Strategic planning concepts are very evident in almost all Of the statements. Directional and action needs such as goals (quote number 1), democratic participation (quote number 3), and investment (quote number 10) are a few examples. Human values and interests are also manifest in quotes numbers 3, 5, 6, and 15. Implementation actions are implied in quotes numbered 2, 10, ll, 12, l3,and 14. The learning emphasis placed upon effectuation measures is notable. This concept is second only to planning as an activity which is a very important process factor in each action term (e.g., planning, zoning, doing, deteriorating, change, implementation). Also evident is presentation Of planning subject matter and Objects which are tO be planned or are elements to be used in the planning Of another Object. For example, planning Objects include the city's economic base, school facilities, housing, transportation systems, land develOpment and redevelopment devices (e.g., subdivision regulations, urban renewal, zoning, investments, tax revenues). Of major importance are quote references to the unit to be planned. The planning unit appears to be strongly related to a city-wide concept Of planning rather than the expected neighborhood planning orientation set forth in the Vision 2000 planning process. For example, six Of 15 (40%) quotes refer to city as the planning unit. Two quotes refer to "community" and "neighborhood" once each. The indication is the city is the predominant planning unit 72 toward which learning materials and planning concepts would be directed. Word Utilization Analysis A count Of planning subject referent words was made as a supplement tO the thematic content analysis. Word occurrence (three times or more) from most frequent to least frequent usage is shown in Table 2. Other planning terms used less than three times in the training presentations include words referring to security, aesthetics, urban design, organization, success, taxes, equity, efficiency, politics, realistic, suburbs, rural, urban legal restrictions, conflict, issues, communi- cation, education, advice and assistance, and democratic. Planning subject emphasis as suggested by use of terms in all presentations indicates strong attention given to (l) planning as an activity, (2) products of the planning process, (3) residential land use, (4) citizen participants, (5) market place factors, (6) social concerns, and (7) the unit to which planning is to be applied (i.e., city and neighborhoods Of Tulsa). The above seven planning subject areas account for approximately 34.4 percent Of all planning terms used separately or in combination with other terms during training sessions. Of interest in relation to training program structure and organization are the number and appearance of terms assumed used for reinforcement Of a subject. For example, the most frequently used word 73 TABLE 2 TRAINING SUBJECT WORD REFERENTS Planning Subject Training Presentation Word Referent Rank #1 #2 #3 Total (%) Plans, Plan Report 1 55 5 2 62 (6.5) Planning, Planned, Plan 2 3O 29 1 60 (6.3) Residential, House, Home 3 2 10 38 50 (5.3) Citizen, People 4 23 6 10 39 (4.1) City, Town, Tulsa 5 13 21 2 36 (3.8) Market/Property Value, Price 5 -- 1 35 36 (3.8) Social, Social Factors 6 5 18 9 32 (3.4) Neighborhood 7 6 3 21 30 (3.2) Race, Racial 8 -- 3 25 28 (3.0) Change, Transition, Modified 9 ll 1 ll 23 (2.4) Zoning, Zone 9 3 1 19 23 (2.4) Area(s) 10 1 ll 10 22 (2.3) Attitudes 11 4 8 9 21 (2.2) Development 12 5 8 5 18 (1.9) Streets, Expressway 12 4 2 12 18 (1.9) Commercial, Shopping 12 3 2 13 18 (1.9) Economic 13 5 8 4 17 (1.8) Growth 14 -- l4 2 16 (1.7) Facilities, Utilities 14 2 7 7 16 (1.7) Table 2-—continued 74 Planning Subject Training Presentation Word Referent Rank #1 #2 #3 Total (%) Community 15 6 5 4 15 (1.6) District 15 2 9 4 15 (1.6) School 15 1 l 13 15 (1.6) Physical Features 15 3 11 l 15 (1.6) Water, River, Flood 15 —- 12 3 15 (1.6) Status, Prestige, Rank 16 -- 3 ll 14 (1.5) Industry 16 1 8 5 14 (1.5) Transportation, Transit, Traffic 16 5 7 2 14 (1.5) Parks, Recreation 16 2 4 7 13 (1.4) Goals, Purpose, Objectives 17 10 2 -- 12 (1.3) System, Relationship 18 5 l 5 11 (1.2) Cost, Expense 18 2 7 2 11 (1.2) Problems 19 4 -- 6 10 (1.1) Income 19 -- 9 l 10 (1.1) Terrain, Basin 19 10 -- -- 10 (1.1) Demographic, Aged, Children 19 -- 6 4 10 (1.1) Plan Characteristics 19 9 l -— 10 (1.1) Planner l9 8 1 1 10 (1.1) Decisions 19 7 3 -- 10 (1.1) Timeframe: Long Range, Future 20 8 1 -- 9 (1.0) 75 Table 2--continued Planning Subject Training Presentation Word Referent Rank #1 #2 #3 Total (%) Wants, Desires, Needs 20 5 l 3 9 (1.0) Location 20 -- 1 8 9 (1.0) Land, Property 21 -- 3 5 8 Remainder less than 1 percent Professional 21 8 -- -- 8 Timeframe: Short Range, Daily 22 5 l -- 6 Implement 22 5 -- 1 6 Expensive 22 3 l 2 6 Family 22 2 3 l 6 Stability, Instability 22 -- -- 6 6 Rock Outcrop 23 -- 5 -- 5 Public 23 2 3 -- 5 BD, Downtown 23 -- 1 4 5 Quality 24 —- 2 2 4 Process, Means 24 4 -- -- 4 Policies 24 2 1 1 4 Understand, Explain 24 2 l l 4 Participation 24 4 -- -- 4 Deterioration 25 11 2 l 4 Officials, Governmau: 25 l -- 2 3 Security 25 -- -- 3 3 Role 25 l 2 -- 3 Table 2--continued 76 Planning Subject Training Presentation Word Referent Rank #1 #2 #3 Total (%) Opportunities 25 3 -- -- 3 Trends 25 3 -- -— 3 Private 25 2 l -- 3 Identify 25 3 —- -- 3 Barriers 25 -- 3 -- 3 Alternatives 25 3 -— -- 3 Population 25 2 l -- 3 Investment 25 -- l 2 3 Lot (Size) 25 3 -- -- __;3 TOTAL REFERENTS 319 282 346 947 NOTE: Referent terms were Presentations 1, 2, 3. tabulated from Citizen Training (See Appendix A, B, C.) 77 referent during presentations 1, 2, 3 was "plan" (plan report, plans). However, almost all Of the usage (approxi- mately 89%) occurred during presentation 1. By contrast the referent term "social" was used in a more numerically balanced manner during the entire training program. The referent term "race" increased from nO use in presentation 1 to the third most used term during training presentation 3, Planning Concepts. Thematic Unit Analysis Within the thematic categorical structure previously determined, the following thematic units are analyzed for 14 used significant learning content. Statement definitions in the analysis Of theme units are patterned after defi- nitions stated by Bernard Berelson (1971). Analysis by presentation is as follows. Citizen Training Presentation 1 The intent of Citizen Training Presentation 1 was to explain what planning is and give some details as to how and why the citizens can plan their neighborhood. Major planning themes--(A) what planning is, (B) how to plan the neighborhood, and (C) why plan the neighborhoodm- found in presentation 1 are consistent with the stated purpose Of the training presentation. Table 3 shows a l4Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis in Communication Research (New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1971), pp. 14-18. 78 total Of 80 statements were made in support of the three training themes. Factual statements constitute approxi- mately 61 percent Of the total statements and 13 percent are accounted for by demand type statements. The remaining 26 percent is made up of expectation, identification, and reference statements. The number and type Of theme state- ments by theme category may be seen in Table 4 indicating interest in strategy planning. TABLE 3 CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION 1 NUMBER AND TYPE OF MAJOR PLANNING THEME STATEMENTS* Type of Statement Major Theme Unit Total Expec- Identi- Prefer- Fact tation fication ence Demand What Planning Is 11 2 l 2 4 20 How to Plan 29 2 3 3 5 42 Why Plan _9 _4 _1_ _; .4 33. TOTAL 49 8 5 5 13 80 *Figures were tabulated from Citizen Presentation 1, See Appendix A. 79 TABLE 4 NUMBER OF PLANNING THEME UNIT STATEMENTS BY THEME CATEGORY Theme Category Theme Unit Total Evolu- Strategic Plan tionary Human Community Planning Elements Planning Values Interaction What Planning Is 10 4 5 1 0 20 How to Plan 14 19 o o 9 42 Why Plan _3 2 .13 _§_ '_§ 18 Total Number Of Statements 28 25 5 7 15 80 Planning subject matter about the theme "what planning is as given in presentation 1 is very broad in scope and general in nature. Subject matter includes process activities relating to approach and evaluation criteria, most Of which are based on standard and accepted means of undertaking planning. Subjects include: A. Planning Process Directives: 1. preparation for the future (guidelines, community needs) 2. change things which can be influenced (physical, social, economic) 3. democratic decision-making (participation, role, "town hall," OOOperation) 4. neighborhood as planning focus 80 B. Planning Process Evaluatives: 1. acceptance Of plan 2. consistency and continuity Of plan activities toward completion (support for plan) 3. "good" or "bad" planning results ("right" or "wrong" planning) These subjects reflect a strong strategic and evolutionary planning orientation. The planning time frame concept includes both futurity and daily decision—making require- ments. Though understanding and application of the planning process is a primary training emphasis, only one reference is made to the unit tO which planning is to be applied--the neighborhood. The theme "how to plan" centers on identification of specific planning process elements and their arrangement as a technical procedure for achievement Of a purpose. A single basic technical planning approach is discussed which includes generally accepted elements necessary to the logical preparation of a plan. Elements and activities are (l) conduct Of existing situation analysis, (2) establish- ment Of goals, (3) selection Of alternate plans, (4) selection Of optimum plan, and (5) implementation. Physical develOpment Objects such as housing, streets, schools, mass transit, rivers, and terrain are used as illustrations. Attention is given to plan preparation guidelines. Guidelines have been classified into three groups, (1) plan purpose and function, (2) plan content, 81 and (3) plan characteristics. Guidelines appear to reflect concern for rationality, logic, and control aspects of the plan preparation procedure. Control, cost, and proba- bility concepts are identified but not elaborated upon in this presentation. Learning material about plan purpose and functions stresses, not by priority, the need for the plan to a. be educational b. reflect community values and their change c. reflect physical change d. "improve general environment of community" e. set policy and guidelines f. aid daily decision-making g. coordinate technical skills h. be realistic and inspirational 1. identify problems, issues, and future trends. Plan content is noted to specifically include, a. work-living areas b. public facilities c. circulation d. physical, social, economic development e. implementation f. community goals Substantial attention is given to the broad area Of physical, social, and economic develOpment. Learning materials about plan characteristics state that every plan Should a. be "general" b. is "amendable," "flexible," "adjustable" c. is "comprehensive" (community statement) d. include cost e. include a time frame (20-30 years long-range) The planning Object toward which these plan preparation activities are oriented is stated in the theme "how to plan" to be the neighborhood and planning district. 82 However, each type of planning unit is referred to only once. The concepts Of district and neighborhood planning are introduced but not explained in Presentation 1. The theme "why citizens can plan their neighborhood" is the weakest theme within Presentation 1 with only five references being made to the subject. Various statements were, however, reasonably distributed throughout the theme unit. The possibility that potential physical (land use) problems would result if planning is not undertaken was the single predominant issue. One single, general reference is made to "start planning for people." A weak supple- mentary reference was made tO the need for the citizen to "work" for a good environment. The general idea of "need to plan" and "follow the plan" prevails throughout the presentation. Heavy support for acceptance of these ideas by participants rested upon learning materials calling attention to problems of deterioration Of housing conditions and natural environment. Other factors including attractiveness, incompatible land uses, traffic congestion, lack Of jobs and low income, declining investments, citizen input into governmental decision-making process, citizen apathy about city, arrogant attitude toward citizens, public interest, and increasing complexity Of neighborhood problems were included in presentations. This theme depends largely upon value oriented issues and quality Of living standards learning material. 83 Citizen Training Presentation 2 The intent Of Citizen Training Presentation 2 was to present elements which should be considered when you undertake planning in our districts. The major theme units considered appropriate for this learning presentation are (1) physical features considerations, (2) economic con- siderations and (3) social/demographic considerations. These planning considerations are presented and discussed during the training presentations in light of how physical, economic and social factors influence the amount, location, direction and quality Of growth within the city and planning districts. The "district" is the primary unit to which the training presentation refers and not the neighborhood or city. The learning emphasis placed upon each topic presented and discussed may be seen in the following Table 5. The "what planning is" theme from Presentation 1 has been included because of content structure necessity. Learning material emphasis in this presentation is upon physical features content Of the planning process as evidenced by the high percentage (39%) Of physical features related statements occurring in the training presentation. Physical features as an influence upon land use spatial location, amount, and general growth patterns are presented in a predominant factual mode. For example, approximately fifty percent Of all learning statements are presented as fact statements. Expectation statements accounted for approxi- mately twenty-four percent Of all type statements. The 84 TABLE 5 CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION 2 NUMBER AND TYPE OF MAJOR PLANNING THEME UNITS Type Of Statement Major Theme Unit Total Expec- Identi- Prefer- Fact tation fication ence Demand Physical Features Considerations 12 12 5 1 1 31 Economic Base Considerations 10 4 - - 3 l7 Social/Demographic Considerations 10 2 3 3 - 18 What Planning Is _8_ _l_ _:_ _:_ _g_ .13 TOTAL 40 19 8 4 8 79 SOURCE: Statement data and tabulations were tabulated from Citizen Training Presentation 2 materials and files, Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. remaining twenty-four percent of the total statements was made up of identification statements (10%) , preference state- ments (5%), and demand statements (10%). The number of learning statements by thematic mits is summarized in Table 6 . The theme subject matter of plan elements was the predominant learning thrust Of Presentation 2 with approxi- mately fifty-eight percent Of all statements being Of a physical features orientation. Physical features material was presented primarily as a growth determinant and almost always presented as a fact and/or expectation statement together with an economic or social/demographic influence referent. This technique appeared to create a complex 85 TABLE 6 NUMBER OF LEARNING PLANNING THEME UNIT STATEMENTS BY THEME CATEGORY Theme Category Theme Unit Total Evolu- Strategic Plan tionary Human Community Planning Elements Planning Values Interaction Physical Features Considerations - 25 l 5 - 31 (39%) Economic Base Considerations - 13 1 3 - 17 Social/Demographic Considerations - 4 3 8 3 18 What Planning Is lo .5 I I I l-' In Total Number Of Statements 9 46 5 16 3 79 SOURCE: Thematic units were identified and tabulated from Citizen Training Presentation 2 materials and files, Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Offices. learning situation. Specific physical features subject matter presented included learning referents Of (1) natural environment, (2) agrarian environment, (3) residences, (4) terrain, (5) rivers and creeks, (6) drainage basins, (7) flood areas, (8) ridge lines, (9) rock outcrops, (10) mass transit, and (11) industrial develOpment. The theme units Of economic base and social/ demographic factors were almost equally presented as learning subject matter in Presentation 2 with approximately 86 twenty-two percent Of all learning statements being devoted to each subject. Fact statements, such as "literally throwing away our investment in the Older part of town," accounted for approximately fifty-nine percent of all economic-oriented statements. Economic subjects included references to (1) cost, (2) economic decision-making, (3) property, (4) values, (5) income, (6) land "holdings," (7) exchange, (8) goods and services, investment, (9) expenditures, (10) economic development, and (11) taxes. Almost all economic statements were heavily referenced to social and transportation activities (e.g., automobile and home purchases), income, property values and zoning factors as important learning support referents. The social and demographic themes were presented in a heavily factual statement orientation as shown in Tabk34. Social terms relating to family, status, attitudes, values were used with demographic facts such as age, youth, race, and children. These social aspects were related to their influence on civic facilities (e.g., health, recreation) and mobility (i.e., transportation facilities and services). Additional attention to the theme What Planning Is? from Presentation 1 is interesting in the number of state- ments and kinds Of content found in Presentation 2. Approximately thirteen percent Of all learning statements in Presentation 2 were devoted toward this theme. Almost seventy percent Of the planning statements referenced strategic type planning with the remainder Of the statements 87 referring to plan elements and activities. These aspects contribute directly to learned behavioral reinforcement activities. Citizen Training Presentation 3 The learning intent of Citizen Training Presentation 3 was to discuss the planning concepts that are used in planning and help understand planning districts or communi— ties. In this presentation the planning district is the central planning unit to which learning material is to be applied. Thematic units of this learning presentation in number and content include the concepts Of (1) market value, (2) zoning, (3) neighborhood, and (4) Location Theory. One indication of learning emphasis placed upon each Of these concepts may be seen in the following Table 7. TABLE 7 CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION 3 NUMBER AND TYPE OF MAJOR PLANNING THEME UNITS Type Of Statement Major Theme Unit Total Fact Expectation Identification Preference Demand Market Value 14 3 - 2 l 20 Zoning 8 l - 1 1 11 Neighborhood 8 3 - - - 11 Location Theory 19_ _g_ _:_ _2_ _3_ 16_ TOTAL 40 9 - 5 4 58 SOURCE: Thematic statements were identified and tabulated from Citizen Training Presentation 3, Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Offices. 88 Learning emphasis regarding each major learning theme unit is reasonably well distributed within Presentation 3. Market value statements is the major emphasis Of this presentation and accounts for thirty-four percent Of the total learning subject matter. Location theory learning material accounts for twenty-eight percent of all learning statements. Zoning and neighborhood con— cept statements each equally account for approximately nineteen percent Of the learning subject matter. Learning materials in this presentation are presented in predomi- nately factual (69%) and expectation (16%) statement forms. Preference and demand statements account for eight and seven percent Of all training statements in Presentation 3. The number of learning planning concept statements by theme category is seen in the following Table 8. ffiABIJS 8 NUMBER OF LEARNING PLANNING UNIT STATEMENTS BY THEME CATEGORY Theme Category Theme Unit Total Evolu- Strategic Plan tionary Human Community Planning Elements Planning Values Interaction Market Value 1 10 4 5 - 20 Zoning - 2 9 - - 11 Neighborhood 3 4 l 2 1 11 Location Theory _1_ 1_2_ _2_ _l _:_ _l_6_ TOTAL 5 28 16 8 l 58 SOURCE: Thematic statements were identified and tabulated from Citizen Training Presentation 3 materials and files, Tulsa Metropolitan Area Offices. 89 The thematic category Plan Elements is the pre- dominant learning category Of this training material. This category accounts for approximately forty-eight percent Of all training statements and materials. Evolutionary planning training materials account for about twenty-nine percent Of the learning materials. Very little emphasis is placed on training materials relating to community inter— action while human value related materials account for about thirteen percent of all training statements. Market value learning subject matter (35%) was dis- cussed in terms of planning topics and issues which tend to influence market activity. Important learning topics and issues include social attitudes and preferences, supply and demand racial transition, and purchase or selling environ- ment. Training emphasis was placed upon relationships between social attitudes and market value Of residential property. "Racial transition" and its influence on high vacancy rates in homes is an example of the relationship between attitudes and market and its importance as a planning concept. The "neighborhood" as a planning guide- line was considered tO keep through traffic out Of a neighborhood, avoids strip zoning, and provides safe pedestrial access tO schools and parks, along with other features. The purpose of the neighborhood concept was to achieve a comfortable and convenient neighborhood environ- ment. Major learning emphasis during this presentation was placed upon the physical components Of the neighborhood with 90 some attention to social status, racial transition, and market value stability. Zoning learning subject matter was presented as a tool for implementation of the comprehensive plan through the separation Of land uses into districts for the purpose of providing security and protect property values. Training attention was given to perceived impact Of "strip" zoning and need to avoid mixed land uses such as single-family homes, gas stations or welding shops and how and where certain property should and should not be zoned. For example, "commercial zoning on an Obscure deadend street won't work" . . . . or "commercial establishments have to be where the action and traffic happens to be." Location planning theory was addressed and presented during Training Presentation 3 primarily as a spatial dis- tribution concept Of compatible or incompatible land uses and activities. Learning emphasis was placed upon "attract or repel" land use relationships. The following quote from the Tulsa Citizen Training Handbook provides an example Of the learning approach used during the training presentation to present location theory as a set of planning principles. Motels have to be near the travelers, commercial shOps near their particular customers, trial lawyers close to the courts, and doctors' Offices near the hospitals. 15Community Planning Associates, A Citizens Handbook for Neighborhood Planning (Tulsa, Oklahoma: City and County of Tulsa, no date), p. 30. 91 Content Analysis Summary The purpose, to present learning materials which would describe "what planning is" and provide details on "how and why citizens can plan their neighborhoods," was accomplished in a broad and general manner. Major findings about training content include: 1. Training purposes Of each citizen training presentation were clearly stated with subject content directly supporting the stated purpose. 2. A total of 215 separate learning statements were presented to citizen participants during the three training presentations. (See Table 9, page 96.) 3. Of the total training (learning) statements made, 127 out of 215 statements (59%) were presented in a factual statement mode. 4. "How tO plan" and type of planning subject matter to consider in the preparation Of a comprehensive plan was the dominant learning thrust. 5. "How to plan" theme proved to be the major thrust with over fifty-two percent Of the learning material being devoted tO this theme. Learning materials concerned with the themes "what planning is" and "why plan neighbor— hoods?" accounted for twenty-five percent and twenty-three percent of the total respectively. 6. A management orientation prevails as one Of the major aspects of the learning model as evidenced by the number Of strategic planning assertions (28). 92 7. The technical planning process and related plan elements were the second single major aspects of the learn- ing model totalling 25 assertions each. 8. Physical products (plans) Of the planning process which emphasized infrastructural, housing, and market aspects of the city were dominant learning matter. Social factors, zoning and neighborhood (as the planning unit) were introduced strongly as an important learning need. 9. Very strong learning emphasis was placed upon the "city" as the most important planning unit toward which the planning process and products (plan) should be directed. This is somewhat contrary to the stated planning unit Of "neighborhood" in the purpose Of Presentation 1. 10. Physical features considerations necessary to the preparation of a comprehensive plan were given greatest attention with least attention given to the neighborhood concept and zoning. Thematic unit rank is summarized for all presentations as follows: NO. Of Theme References Rank How to Plan 42 1 What Planning Is 33 2 Physical Features 31 3 Why Plan Neighborhood 18 4 Social/Demographic 18 5 Market Value 18 6 Economic Base 17 7 Location Theory 16 8 Neighborhood ll 9 Zoning 11 10 TOTAL 215 93 11. The major unit tO which training materials were focused was the city and not the neighborhood. This was evidenced by the following summary prepared from term frequency tables. Planning Unit Frequency Rank City (town) 36 1 Neighborhood 30 2 District 15 3 Community 15 4 Metropolitan (suburb) 2 5 12. Training planning subject matter was classified into broad generally accepted physical, economic and social subject areas with particular attention to natural features, transportation and housing. 13. NO technical training in Specific planning subject areas or the planning process occurred. Only general references were made about the basic elements and functions Of the planning process. Simple examples were used for each element (i.e., existing conditions, goals, plans implementation). 14. Only in one instance did learning reinforce- ment directly occur. The theme "what planning is" of Presentation 1 was used as introductory material for Presentation 2. 15. Planning subject terms referencing directly the general areas Of physical, social and economic aspects were predominantly physical oriented as seen in the following term frequency summary. 94 Orientation Frequency Percent Physical 444 43 Social 203 20 Economic 92 9 Other 292 28 TOTAL 1028 100 11. Space analysis by presentation indicated space allocation was substantially greater for plan element thematic material than for any other theme. A summary of Space allocations by theme category is as follows: (Square Space Theme Category inches) Percentage Rank Plan Elements (434.0) 51 1 Human Values (133.8) 16 2 Strategic Planning (103.1) 12 3 Evolutionary Planning ( 95.8) 11 4 Community/Interaction ( 76.4) 10 5 TOTAL 843.1 100 Table 10 (p. 96) shows a breakdown of space utili- zation by presentation which clearly supports previous training content analysis findings. Content analysis findings indicate the learning expectations Of citizens participating in Vision 2000 training workshops to be how to plan the physical elements within the city. The training program stressed physical planning in terms of natural features, transportation, housing, land use spatial distribution, and growth patterns. Training materials were presented in a predominantly factual statement mode and were used to explain what planning is. 95 .mpHnmmH .mm .HHan .sammsoo maHamHHnsm swamps "Muow 302V mHmmHmcm ucmpcou .cOmemHmm oumcummH AcoHuom mUHOHHomc ucoEmumum Oswemo n a HOHSHSMV usmsmumum GOHumuommxm u m Hunmsov usefiwumum mocmummmum u m HmHV uswfioumum uomm u m HcOHuwmsvv ucwfiwumum SOHOMOHMHUGOOH n H .Nt soHpmucmmmHm CH macsu meow mo mucoamumum mchusoo Hmuoes HOOHV HNHV Hey Hmv HSHV Home Hwy mHN mN vH MH mm NNH mucmfimumum Hosea mm mm mm v v SH m v m I m m 0 NH m mm Nm hm musmEmumum HmuounSm I04 I II MI I II .NII II I H! I. II INII II .II mm: II I SHEER. COHHMOQH HH I I I m m OGHCON HH H H I H m poonuonanmz mH H N I m NH msHm> umthz mH I m m N OH OHsmmumOEOO\HMHOom NH m I I o OH ommm OHEOSOOM Hm H H m NH NH mmusummm HMUHmmnm mH v I H o m ooonuonnmwwz :mHm wnz Nv m m m N mN cmHm Op 30: mm m N H m mH .mH mchqum amp: m N H m N H m N H m N H m N H m N H Honfidz :oHumucmmmHm Hmuoa unmade mocwuommum SOHDMOHMHUSOOH SOHumuommwm uomm uHcD wedge SOHumucmmem SQ HucoEOumum mo mums m¢ .m# .H# oneaezmmmmm mo smazsom szmzmeHommumo mm: pcmH some SH mmuom mo Hones: co comma xcmm« VLDMr-INLO [\ON HH OH [\fl'I—INO‘) LDGNCDLnfl'I-I OmI—I H H VLOQKDCONFI—IN H r-IO‘kOInNI‘ mom HH OH LnV‘NmI—Im I‘ko OH HH mm wH NH 0H mo mo mm 00 we we NO NO pawn OOHOMHOOHHO mmHuHHHomm ucmom> huHGSEEOU HOHHumsocH HMHOHOEEOU OSHmsom xsmm uwnEsz moms uOHHumHO coHumonHmmmHu mm: pcpq sh Hana pcmH mchcmHm *mmMB mmD DZ .mOHuHHHus .SOHHOOHSSEEOO .mummhum mOOOHocH OOHHMHSOHHU .mmms HmusuHso .SOHHMOSOO .mSOHOHHOH mOOSHocH mOHuHHHomm NHHOOEEOO .Ommuoum .mchsosmHms .OGHHOHOOMSGME mOOSHOOH OHmmOHO£3 can NMOODOCH .mOOH>HOm HmconmOmoum .mOOH>HOm HMHOHOEEOO .Oomuu HHOOOH mOOSHocH HOHOHOEEOO .mmusposnum HOHHSOOHOOH unmom> .NHHEmmlmHmHuHsfi .mHHBmmIOHOSHm mOOSHocH OOHmsom . "OSOHHOO mm OOSHMOO OHM mOOHumOHOHmmmHO OmD Ocme HNMVIDLO .mIO smsounu HIO .mm .HOBOH .GOHmmHEEOO mchsmHm MONO :muHHomoquz mmHse .MEoanxo .mmHSBV mchcmHm HHMHOO MOM mama OHmmm .mHOHHumHO HHOOSOU mmHsa Hmummuw SOHO OmumHsnmu Ohm sumo Own OOOH "OOMDOO HOOHVOOO.HHH hmO.v NNm.NN mmm.OH NO0.0H mHh.OH NhN.OH mHO ONm.h Hm¢.h O¢5.m hoo.m NHm.v mmuod HmuOB HHmv OOH.Ov OMO.H hmm.OH NhO.HH mHv.m NOO.v Oom.v MON mhm MOO.H mO MON Omo.H UCOH ucm0m> .O HBHO MO0.0H OOO HHv.N Ovm.N OmO.m OhO.H mON.H OOH ObO.H HNO.H mam OOO mmm.H GOHHMHDOHHU .m HO O HSN.O SON Hem.H mum OOH.N HOm OmH ON Ohm vmm HHm OhH mNN OOHHHHHOOO MOHOOEEOU .O HO O mmm.m hv NOO mm mHO.H MOO.H OOH N we ONN NO th nvm OHOOOHOQZ Ocm wuumsosH .m AH O OOe.m OOH OOO ONm va OOH OO Hm mmv OOh OON th OOH HOHOHOEEOU .N HOMO NSH.Hm HON.N MNN.O hmm.m HNO.N HmO.H HHO.NH vON HOO.¢ ON¢.m HOH.N mmm.H HON.H OOHmsom .H mN OH NH OH O O b O O O m N «coHumOHMHmmMHU Hwy HOHOB Om: OGOH HOHEOZ HOHHumHO OchcmHm BUHmBmHQ GZHZZNHQ Nm mmmod ZH mUHBmHmMBo¢mHMDGmEon oz mchcmHm “pmuonEoo whammy mcwHoonom mo mmha an xcmm DMBMHQZOU demw HOOEUm m0 mmmSDZ BmOS wm QWMZH mom.mH HmH.m omm.m sma.o msoocH.m 14 v mmm.v Hm mmm.H emH mm mm mH on hHo.m mom moH we ow uo>o can ooo.mm AsHV mH~.vH one vmm.m omm.H mam eon HNH OOH mmo.m Nvm.m Ham owe omm mmm.v~an Ammo www.mm mov.a msH.m mms.m nmm.a mHH.H Ham mom omo.m mnm.e omm.m mwm.H oom mam.VH-OH Ammo HHm.mH mon.H mmv.H Hmm.H oso.m mom.H smm Ham Hem.m mmv.m emm.m mos.H mmm.H mom.mus Aom. mmm.oH sow.H Hmm «em Ham.H mHH.H mmm mmm oom.H Hmm.H mms.~ mmm.H OHm.N mom.oum Am V mom.s mHm mam mmH mmv on ms 00H mHm omm osm mam «4H.m ooo.mw cmnu mmmq mm mH 5H 6H m m n o m v m m omcmm 3: H38. 285 Hmnaaz DUHHumHo mchGMHm Hmscc< BUHmBmHQ UZHZZde Mm mEOUZH MHHSdm HflDZZfl Nm MHHHHZ¢m m0 mmmEDZ mH mamfia 108 .mNIm smsounu Hum .mm .HSNNH .aonmHssoo mchcmHm mmum cmpHHomouuoz mmHDBV mchcmHm HHmumo Hom mumo UHmmm .HHocsoo mmHSB Hmummno Eoum pmumHsnmu medem "mumsom SOHV NNN ON me mm mH NN m m 2. N ow mH mm .2909 ANNIV Ml ml m. N M: M: fl. .NI .HIH. Iml .ml Iml mm $53983 65... 389 Hm V mN I m I H I I I m H o I m mHmuHmmom I nuHmmm 8H V S. m m H H N N H m N NH N mH mmofifimm HmHoom Hm V mN I m N N m I H m H a N N coHuomuoum muHm Hm V NH H H H H H I I H H N H N mmHHmHQHH Cum V mHH HH NH 3 m 0H m N NH mH m H. OH 3028 N mH 9H mH m m 9 m m v m N AwV Hmuoe moHuHHHomm umnfidz DUHHumHD mCHccmHm mBUHmBmHQ UZHZZde ZHEBHB MMHBHHHUflm MEHZDESOU m0 mamZDZ NH mam¢9 109 .Q ocHso xmocH .HmhmH .QOHmmHEEOU mchcmHm mwnm cmuHHomouumz mmHsaV mchcmHm HHmumo mom mumo UHmmm .HHocsoo mmHsB umummuw Scum mmpmHsnmu mmusmHm “mumDom AHIV ovm Ab V Am V AH V Hm V AN V HomV mmm.m hom.m oom.H mvm.m ooN.N mov.m0H mH Nmm mam mm va Hv 000.0 mm Nov.H ovo.H me va mow hmo.wH mv vwm 0mm GVH NmN mOH NH mNm mom vNH th MOH fivv HHV mNH OOH om vmm.h mom.h omm.v MHH 00H mm mNH mH om hv mm mm 0v NvN.H mNm.H NmH VNm.N vfim.H NhN th mHm vom.mH mOH mmH.H mmo.H oHN mom mmN Nho.vH mo hm hvo.H Ohm wmo.H NmN vmm mvH wmv.NH va Hm mmN vm Hon.h mmm mom NmN mmv mm HmN.m menoz musmmmzmgsu meuoz 669035.939 HoxHOS ucoscuo>ow HmooH umxuoz Dawechm>ow oumum menoz ucmecuw>ow Hmumowm mmquflgmczu moM988HmEm hammeou QESHHm mo mmAOHQEm ANV Hm909 mN mH 5H 0H m m h @ Hmnfisz HOHHumHQ mchcmHm BUHmBmHQ UZHZZde Nm mmdflu Nm mmmmmoz m0 mmmSDZ mH mqmfifi 110 Learned Planning Behavior Analysis General Findings A total of 109 cases (40% return) were obtained from the original random sample of 276 (138 participants and 138 nonparticipants). Eighty-one samples of the total were completed and of usable quality. Fifty-eight causes (42%) of 138 participant samples were analyzed. Only twenty-three cases (17%) of 138 nonparticipant samples were of usable quality. Twenty cases (21%) were returned by private and public planning consultants acting as district planning team advisors and technical resource persons. Public and private consultants were not included in the statistical analysis but were used as a coorientation referent in the training model. Participating citizens, toward whom Vision 2000 planning training programs were directed, were assumed by trainers to represent adequately the attitudes, beliefs, wants, and needs of the entire planning district. Reference to Table 19, however, indicates large discrepancies between the actual composition of most planning district teams and selected social and economic characteristics of the entire planning district. Most planning teams do not represent a full cross- section of the total planning district pOpulation, making it highly probable that special interests of participants will dictate orientation of the planning process. For 111 .< OUst xoch .A0hmH .COmeHEEOO maHacmHa amaHHomoaamz mmHaBV mcHacmHa HHmawa How mama UHmma anm mGOHamHaamB« m.mH m.mH N.m Amy» mIHV Hoosom anm N.mH N.HH . I Hwy» NINV NumacmsmHm m.m o.m I HmuN mImV mumacmstm Avoo .um>V o.N m.H I Hwy» «IHV NumacmsmHm .mmamHmsoo am.o N9.o I 0:02 Hoorom mama» 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H m.m 0.0 N.0 MomHm Amoo .am>V wN.om av.Hm am.mm oaH£3 "00mm 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H m.NH o.HH m.bH Hm>o mam m0 m.mN m.om n.0v ¢0Imv h.>H o.mH m.vH wvlmm m.mH m.oN m.mN vMImN ANoo .Hm>V w>.HN wN.0N wh.m ¢NI0H "mom o.OOH o.OOH c.00H o.wv v.9v 9.00 mHmz AHoo .am>V wo.Nm w0.mm am.mm mHmEma "xmm ammud «maoHHamHa macmaHoHaHma UHamHHmaomamao amaHHoaoaaoz mcHaamHa mmoooaa aoaamHaaoa wpaam maHacmHa flmmd ZdBHHOmomBmZ I mBUHmBmHO UZHZZflHm NOD80 I mBdeHUHBmoo Hmooq m.H m.H I mmNngsm .a.>oo mamam 9.N 9.N o.NH mwNonsm .a.>oo Hmummmm H900 .um>V m.H N.H m.9H sammsoo :30 "mmNonam ":oHamOHmHmmmHo wo.om wN.om wm.mN .OU mam>HHa “mmonmfim meaoz o.OOH o.OOH o.OOH m.v H.mN m.m macs mam ooo.mN N.mH m.9N m.mH mmm.¢NImH o.NN m.9N m.9N mom.¢HIOH o.NN m.9 N.HN www.mI9 m.oN N.m 9.mH mmm.mIm Hmoo .um>V wm.m am.N w0.m mmoH 0am ooo.mm "oEoocH >HHEmm o.OOH o.OOH o.OOH HmwscHacooV m.N o.m m.mm Amy» whoa Ho mV mmmHHoo xqoo .um>V o.m m.m m.9H Hmum vV wmmHHoo .mmamHmsoo m.mH m.¢H m.NH Hwy» mIHV mmmHHoo Hoorom mummm «mwad *maoHHamHa maamaHoHaHma UHamHHmaomHmau cmaHHoaonamz mchcmHm mmmooaa aoHamHamoa Nmsam mchcmHm mmquacooIImH mamm9 113 example, 40 percent of the citizens participating in the training and planning process were of the 45-64 age group with little representation from the 16-24 age group. The following table is a summary of selected variables. TABLE 20 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SELECTED PARTICIPANT/NONPARTICIPANT VARIABLES Significance of F Variable Participant Nonparticipant Age (Var. 002) .85 .41 Years of School (Var. 004) .92 .44 Family Income (Var. 005) .57 .86 Meaning of "Balanced" Growth (Var. 053) .90 .86 Meaning of "Quality" Growth (Var. 054) .85 .48 Most Important Planning Goal (Var. 121) .77 .09 Despite the lack of statistical significance, the summary table suggests that there is a tendency toward cooriented planning behavior among nonparticipants in the formal planning process in their agreement on what is the most important goal of the district planning team. They considered the most important goal to be the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the district. However, as all comprehensive plans had already been completed for the 12 districts studied, this behavior indicates a lack of communication activities within the district continuing planning process. 114 Sixty interval and ordinal measurement level learned planning variables were combined into five learned planning variables and analyzed by analysis of variance for significance. The following table summarizes main effects of learned behavior Index by amount of partici- pation in initial planning training sessions and other planning sessions by planning process participant. TABLE 21 MAIN EFFECTS OF LEARNED BEHAVIOR INDEX Significance of F (P f .05) Planning Learning Base Index Initial Training Other Meetings Index I Level of Technical Planning Knowledge .99 .99 Index II Planning Language .09 .04 Index III Ability to Apply Planning Knowledge .99 .36 Index IV Attitude Toward Bureaucracy .99 .36 Index V Understand Community Group Norms .001 .002 The analysis of variance (N-way) indicates there is no significance (null hypothesis is true) in the level of technical knowledge (Index I), ability to apply planning knowledge (Index III), and attitude toward bureaucracy (Index IV) between those citizens who attended initial planning meetings as designed and those district citizens who did not attend or participate in the Vision 2000 115 planning process. There are significant differences in the understanding of planning language (Index II) and understanding of community/group norms (Index V). General support of the null hypotheses for Indices I, II, III permits several general conclusions about participants. 1. It is suggested that the learning program as designed for the Tulsa planning environment did not significantly influence the level of planning knowledge of citizens participating in the Vision 2000 planning process. The generally held concept that planning language and terminology are barriers to citizen understanding of planning was not a factor in planning coorientation behavior of participating citizens who were/are members of district planning teams indicating the learning program did contribute in improving the understanding of planning terminology. The technical planning subject matter as presented in initial training sessions was of a generalized nature and perhaps would have been of greater value if strengthened by reinforcement (i.e., newspapers, public meetings, conversations, etc.). The finding that continuing participation in the planning process, as evidenced by attendance at other planning meetings, did not increase the level of planning knowledge suggests the continuing planning process is not utilized as a learning device. Findings contrary to the hypotheses of Indices II and V include the following: 1. As might be expected attendance of formal planning sessions tends to enhance the under- standing of planning terminology by district citizens. Of major interest is the suggestion that as citizen participation increased in the Vision 2000 planning process, the greater was the citizens' disillusionment with the planning process. This particular finding indicates 116 (1) the necessity for the continuing rein- forcement of the learning process, (2) attention to rewards for accomplishment and effort, and (3) recognition of belief and values of par- ticipants in the planning process. Selected Variable Analysis Several major learning variables representative of the indices of the level of knowledge, ability to apply knowledge, and interest in community/group norms are selected for detailed analysis because of their particular relevance to citizen training and learning programs. Table 22 in this section indicates through analysis of variance technique potential areas of statistical significance among learning variables. Level of Planning Knowledge Attendance of initial formal planning training sessions by participants did not appear to significantly enhance their level of technical planning knowledge over that of citizens who never attended the planning training sessions. This finding is surprising because the intent of the training was to provide new knowledge about the planning process and the environment which would aid in the citizens' decision—making process. The desire for additional training in technical planning subject matter, however, was very evident in responses of both participants and nonparticipants. This could suggest that (1) training materials did not provide the type or level of technical planning information thought necessary by citizens to make 117 mHaoaHHo moHamocdoa HonmE\a0HHamH0 mam mHHmaHao mmHaHHHomm mchdEEoo mo ma>a\a0HuamHo 0cm mammaHHo mmam mo mNHm\aoHHamHU mam mHawaHao mocmHam mo amaESC\aOHaamHm cam mommo cmNHaHo mvmmc aOHuamHm saHB moma aamx mHHmaHuo GOHamHaaoa Hmaoa\a0HHamH0 mam poonaoaamHmc mo moonaoanmaoc mo moozuoaanmc mo mooaaoaanm: mo ooonaoaanmc mo aoHaame mchamHa :HnaH3 mmsHm> aomeE mamH UHHasa mo mmmcoumzd aoHHamHm mchcmHa CHnaHs mmaHm> ammeE UGmH HmHHamsch mo mmocwamsm aoHaamHm mchcmHm cHaaH3 mmcmna msHm> amxama ocmH HmHoamEEoo mo mmmcmamsa aoHHame NGHccmHa cHaaHs mmcmaa mnHm> amxame mcmH HmHacmonma mo mmocmamza aoHHamHU mchamHm cHnaHz mccmaa msHm> aoxams QQmH HmHaaH50Hamm mo mmocmam3¢ aoHHamHm mcaacmHa :HnaH3 mmcmaa mSHm> aoxamE UGmH acmom> mo mmocmamzd aoHaame mCHcamHa :H mcH>HH mchHaHo oa mCHaHmaa HmOHaaooa mo mmocHammma moCHame poosaoaamHmc mHaacoE oaHpaHocH popcmaam maosmxuo3 mchHmua Hmnao mo HmaEdz pwmcmaam mGOHamacmmwnm mchHmaa OOON c0HmH> mmHaB HmHchH mo awafisz mmma momH mmmH mmmH mama acmaHoHaumacoc\acmaHoHaama m>m£ mmoH>amm cmaaa acmaxa cmmzama moamamMMHa cmozama woaonMMHa cww3ama moamHmMMHa cmmsama mocmHmMMHa cmmzama mocwammmwa MNH Nmo Hmo omo mvo mva hvo wvo mvo Nvo Hvo ovo mmo Nmo 0H0 moo "Hman mam umnssz mHanum>I AwQHSHom :mQHDV amoamnmmmao mooruonrmHszaoHuamHaV xaoHuamHo ca mmsHm> amxnsz HmchHmu9V mm. am. no. mm. mm. mm. mm. mN. mH. mm. mm. mm. mm. NNH mm. mm. Hv. ma. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. 0H0 mm. mm. mo. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mNH mm. mm. «H. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. mm. mm. moo Nmo Hmo omo mvo mqo 940 «we mac Neo H40 040 Nmo Nmo «06> mwaquozu oszzaqm mo am>mq "H xmazH xMQZH mmdm wZHzm¢mH UZHZZ m0 MMdZSDm NN mqmflfi 118 mommo cmNHaHo acmaHoHaummcoc\acmmH0HaHma mNH mmcHaomE ooocnoaamHmc mHnacos mcHosHocH owesoaam mmoamxHOB mchHmHa amsao mo Hmafiaz OHo omocwaam wGOHamacommam mchHmHa OOON conH> mmHaB HmHchH mo amafidz moo meoocH >HHEmw Hmsccd moo "Hmnmq mam umnssz mHanum>I Hmmmsmcma mchamHaV mm. mm. mm. om. moo MO¢DOZ¢H OZHZZ "HH xMDZH UmaaHaaOOINN mnmda 119 mmcHammS oooaaoaanoc aHaaaos mcHoaHocH omncmaam moonmxao3 mchHmHa Hwaao mo Hoafisz OHO Omocoaam mGOHamacmmmHa OCHchHa OOON GOHmH> mmHsB HmHchH mo Hmafisz mOO “H693 man 0852 6338?. AmHoaacoo mma mama mo oocmaaanHV mm. mm. mm. mm. wo. wo. mm. mm. MNH mm. mm. mm. ow. Nm. mm. mm. mN. OHO mm. mm. mm. mm. ON. mN. mm. mm. MNH mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. moo vOH MOH NOH HOH OOH mmO mmo hmo «Hm> mm. mm. mm. mm. Hm. mm. mm. mN. NH. MNH mm. mm. mm. mm. HH. Hm. mm. mm. mm. OHO mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. 00. mNH mm. mm. mH. mm. 0H. mm. mm. mm. MN. moo omo mho who who 0NO mbo fiho MOO Nho «Hm> H.095 HmamSHmHm HmHmoo aamanH mfirmwa Afikoao OOON HmHaawmmm Hmmmcham mo msHm> “momswV HmchHmaB HmGOHaHOON mo mmmcHaummaV .mHaV 3omV mo mHomV OH. mm. mm. mm. mm. NN. mm. moo. mH. NH. mm. mm. MNH mm. mm. mm. 9m. 00. mOO. mm. Hm. HN. mm. mm. MN. OHO 9H. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. NO. VN. mH. mm. mm. MNH mH. mm. mm. vo. HH. 9N. mm. mm. mH. mm. Hm. mm. mOO va mmO NmO mmo hmo 0mO mmo wmo mmo hNO 0NO mNo «Hm> MGQMH3OZM OZHZH¢MB Mammé OE NBHHHmfi uHHH xMQZH omaaHacoolN N Emma. 120 GOHamUOH mam maHHHamHHm>m mchooz\Houacoo GOHamxma\Hoaacoo mCOHamHsmmH GOHmH>Hoasm\Honacoo acosmoaomcm mchou\Hoaacoo mamammm QOHamaHoamcmaa\Hoaacoo manmmm mmHaHHHaa maHGSEEoo mcaamHXm\Houacoo mmo mamH mm: ocmH mm: ocmH mm: ocmH mmd mcmH mm: mamH aOHHamHO aoHHamHo aOHHamHO aOHHamHO aoHHamHm aoHaamHm 0» O» 0» mocmaaanH mocmauomEH mommaaomEH wocmauanH monmananH mommauanH coHammmcoo UHmmmHa mo coHamH>wHHm\aoHaamHO oa Hmom acmaaon>oo mH oHamaHm> 3oz acmaaon>mo HmHoaoEEoo aHHam acm>maa\aoHHamHo oa Hmom acmaaoHo>oo mH mHamsHm> 3cm OoOHam ma mmHSB mo aazoam mo GOHaooaHO oHaoam acmE>0HaEmca\mEmHaoaa oumzoa OmaaaHHacoo mHooaom mo maao3ouoam>0\mEmHaoam Ohmzoa OmaaaHHacoo macmaamm>cH Hm3oH\mEmHaoaa mam3oa OmasaHHacoo mmscm>ma maHo H030H\meHaoaa oumzoa OmadaHaacoo mcHo3oaoao>o HmHacoOHmoH\wEmHaoua mam3oa OmaaaHHacoo mmsz> mammaoaa Ho3oH\mEmHaoaa mam3oa OmasaHaacoo maammoaa mo acmscoocmam\mEmHaoaa Ohmsoa OmaaaHHacoo GOHamomcoo onmmaa\meHaoaa mamsoa OmasaHHacoo mmHaHmamo ommmoaocH\mEoHaona mamzoa OmaaaHaacoo mEHao mo Hm>mH\acmanHo>mm mosHm> Nauwaoam HmHaamaOcH\acmEa0Hw>oO mosHm> haamaoaa HmHoamEEoo\acmanHw>oo mmaHm> waumaoaa HmHacoonmH\acmsa0Hw>mo macmfiw>oaaEH NaHo\acwEa0Hm>mo aOHaamHo oacH mcH>oE chmama mo ma>a\acmfiaon>mo aOHaamHo aoHHamHo aoHHamHm aOHaamHo aoHaamHm aoHHamHo aoHHamHo aoHHamHo aoHaamHm ca ca :H ca :H :H :H 8H CH aoHHamHo asoam aoHaamHm asonm aOHHamHO asoam aoHaamHo aaoam uoHuamHm agonm aoHaamHm anonm nazoam mmm na3oam mmm gaBOHm mmm nasoam mmm ca3oam mmm aasoam mmm na3oam mmm masonm mmm naaoam mmm mmomH3oaM mmmmH3ocM mmomHsocM mmomH3oaM omOmHzoGM mmoonocM mmHaH>Haom mchcmHa aOHaamHo :H mocmHmMMHo m mome mmmooua mchamHa OOON COHmH> wna mmm wwHaH>Haom mchamHa aOHHamHO oa mnwccmHa HmGOHmmmmoam mam HmHacwmmw 3oz wHoa aHamnwommH mchcmHa m maammm aoaomm mambHam wza oHsonm acmaxm ama3 OB NOH HOH OOH mmo mmo hmo vmo mmo Nmo omO mmo who 550 0b0 who who MOO Nho mmo hmo 0mO mmo mmo mmo ONO 0NO mNO "Hmama 0cm Hmafiaz mHamHHm> HmmscaacooV HHH xmozH UwaaHaaOOIINN mqmfia 121 mommo coNHaHo aammHowaammcoa\a:maHoHaama MNH anmfiH cmNHaHo aaonaHS cmHm aOHHamHO mumamnm oa >aHHHam m.>aHo ONO mmmooam mameEIcomeomo aaHo so mchamHm aoHHamHU mo moamsHmaH mNO mmcHammE ooosaoasmHm: mHaaGOE mcHOaHocH owocwaam maonmxaos mchHmHa noaao mo Hmaeaz OHO Omocmaam mcoHamacowoaa mchHmHa OOON conH> mmHaB HmHchH mo Hoafisz moo “Hmong mam umnssz mHanum>« AGMHNH GOO HOUSTDHMCH .a 160V 839 .mHmV mN. «H. mNH mH. mo. oHo mm. NN. mNH HH. om. moo vNo mNo «um> MUdfiUDfiMMDm dezoe HQDBHBB< ">H XNQZH mmmmo coNHaHo acmaHOHaHmaaoc\aamaHUHaHmm mNH cmHm m>Hmcm£mHmeoo cmaHHoaoaaoE\Hoaacoo mm: ocmH aoHHamHo oa mocmauanH vOH amHm o>HmamamHmEoo aOHaamHU\Houacoo mma ocmH aoHHamHm oa moamauanH mOH "Hanna mam umnssz mHanum> HmmscHaaooV HHH xmozH mmscHacooINN mqm<9 122 mmmmo cmNHaHo aammHUHaHmacoc\acmaH0Hauma Hmom mEHEEmHa HmEHmHHo m.aoHHamH0 mo aamEchaam acmEmmamm EmNHaHU EOHmHomo Emma mcHEEmHa aOHHamHO mCHccmHa mom mmouaowmu aOHHamHO co mocmHHmH\mcHamH mconHomm aOHMamHO no a: onHOM\mcHama mmsmmH cmaHHoaoaamE EH ammnmaEH\mcHamH mamaamE OEHEEmHa aoHuamHo EH ammamaEH\mcHamH wconHomo mcHaomma EH moamHOHmam\mcHamH mHHme mEHEcmHa HmOchoma\mcHamH mcmNHaHo saH3 EOHamoHEEEEOO\mcHamH manmuommmH\aHmua amsua\aamua mHmHonmo maHo oa mmmmH aammmaa oa mmmamaHHHH3\aHmHa mmmOH cmNHaHo 9mm: oa mmmcmcHHHH3\aHmHa mammEOA\aHmHa saHs Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma Emma mEHaamHm OEHEEmHa OCHccmHa mEHEEmHm OEHEEmHa mchcmHm mcHEEmHa maHEEmHm mEHEEmHa mchamHa mEHEEmHa mcHaamHa aoHHamHa aoHuamHo aoHHamHa aOHaamHa aOHuamao aoHHamHa aoauamHo aOHHamHa aoHHamHa aoauamao aoHHamHa aoHHamHa mmEHammE oooanoazmHmc mHaaaoE mEHODHOEH mmoamaam maosmxaoz mEHEHmHa Hmaao mo HmaEaz mmocmaam mEOHamacmmmHa mchHmHa OOON conH> mmHsB HmHaHEH mo HmaEEz MNH ONH mHH mHH OHH 0HH mHH mHH MHH NHH OHH mOH mOH hOH 0OH OHO moo "Hmnmq mam amnesz mHnmaum>. fiHmoo Hammfimm AHHOV EmmBV AEmmB mEHEEmHa mo mEHammV AmaHmHB Emma mEHEamHaV HOO. HOO. moo. HOO. vo. HOO. HOO. HOO. moo. NOO. HOO. HOO. HOO. HOO. mNH mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. OHO mOO. HOO. HOO. HOO. NO. HOO. HOO. NO. moo. NOO. moo. HOO. HOO. HOO. mNH mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. EN. mm. ON. mm. ov. mm. mm. mm. 0m. mOO ONH mHH mHH EHH 0HH mHH OHH MHH NHH OHH mOH mOH mOH 0OH «Hm> mzmoz NOOEO\99Hzozzoo zH 9mmmm9zH u> xmozH .mmsaaacooIINN mHmm9 123 planning decisions within their districts or (2) training materials suggested new areas of planning knowledge which citizens deemed so important that additional information was believed needed. There appeared to be little difference between participants' and nonparticipants' perception and general knowledge about property values within planning districts, a subject stressed in training sessions. Both participants and nonparticipants seemed to agree that market values for all types of land (i.e., vacant land, agricultural, residential, industrial and public land) were improving, particularly residential property. This agree- ment is most noticeable between participants and non- participants who attended meetings other than the initial formal planning sessions. This suggests the value of con- tinuing meetings as a means to reinforce coorientation activities of planning process participants such as the understanding of economic conditions within the district. There was little difference between participants' and nonparticipants' concepts of "district" and "neighbor- hood." However, the single major component for which a difference was indicated between the two concepts is major district boundaries, which delineate the physical boundaries of district and neighborhood. Interestingly, the boundary concept was noted only indirectly through mention of "quiet streets" in explanation of the neighbor- hood concept during training sessions. The major difference found in the importance of boundaries as the major component 124 which distinguishes district and neighborhood indicates the possibility that the training program did change the knowledge level about the concept of neighborhood for citizens attending initial planning sessions. The fact that this distinction was also true for participants attending other planning meetings indicates a possible high level of citizen interest because no formal learning reinforcement of the neighborhood concept occurred after initial formal training sessions. It also could indicate the neighborhood concept was a function of operant behavior and reinforced by continuing participation of self-interest. A summary of statistical significance of learning base indices is shown in Table 22. Ability to Apply Planning Knowledge Analysis of Index III indicates the strong possi- bility of the nonrelevance of certain training material to participants in the planning process. One such subject is concerned with knowledge about city improvements within the planning district. Not only does this finding indicate environmental awareness and interest as a result of par- ticipation in the planning process, but also that the institutionalization of the training process has provided a means for the diffusion of city improvements information. For example, continuing, regular monthly citizen planning meetings appear to provide a useful and meaningful forum for face-to-face communication between city officials and 12S citizens. This fact was also evident in "other planning meetings" attendance by citizen participants. Again, city improvements (i.e., facilities, utilities) was not one of the 12 major referents used in the citizen training presen— tations; thus, operant learning behavior is indicated, with reinforcement and stimuli occurring in the external environment and not formal training activities. There is a tendency for land use controls (i.e., zoning and subdivision regulations) to be of very high interest to participants in the planning process. This degree of interest could be explained by a (l) greater understanding of zoning and subdivision regulations as a tool for plan implementation because of training or (2) the two are believed to be the best means to exert citizen power. Substantialattention was given the two subjects in the training sessions and was reinforced in monthly district activities by zoning change requests within the area, usually by land developers. Supporting evidence of greater citizen participation through land use control is found in the greater tendency of participants than of nonparticipants to believe in the ability of the district planning team to influence the city decision-making process. However, both participants and nonparticipants agree that the district planning team has little influence on the city's decision- making process. 126 Interest in Community/Group Norms The fact that this index is the only index showing statistical significance among all of its variables indi- cates that participation in training has strongly influ- enced planning learning behavior, particularly district planning team members. For example, evidence strongly indicates that participants in training sessions have acquired a more positive attitude toward and a stronger belief in the value of the planning process than have nonparticipants. Nonparticipants tend to place higher levels of confidence in technical planning skills for the planning team than do participants in the planning process. Likewise, there is a high level of agreement on the need for professional public and private planners to assist in planning by participants and nonparticipants. However, no statistical significance is evident in this variable between groups. However, caution is warranted in drawing conclusions based on significant findings of this index. First, a sample participant may tend to rank his peers less critically than would an outsider. Second, a par- ticipant may tend to be less objective in decision-making as his/her planning knowledge base is expanded through training and experience or vice versa--for example, the willingness or lack of willingness to hear a district citizen's or developer's idea. This analysis suggests that the learning model as designed and conducted in the Tulsa metropolitan area was 127 reasonably successful in enhancing selected areas of planning knowledge, notably the area of land use control. Other indicated positive results were (1) the learning model improved group communication through the increased understanding of planning terminology, (2) the general level of confidence displayed by citizens indicated that citizens want to, could and should plan for the future of their district, and (3) citizens felt strongly the need for professional planning assistance in the planning process. Several initial members of district planning teams have attained responsible positions on the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the Greater Tulsa Council. Active interest in the planning process and acqui- sition of knowledge about the city, district, and planning could have contributed to their success. Improvements in the learning model which could be made to enhance its value to the planning process are (1) improved communication and diffusion techniques of planning data and information during and after preparation of the district plan, (2) incorporation of a reward system for process participants in an effort to encourage citizen input, particularly representatives of the business and institutional sectors of the community, (3) design of training programs to meet the unique knowledge levels of all citizens in a particular district, (4) assurance of some representation from all sectors of the demographic profile of the district. 128 These analytical findings indicate the need to incorporate learning as one of the basic elements for the appropriate development and implementation of the planning process. Participant, Nonparticipant, and Planning Consultant Coorientation in the Learning Process Planning consultants involved in the Vision 2000 planning process served in the capacity of (1) a resource staff upon which citizens could draw technical planning advice during the planning process, (2) a synthesizer of citizens' planning ideas, wants, and needs, (3) the pro- ducer of the districts' comprehensive plan, and (4) the teacher of the planning process. Important to the planning role of synthesizer and teacher of the planning process is the degree to which the consultants' planning attitudes and knowledge coincide with those of participants and non— participants. Relationship of the consultant to both groups is important if a meaningful plan is to be prepared and implemented. An indication of this coorientation can be found in the study of selected variables of the three indices of knowledge, ability to apply knowledge, and interest in community/group norms. For example, approxi- mately 60 percent of the nonparticipants and 53 percent of the participants interviewed agreed to strongly agreed that more technical training in planning would be useful to persons living in the district. Only 40 percent of all consultants agreed or strongly agreed that additional 129 technical training would be useful to district citizens. This difference in opinion could mean (1) that consultants perceived the training process to be adequate in preparing the citizen for immediate and future participation in the planning process as designed, (2) that training was generally, in their opinion, ineffective, or (3) that the consultants perceived themselves as being inadequately prepared for their role as teachers. There appeared to be relatively strong agreement among citizen participants, nonparticipants, and consultants on the importance of district boundaries and geographical size as the major determinants of differences between district and neighborhood planning units. Planning consultants appeared much more optimistic than either citizen participants or nonparticipants about the influence of the district planning team on the city's governmental decision-making process. Likewise, 80 percent of the planning consultants believed planning interest in the planning districts was increasing rapidly whereas citizen participants (34%) and nonparticipants (24%) were of the same opinion. Forty percent and 38 percent of citizen participants and nonparticipants interviewed, respectively, were of the opinion planning interest was decreasing within planning districts whereas only 20 percent of the consultants interviewed were of this opinion. Sixty percent of all planning consultants were of the opinion that the Vision 2000 planning process aided plan 130 implementation whereas citizen participants and nonpar- ticipants did not share this opinion. Major findings of learned planning interest from participating consultants are: 1. Planning consultants, as citizen trainers, in general had more confidence in the planning process as a learning tool to solve community problems than both participating and nonparticipating citizens. Planning consultants, as a group, felt the role of the citizen in the planning process to be of greater value than did participating and nonparticipating citizens. Planning consultants tended to be reluctant to use citizen training materials prepared by planning consultants other than themselves. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN PLANNERS Summary of Findings The Tulsa citizen training (learning) model con- sisted of seven separate and distinct presentations with little substantive connection between the presentations except for very general conceptual linkages. Only three of seven training presentations were given to all planning districts because of a rapid decline in citizen interest. Formal training materials were presented to approximately 3,300 persons or less than one percent of the total popu- lation of Tulsa during the training period between January 1973 and December 1975. A single training model (materials and teaching method) was used for all training sessions with few adjustments made for audience knowledge levels or interests. The purpose of the training was to educate citizens about the planning process which would be used as the basic procedure for preparation of a citizens' compre- hensive plan for their district. Training presentation subject matter was broad in scope, of general content depth which centered upon the three planning themes of (1) what planning is, (2) key considerations necessary to good planning, and (3) concepts useful in understanding planning 131 132 districts or communities. The planning process concept used for training purposes was the commonly accepted planning process consisting of the steps (1) existing conditions analysis, (2) goals, (3) principles and standards, (4) alternatives investigation, (5) plan selection, (6) financing, and (7) implementation. Learning emphasis of the Vision 2000 training process was primarily upon planning process elements of a physical orientation which was reflected in plans, housing, and related supplemental aspects of market value and social concerns within a pre- dominantly city conceptual planning unit. Little learning reinforcement activity occurred during the training period. Reinforcement did not appear to be a consciously induced element in the training program design. Few "rewards" were implied or considered to be part of the learning process. In the learning model structure amidesign it appeared that, l. Emphasis was placed upon a "how to" planning process. 2. A management control orientation prevailed as a major aspect of learning. 3. Technical planning materials were the second major aspect of the learning model. 4. Physical products of the planning process emphasized infrastructural, housing, and market aspects of the city as predominant learning material. Conclusions Though the small sample of usable nonparticipating citizens (23) and small businesses (6) does not permit application of appropriate statistical significance tests, several tentative conclusions can be drawn: 133 The null hypothesis "There is no significant difference in learned planning behavior, as defined as coorientation, between citizens who have participated in formally structured planning training programs and citizens who do not participate in formal training programs as conducted as part of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Vishx12000 planning process," appears to be supported; however, the small nonparticipant sample size precludes application of appropriate statisticalsignificance tests. Corollary 1, "the level of planning knowledge is not significantly different between citizens who participate in formal planning training programs and citizens who do not participate in formal planning training programs as designed and conducted by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission," is suggested. Corollary 2, "the ability to apply learned planning knowledge is not significantly different between citizens who participate in formal planning training programs and citizens who do not participate in formal planning training programs as designed and conducted by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission," is suggested. Corollary 3, "the planning interest of citizens who participate in the Vision 2000 planning process is not significantly different from the planning interest of citizens who do not participate in the Vision 2000 planning process," is not supported. These exploratory findings indicate the Vision 2000 training program as designed and conducted appears to have provided limited learning stimuli needed to improve the planning learning base of the area as a whole. The findings also suggest that: a. Within the Tulsa environment enough learning stimuli may be present that the general planning training programs as designed are of limited value for the improvement of the technical learning base of citizens. The most effective training programs may be those which emphasize specific planning subject 134 matter rather than broad general concepts (e.g., traffic safety, solid waste collection, health). c. The operant learning model of stimulus-response- consequence appears useful in conceptualizing learned planning behavior. d. The learning reinforcement concept, as an impor- tant learning element, did not appear to be a predominate element of the Tulsa training model. e. The planning district organization structure did appear to provide an appropriate forum for citizen interaction which tended to strengthen planning interest in community and in the planning team as a group by those who participated in team activities. f. There appears to be little consideration or provision for reward in the training program either during or after formal training sessions. 9. There were some differences in the degree of interest in the Vision 2000 planning process between citizen participants, nonparticipants, and consultant trainers. h. Citizens who participate in the planning process indicate greater confidence in the district planning team than do those who do not participate. i. It appears that the more a citizen participates in the planning process, the greater is the citizen's disillusionment with the planning process. Implications for Urban Planners Study findings and conclusions suggest several general areas within the broad context of learned planning behavior which would be useful for further basic and applied research by urban planners and other urbanists. First, learning theory appears to be a useful framework for the design, development, and implementation phases of the planning process. Second, coorientation behavior appears to be a significant attribute of the 13S planning process. More research is needed in the identi— fication and analysis of the characteristics of the planning process and their interactions. For example, what learning characteristics contribute toward the purpose of the planning process? Are these learning characteristics the same at all levels of decision-making? What learning tech- niques are best for which participants in the planning process? What learning reinforcement activities, such as rewards, are appropriate to maintain participant interest in the continuing planning process? What are the cost- effectiveness issues surrounding planning learning programs? Attention to the development of a planning learning theory is essential if the planning process is to be used to con- front and minimize the impact of problems and their solutions in the human settlement. Third, the further study of learning behavior change as an element of the insti- tutionalization process of planning would be of great value in the development of self-guidance planning theory. Suggested learning behavioral propositions for possible further study include: 1. The greater the institutionalization of the planning process, the less receptive the planning process is as a procedure for the introduction of innovation. 2. The greater the capacity of the planning process to reinforce learned planning behaviors, the more effective the planning process is over time. 3. The success of the planning process varies directly with the time span required for the completion of each phase of the planning process. 136 The capacity of the planning process to reflect change varies directly with the rate of change in the composition and number of participants in the process. The more a citizen participates in the planning process the more disillusioned the citizen becomes with the planning process. The success of a planning process varies directly with the increase in number of rewards received by participants. APPENDIX A CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION #1 APPENDIX A CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION # 1* Introduction. This is the Citizens Training Presentation #1 pre- pared by C.P.A. for use in neighborhood planning. With Russ Roach, a planner with C.P.A. and Pastor Howard Shroeder, Chairman of the G.T.C., the official body of the voice of the citizens in planning. Before getting into the program on neighborhood planning, Howard and I would like to stress some important points. Howard (H). We first thought about having two (2) professionals read the script for these presentations. However, there is something impersonal and phoney about doing it that way . . . so we decided instead to be straight forward. This program utilizes a conversation between a professional planner and a citizen. So Russ, a professional planner and myself as a citizen representative on the G.T.C. will make the presenta- tion instead of having someone else do it. We hope that you will agree with our approach and will be understanding of our efforts. Russ, I guess the first thing that needs to be done is to explain what planning is and give some details as to how and why the citizens can plan their neighborhood. Russ (R). Okay, I suppose in explaining the general idea of planning, my main point would center around the theme that Planning is a game, along the lines of "The games people play." Not a children's game, but a serious game for adults only. But the game is also very serious to the Tulsa citizen who watches a taco stand pop up down the block, has constant traffic down their street, *Duplicate of original citizen training material from files of Tulas Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, A. - Q “fin 139 Quite simply, there was no political leverage behind the Comprehensive Plan. So we are seeing a change. (_2, As far as I'm concerned the changes are none too soon. Neighborhood problems are getting more complex, citizens are disgusted with the lack of citizen participation in the past and a Comprehensive Plan is too important and expensive to just sit on the shelf. (3). The way to correct this is to have citizens actually working with the planners to develop a Comprehensive Plan. This is the only way the citizens will care about the plan and work to see that it is enforced. (_1. (Ad 11b). (_2, What I want to do now is briefly explain the steps or pro- cess you go through in planning. (El. Are you going to explain how it works or how it should work? i I (E). Well, maybe a little of both. Essentially planning is merely preparing for the future whether it be tomorrow or twenty years. We determine those things that are beyond our control and probably will happen and then we determine what we want in the future. Planning is a combination of preparing for those things that will probably happen and seeking to bring about those things we can influence. Planning sets major guidelines so that the small daily decisions lead to a construc- tive purpose or goal we want to achieve in the future. SH). You mentioned that planning is a means to achieve what you want. Well, I see quite a consensus on what citizens want. They all want a home on a quiet street, parks and schools within walking distance, commercial shopping areas nearby but not too close, and an efficient and safe means of transportation around town. 140 pays taxes on expensive bond issues, and is worried about neighborhood deterioration. $32, The thing to remember is that the citizen is just one of the players in this game. Each of the players has a different role, different objectives, and different strategies. In a sense the game is a little like "Monopoly" in that few players ever win or lose outright in the common sense of the work. Instead there are temporary gains or setbacks as the game continuously;moves along to the next move. (H2, That's all very true but the only problem is that the average citizen has never really played in the game despite the fact that they have in relative terms, more at stake than anyone: I don't believe the ideas and wishes of the citizen in planning and development decisions was rarely sought before. There seems to have been this attitude (sort of an arrogant attitude) toward citizens and-their ability to participate. They seem to say, "Who knows more about planning and development decisions than the planners, developers, and city officials?" (32, I think this attitude, if it existed, is changing--first, people want to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. People want to return to the town hall concept. Another reason for a change in attitude toward citizens is simply because the old system of planning didn't work. (fl). I'll agree with that. (E2, I thought you would. The average citizen didn't know or care about the "plans" for the city because they were made up by some ivory tower planners hidden away in their office. Most city officials were not greatly concerned about the city plans because only the planners supported the plans and just how many of them are there at election time? 141 (3). But good things don't happen by accident. They have to be planned for and worked for. Many areas of Tulsa once had all the attractive feature you men- tioned but lost them and are now facing problems. They had good planning at one time but slacked up. Many other areas of town are going to be in the same spot if they don't get in gear, get a gggd plan and stay with it. (El. You're saying that all sections of Tulsa need planning with the vigilance to see that the plans are followed. (El. Right. One of the funny things is that "we all are plan- ners." We plan our week days, our weekends, our vacation, our children's education, or the new room onto the house. Sometimes the plans are very specific and detailed while other times they are general and are only in our heads. The basic steps or process of planning are essentially the same. (E). I think you are going to have to give an example on that. (32, Okay, Let's take a family vacation as an example. Vacations usually have a specified time limit and budget. The process of planning a vacation might go something like this: 1. Existing situation: The family has been to see relatives in Texas, California and New Orleans once in the last few years. The oldest son is big on camping. We bought a camper last year for the lake. 2. Goals: We want to do something different--get away from summer heat of Tulsa and take advantage of the camper. 3. Selection of Alternative Plans: Colorado, California, Mon- tana, Ozarks. Take the vacation in Colorado Rockies, and camp out, try to stay away from big cities, and keep a 142 relaxed pace. 4. Financing: Estimate expenses, transfer savings account to checking, borrow extra, if needed. 5. Implementation: Identify general route, prepare truck, gather equipment and material, pack, take care of house, go on the trip. (E). I wish I was that well organized. You have outlined some basic steps or planning process as you call it, but I may decide to take a side trip after the vacation starts. (32, That doesn't destroy the plan. The vacation plan or any plan is general with flexibility built into it. After the vacation starts the route may change slightly, more expense mdght be spent to see a particular sight or maybe the vacation might end a day earlier than originally planned. Adjustments in the plan periodically are okay. Yet some planning had to be done before the trip; otherwise, the trip may have turned out to be boring, expensive, too long, and generally unenjoy- able. (H). This point about alternatives is important because we have some diverse communities in Tulsa. In district detailing or neighborhood planning, can you have alternative plans? (52, Yes, you can. That is part of the beauty and frustration of planning. There is no "right" or "wrong" planning. However, there is good and bad planning. Two keys to successful planning is for internal consistency and careful thought. (5). There are two points I want to make--first, we had a plan in Tulsa once so why do we need one now. (R). Well, minor changes and updates of a plan are necessary 143 and desirable, just as we noted in the vacation example. As conditions change and opportunities arise, a good plan changes accordingly. After several changes or a considerable time (say 5 - 10 years) has elapsed, it's smart to re-assess the situation from a fresh beginning. That's what we are doing now. (a), Okay, my second point is, most people don't know what a plan or the actual paper report is or what it specifically deals with. (3). All right, well let me explain what a plan report is. We call it a Comprehensive Plan in Tulsa. Sometimes it is referred to as the Master Plan, The General Plan, or the City Plan. The Comprehensive Plan report itself, is a clear written statement of the total community, through its governing body which sets forth the major policies concerning desirable future physical, economic, and social development. (5). Now wait a minute, we're not doing an economic or social plan. (E). No, actually we are not, but no plan is worth the cost of paper if it is not based upon a strong economic and social foundation. Even in a mere physical plan the relationships between physical develop- ment policies and economic and social goals have to be identified. (_2, Well when are we going to get out of this 1940 mentality and start doing a real Comprehensive Plan with equal concern for physical, economic and social plans. (_1. I'm not sure of the exact date, but we are going to have to stop planning for just buildings and cars and start planning for people. (5). Hope I'm still around when they do that. To get back to the original subject, explain some more about the printed document, the plan report. 144 (32, Okay. The plan report is both realistic and inspirational.' First it identifys crucial problems, issues and probable future trends. However, the plan also incorporates community goals, those things that the city would like to become. (fl). That's all right but give me some specific points 1, 2, 3... that will tell what to expect when you open up a plan report. (32, All right, let me describe some characteristics then list the purposes of the plan, and last the subject matter. 1. The plan is long range looking ahead 20 to 30 years so that daily decisions lead to long-term goal. 2. Plan is identified as the plan of the entire community because the plan depends upon bipartisan support from the public and private sectors for implementation. 3. The plan is educational in that it informs the public of existing issues, important trends, and opportunities. (g). I take it this means no secret, "I'm sorry you can't see it" publications. (32, Exactly the opposite, the citizens have to make and defend the plan therefore it has to be accessible to them, for it is "their plan." One final note on the characteristics of a plan, that being, the plan is general and can be amended. As conditions change and values are sharpened the plan has to be modified. (fl), I'm not sure I agree with that, the plan has to have some spine too. We don't need a weak wishy-washy plan or zoning, that's what we have now. (R). Well general doesn't mean weak. We need one that can adjust but at the same time has some spine. The plan has some specific purposes 145 it has to achieve. 1. The plan is intended to improve the general environment of the community. 2. Since the plan is based on facts and studies that attempt to be impartial, a plan promotes the public interest rather than the interests of individuals or special groups. (32, That will be a change. (_1. I'll let that pass without comment. 3. A plan promotes the democratic determination of community policy through citizen involvement. 4. A.p1an attempts to avoid conflict, duplication and waste of public and private money. This is achieved by interjecting long-range-considerations with daily decisions. '£_). You mean so you don't build a street and then tear it up for a water line. $32, Right. Fifth and last, a plan brings technical and profes- sional knowledge to bear on political decisions. (H). I assume that means you planners. .QE). I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'you planners.’ Some of these development decisions are very difficult and there is a legiti- mate place for professional planning advice and assistance to all those involved; the architects, engineers, politicians, developers, and citizens. (fl). You've discussed characteristics and purposes, but just what are we as citizens supposed to plan. (R). Okay. Well there are three general subjects. WQrking-Living Areas: The location, distribution, amount and relationship 146 of homes, apartments, industries, commercial facilities, offices, and services. Public Facilities: The distribution, location, amount and relationship of schools, parks, utilities, fire protection, airports, and civic buildings to serve the people of Tulsa. Circulation: The streets, expressways, pedestrian system, and mass transit necessary to move people and goods throughout the city and among the various land uses. (H). That's not all there is, is it? (3). That's quite a lot, but you're right: Other categories such as river front development, a sports complex, special downtown considerations, or attention to aesthetics and urban design may be in- cluded depending upon the wishes and needs of the particular community. ‘Lfll. I notice you didn't mention zoning or other implementation procedures. A (31. No, I didn't, implementation tools are purposely handled separately, but one thing is certain the plan is going to have to give very serious thought to this issue because this is one area which the last plan failed. (fl). As far as I'm concerned this plan must ESE fail. If it does we will have the problems that Detroit, St. Louis, and Cleveland now have. This is our last chance to be a liveable city. And I'm not in any mood to waste my time on a plan that never gets implemented. (5). Great, then in the next slide presentation we will discuss how street patterns, economic changes, population age, and sewer systems and others affect neighborhood planning. (Ad lib. Time running out) 147 (H). I'm ready when you are . . . . Music APPENDIX B CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION #2 APPENDIX B CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION #2* Introduction: This is the citizens Training Presentation #2 pre- pared by CPA for use in district planning. This presentation features a conversation between Russ Roach, a planner with CPA, and Pastor Howard Schroeder, chairman of the G.T.C., the official body of the voice of the citizens in planning. Now, Pastor Howard Schroeder. uggl. The lst presentation discussed some general points on what planning is, why and how'we use planning. In this presentation, I have asked Russ to discuss some of the "nuts and bolts" that have to be con- sidered when you undertake planning in our districts. Russ, I think.many people are a little overwhelmed by a growing city such as Tulsa. Everything seems to get bigger and more complex. (3). There's no doubt that the city is getting larger; and, while it may appear more complex, through planning I think you'll see that it's really not complex. Planning is a means to get a "hold" on a city. It is a means by which you can understand how a city functions and grows. (£2, I don't want you to give us a complete list of everything there is to know in planning, but do give us some examples of things you have to consider in district planning. (32, I think if you want to understand the why and wherefore of the city, you see you have to look closely at its physical features for a start. For example, the physical features of San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, or Pittsburgh are part of these cities' character and reason *Duplicate of original citizen training material from files of Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, ma ahnma. 'I 973- 150 for being. Physical features have a strong influence. Let's take the case of the river. A river usually represents a barrier that is crossed at only selected points. In fact, many cities got started where an advantageous crossing occurred. Now, if the river is large, with few crossings, growth will usually take place on one predominant side. (52, I assume that is because the other side is at a disadvantage since it has relatively poor access to the center of the city. .95). 'Right, another thing about a river is that many industries locate along rivers because of the need for water as either an input or for discharge. If there are no large industries in town, the river may be a recreational use or attractive for homes. In simple terms, the river can attract; but, if it attracts industry first, homes are repelled. In addition, rivers have flood stages which can hinder development and limit the uses along the river. (_2, That statement about homes and industry will probably get some adverse comment in West Tulsa. (32, Well, I don't mean for it to, but in most cases industry and homes are not good neighbors. (fl). Well, what about rock outcroppings? I noticed on.a map that Tulsa has a lot of rock outcroppings, particularly in the east. (32, Rock outcroppings usually raise the expense of buildings, because instead of moving dirt to build foundations or lay utility lines you have to move rocks. (_2, But like most physical features, they can be overcome by man; if he chooses to pay the expense. (E2, That's true, but usually growth follows the lines of least resistance; and rock outcroppings are a form of resistance and can stifle 151 growth. .flfl). Let's talk about something near and dear to my heart, thg proposed Haikey Creek sewer system in southeast Tulsa. (52, OH! Great! What are you trying to do, get me lynched? (g). No, but tell me something about drainage basins. (52. As you probably know, water and sewer facilities follow natural drainage basins and use the flow of gravity to operate. Develop- ment in a wide valley between two hills (crests or ridgelines) can be served by a single Water and sewer system. But build something over the ridgelines, and it is a different situation. For development, the other side of the hill is in another basin and must be served by a different water and sewer system, or pumped over the ridge to the existing system. (Q), Sounds expensive to me. $32, It is, crossing into a new basin is a very expensive step and should be carefully considered, since it involves opening up a vast amount of land to potential development. Land that is opened up should conform to the plan. Of course, part of the official policy of the city of Tulsa is to open up land in the northwest in order to implement the policy of balanced growth. So it is a matter of public policy because there is very serious consequences as Action. (H), You have been talking about barriers, what about the Kennedy family land holdings in Osage County? I understand that there was trust restrictions placed on this land which kept it from being sold until recently. (52. That's my understanding. Gilcrease Hills was only possible after those restrictions expired. Major land holdings, whether public or private, or whether in the form of an airport or a large park, can act 152 as effective barrier to growth. (fl), What about the opposite side of the coin, physical features that attract growth? (32. Well, there are several physical features that attract growth; a hill with a view or deeply wooded acreage are often prestigious sites and attract expensive homes. Bodies of water can also attract growth. .ggg. Such as Keystone Lake? (El. Right, subdivision developments play on this association with physical features with names like Lakeview, Willow Creek or Shadow Mountain - names intended to convey an image of natural beauty. (H). A lot of the stuff you have discussed doesn't apply to many districts in the G.T.C., many are almost entirely built up. How does all of this apply to those districts? $32, In district planning, you will need to take these cats? gories, such as terrain, unique physical features, barriers, and major land holdings, and apply them to your community. In other words, each community will need to look around and identify the major physical influences. They may be major or very minor, but your district's physical features need to be identified and their influences understood. (fl). O.K., I want to talk briefly about Economics. What role does economics play in planning? (5). Howard, a fairly important role. A city exists as a means of producing and exchanging goods and services. Without its economic base, there is nothing but a ghost town. While nostalgic and historic, ghost towns do nothing for property values and weekly paychecks. To show the relation of economics and planning, take the case of industrial growth. 153 This requires expressways where and when they do the most good, water and sewer lines of the correct size, and available sites of the right size and location are important if the industrial growth is one of your goals. Planning is a means to achieve these goals. (fl), Economic development particularly concerns me in North Tulsa. Also, in the national competition for industry, the overall quality of the neighborhood and the city at large is becoming more and more important. I see the growing emphasis on quality. (R). Yes, but quality in anything doesn't happen; it's planned. ‘$__. What about something that applies directly to the districts? .95). O.K., let's take the case of income. The income level of a city has a subtle impact on planning. For example, let's say that two areas of the same size have an average family income of $10,000 and $5,000 respectively. Now the area with the $10,000 income will have more commercial acreage and stores than the $5,000 town. (_2, Why? (32, Simply because, person for person, one area has twice as much money to spend as the other area. Therefore, with more money to spend for goods and services, the one area will require more commercial space. This will need to be considered in district planning, for you ‘will have to tailor you plan to the needs and demands of your area. (_2, What other ways does income have an effect on planning? .QE). Well, you might take the case of transportation. In some areas, two and three cars to a family are the case. Yet in other areas, income limitations may require more peOple to use public transportation. (fl), I'm going to disagree with that, I think public or mass transit should be a concern in all districts or communities, not just the 154 poor areas. (3). True, all I'm saying is that mass transit will be more important in the planning of some areas than it would be in others; and you need to plan accordingly. (E). I take it that these are not meant to be complete examples. (E). No, they are not; and I don't want to give that impression. They were only to show that the economic conditions and characteristics of a city must be included and considered in a comprehensive plan, since they help explain what exists now and will have an impact on what will or should be in the future. (£2, What about Social characteristics and attitudes? I per- sonally think that social factors are the most important part of plan- ning. It seems that the social character and makeup of a community is probably the least known and most often ignored part in any planning program. (5). It is; but, fortunately, this has begun to change. In fact, we are beginning to realize that we better be concerned about people in planning; since people are the ones who are paying for it; and people will have to live with the planning. (_2, O.K., I notice areas have a large number of children; and other areas have a lot of older citizens. How does this influence planning? (5). For example, if you have a young population structure with a lot of children under five years old, then that means a large growth in school-age kids in a few years. (H). In that case, I assume that you better be prepared and plan to build schools and youth recreational facilities in the next few years. 155 (R). That's right, now let's look at the opposite end of the population number of persons over 65 years old. Many times persons of this age are living on a relatively low fixed income and have some phys- ical limitations. This restricts their physical and economic ability to repair and keep up their homes; and because of their age, these senior citizens are not the ones that usually buy new homes and cars, or move very frequently. ‘(§). So an unusually large number of persons over 65 would mean a probable problem with deteriorating housing and some restricted economic activity? .95). Very true, and on the other hand, a neighborhood with an usually older age structure will require greater health facilities, greater reliance upon mass transit for getting around, and special rec- reation facilities. (fl), That's a social characteristic, now what about social attitudes? (E2, Attitudes, preferences, and opinions of a people show up in many different ways. In this part of the country, we have a strong frontier heritage which stresses the tenants of man conquering nature, rugged individualism and wide-open spaces. (E). I can see those attitudes everyday in such things as detached, isolated, single-family houses, our attitudes toward programs of social improvement and possible toward the idea of planning itself? (R). That's what you might call the "urban farmer,’ retaining the ideas, philosophy, and opinions that are rooted in a rural past within a big city situation. (H). In my opinion, we haven't learned how to live in an urban 156 setting yet. (5), I'd agree with that. (E), I am particularly interested in the fact that our present zoning and growth pattern is very inefficient from.a taxpayer's stand- point, and the fact that we are literally throwing away our investment in the older part of town. Doesn't social attitude come into this? (5). Personally, I would say that it does. Social attitudes and preferences may outweigh cost considerations. For example, the growth of a particular part of town may be the best and most economical policy as far as tax money is concerned; but, because of social attitudes, taxpayers may be willing to pay the extra cost to continue the past growth patterns. We do not always make the most economical and rational choice in buying a car or in several other decisions. Oftentimes taste, social status, and personal bias enter into the decisions. (El, What about race and social status? These seem as important as any single factor, but I have yet to see a planning report that really talk about these. (5). Most of the time they just are not mentioned in a planning report, but social status is very important. Most of us are not strict individualists. We tend to look to others for the "correct and proper" way of doing things. In homes and a neighborhood, this is very important. Most people are very concerned about the social approval and acceptance of those immediately around us, our peers. The fact is that most whites assign an almost automatic negative social value to non-whites. We will get this in more detail in a later presentation. (H). I notice that, in many ways, older homes are treated the same way. Many people seem to think that if a home isn't brand new, they 157 don't want it. We seem to develop the same attitudes about homes that we do about cars. This seems to be a clear function of our social values. (5). I would have to say that you are probably correct in your assessment. There is, with many peOple, a certain social status attached to living in a "new" area. (fl). Personally, I think social values and attitudes have a very real impact on planning in Tulsa. I think you have done a good job of presenting examples of some of the physical, economic, and social con- siderations that are important in planning the various districts or communities in Tulsa. (32. These have only been examples, very general examples at that. I want to stress that point. It is up to the citizen to closely look at their particular commmnity or district and learn to identify the major physical and economic features; and, of course, understanding of social attitudes are critical. The main point is to know and understand your community as it exists, its problems, opportunities, and challenges; for if you understand your community you are in a much better position to complete a strong plan that is tailored to your community. (_2. That's the key, that is what we all want - a strong plan that can be enforced and is specifically suited to our community. The sooner we get it, the better. APPENDIX C CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION #3 APPENDIX C CITIZEN TRAINING PRESENTATION #3* Introduction: This is the Citizens' Training Presentation #3 prepared by Community Planning Associates for use in district planning. With Russ Roach, a planner with Community Planning Associates and Reverend Howard Shroeder, a member of the G.T.C., the official body of the voice of the citizens in planning. (E). The first presentation dealt with an explanation of what planning is, the second discussed some of the key considerations necessary to do good planning. In this presentation, I have asked Russ to discuss some of the concepts that are used in planning, those concepts that can help us understand our districts or communities. Russ, we talked about attitudes and preferences in our previous discussions. I have always had the feeling that attitudes and preferences have a strong influence on our first topic, Mg£§5£_!glgg. (E). No doubt in my mind. The value of your home or a piece of property is a combination of many things. Attitudes and preferences are keys. There are some set costs, such things as bricks, lumber, and plumbing, that will remain pretty much constant no matter where a house or building is located. Beyond that, social attitudes become very im- portant and are probably one of the greatest influences on the value of a home. Of course, one of the things we would like to do is to stabilize values, so that older communities have some security and stability. (fl). That is certainly one of my chief objectives (particularly in my district). One of the things that has bothered me, and continues *Duplicate of original citizen training material from files of Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1973. 1:0 160 to perplex me, is the fact that if you take the same house and put it in one section of the town, it will be "worth" say $15,000. However, locate this same house in another part of town, and it may bring $25,000. Why is this? (52. Well it's a complicated answer, but one of the chief reasons is probably because of social prestige. Few houses are bought or sold solely on the basis of the individual home; the area surrounding the home is sometimes even more important than the home; and, of course, the parks, streets, schools, and shopping facilities go into this image of the surrounding area. (E). I can see that what you are saying may be the case, but how can you explain why this occurs? (3). I suppose the key is the fact that peOple seem to inevitably want to live with or close to people that they see as having at least the same if not higher social prestige. The social or economic standing of a community is an important factor in buying a home. Also, the quality of all these neighborhood facilities: the schools, parks, shopping and others, go into determining the status or rank of a community. (H2, I would think that this is very important, particularly if there are school-age children involved. (3). Very important. People try to transfer their social and economic status to their children and the neighborhood in which they live, the school the children attend, and the address of their home is one of the ways to do that. We all want more for our kids than we had, and the neighborhood one of the ways in which we live is to establish our family status. (H). Along the lines of status, I know many streets and subdivision 161 that enjoy immediate social status because of their name, such as Bolewood Acres, Southern Hills, South Atlanta Street, and others. (32, And of course, take a moderate home and put it in those areas with one of those names. The home would bring much more in some of these areas than in others. What I want is to see that there's no difference, I want to equalize between the various facilities. This is the key to Balanced Metropolitan Growth. '(fll. This may be an over simplification. One of the things I remember from.achool (one of the few things I remember) is the idea of supply and demand determining value. .QE). You're right. All of this in one way or another relates to supply and demand. If you have a home you want to sell that's supply, and if someone wants to buy it, that's demand. (E). The problem I'm.scutely associated with is when you want to sell and no one wants to buy; and that is financial disaster and frustration; because I live with it every day. (El. That's true. There's no question in my mind that you're right. Your home may be "worth" $30,000 in terms of brick and mortar; but, if no one wants to buy it, it's worth zero (market value). It doesn't make any difference how much it costs; if no one wants to buy it, it's worthless. Why have cases where this is happening all over Tulsa. (fl). You know that scares me, and withOut any qualification. Your home is the most important investment most of us will make, and is only "worth" what someone will give you for it. .95). It's true. Housing values are determined on a much more complicated scale of supply and demand. We've been dealing with a simple 162 example. The number and type of housing, the distribution of neighbor- hood facilities, and the attitudes of the buyer are all part of this complex system of supply and demand. .95). So the important point would be to try and protect your neighborhood, to make sure that it maintains itself as a stable area, that it has all of the quality neighborhood facilities, schools, parks, shopping, access to expressways: so on. _QE). I think you've hit it on the head. But it is not just a case of getting quality neighborhood facilities, but a question of pre- venting strip zoning and deterioration. Those things that hurt a neigh- borhood. (fl). There is an attitude a characteristic, that we begin to deal with. One that has a direct influence on market value. The whole question of racial transition. (R). OK, let me first say that few people experience racial transition directly. Now to answer your suggestion, let me say that the traditional pattern of racial transition wasn't so bad from.the market standpoint. There is very little, if any, new construction in the black community; and the black housing supply is usually expanded physically by taking over a single block at a time. This meant that blacks increased their housing supply to meet population growth by moving into an adjacent area. What usually would happen would be that someone would break the ice and move into a previously all-white block, which was immediately next to the black area. Usually whites would panic and a quick change- over, white to black, would occur. Many times when this would happen, values would deflate simply because all the whites were trying to sell 163 at once, an excess of supply over demand. But a funny thing would happen; in most cases, the value would back up to its previous level, if not higher. This occurred because the demand from blacks was great enough to force the prices back up. 151° I suppose you know that all of this may be slightly off front what most people think happens when racial changes are experienced. 131! Yes, I know; but, nevertheless, that was the usual case until recently. The only thing that hurts value is too much supply, not enough demand. When people panic and move, it destroys the market; be- cause there are too many homes on the market. One of the discoveries a number of us made in review of CD0 statement for City Commission. (E2, We have hundreds and hundreds, almost a thousand, good homes that are standing vacant in Tulsa. If we take what you are saying, the simple reason they are vacant is too much supply and not enough demand. But I want to hear some plain language as to why? (3). In plain language, there are not enough blacks. Whites are moving out in large numbers. The only ones moving in are blacks; and whites are not buying in an area there just are not enough blacks to fill the demand. You are reaching a limited segment of the total housing market - not enough blacks to fill the homes for sale. Thus, a case of supply over demand. (H). Who wins at this musical chairs? (E). The black in the short range, since there are more good homes on the market than there are buyers; so the prices are lower. For the same housing budget, a black family can pick up a good house in the deflated market area that they could not dream of affording in a sound market. But in the end they are in the same shape - no buyers for that 164 house either. (fl), So in the end everybody loses. The whites lose because they can't sell their house for anything. And the blacks lose because they are in the same situation, no buyers. The government loses because they hold the mortgages to many of these homes. (R2, Right, and the rest of Tulsa loses, too. For it shows an instability in Tulsa's neighborhoods; and if that is true, it could happen in other areas of Tulsa. In fact, there are many areas that would be surprised to learn that the same thing could happen to them. A basic sickness or instability in one part of the system could eventually affect the rest of the system. (Q). As far as I'm concerned, it is not a racial problem, but quite simply a problem of maintaining stable neighborhoods. Add racial transition to a weak and unstable housing market, and then the problems start. (E2, As long as we're talking about human values . . . Let's change the subject before we get everyone uptight. ‘(§). OK, but I'm not sure the next subject is going to be any less controversial; because the subject is zoning. .ggl. That's for sure, zoning is hated, feared, cursed, and occasionally praised. (_1. Not necessarily in that order. (_2, Not at all. BasiCally zoning "locks in" the land use. If your piece of property is zoned for a single-family house, then that's it, no Quick-Trip, gas station, or welding shop. Zoning was started to avoid just that, someone from going into the middle of a block of homes and putting in an automobile garage or some other unwanted use. 165 ( 2. Principles are. The principle was to separate incompatible uses, or in simple terms, keep homes with homes, commercial uses next to commercial shops, and industry next to industries. (32, Yes, and there are reasons for areas being zoned a certain way. Homes along a busy street are not always a good idea unless designed properly. Commercial zoning on an obscure deadened street won't work either. Commercial establishments have to be where the action and traffic happens to be. Likewise, certain industry may need near water, express- ways, or railroads. So there are lots of subtle reasons for why a certain zoning appears as it does. This is where the plan becomes important. People equate planning and zoning and they're not. Zoning has to be based on some logic, some rationale; and that, of course, is the "Comprehensive Plan." (g). I might point out that zoning as a means of implementing the plan will be discussed later. The point you are making here is the idea of separating land into districts, so that everything is compatible within that district. (32, I'd also like to point out that zoning doesn't determine the quality of the building, only the use of the land. The mmin.point is separation of incompatible uses. An all night gas station is just not a good neighbor for a single-family home. Also, a smoky industry is not a good neighbor for a commercial laundry. Zoning attempts to provide separation by districts and, thus, provide security and protect property values. You control your home, but who is to say who is going to buy the home next door? Your new neighbor may not be as friendly or benevo- lent as your present one. Without zoning, you would have no security or assurance as to what your neighbor would do. With zoning, you have some 166 security that the house next door will stay a house. (fl). Oh, yeah! I know lots of people around town who would dis- agree with that. (fil. Yes, I know. I know quite a few too. But, I'm talking about how zoning is in concept supposed to work and why we have it. Not how it is actually practiced. I only want to present the basic idea at this time. (Q). OK, we let you off the hook. We mentioned before that most everyone wants to live on a nice quiet street, have schools and parks within walking distance and have commercial shopping facilities close by. These are desirable goals, but how do you achieve them? (E2, Planners use "Neighborhood Concept" as a general guideline in trying to achieve this type of neighborhood. Essentially, it keeps through traffic out of a neighborhood, avoids strip zoning, and provides safe pedestrian access to schools and parks, along with other features. This is only "concept"; and it rarely occurs in entirety; but it's a good idea to shoot for. (_2, How come it gets modified? It looks good to me. (5). For one, strict interpretation of the neighborhood school concept is the most expensive type of school system.and is under attack by some educators and courts. You will also notice that there are no industries in the concept, or low-income housing for that matter. Of course, hills, rivers and hospitals and other uses cause the concept to get more confused. (to get modified) All of this does not really detract from the concept, or from the fact that the concept attempts to achieve a comfortable and convenient neighborhood environment. (H). Like I said, it looks good to me. I think that concept 167 applies even if your neighborhood is totally developed. Streets can be cul-de-saced; schools get old and have to be replaced; and new park facilities will have to be constructed. I believe that the neighborhood concept applies to all parts of Tulsa, and everyone should be familiar with its features. Q1. You're entirely right. (fl), Russ, you were at one of the neighborhood meetings when someone asked why the Williams Center wasn't built in North Tulsa. How do you answer that? ((5). ‘Not very easily; some would say that it was since it's built North of 21st that it is another issue, but basically there are reasons why. A large office complex employs quite a few people and must be accessible to everyone from the janitor to the president of the company. Downtown is the center of the Tulsa expressway system and has several expressways nearby. Also, a large office complex, or any office for that matter, doesn't function in isolation; it depends on numerous services and facilities in order to operate. (fl). So you're saying that just any location, north, south, east or west, will not do. In this case, the more functions that accumulate in downtown, the more attractive it is as a location for large office complexes. But by the same token, other offices do not need or want a downtown location. A real estate office that specializes in residential property would probably not be downtown but would instead need to be in a suburban location. (3). Right. Motels have to be near the travelers, commercial shops near their particular customers, trial lawyers close to the courts, and doctors' offices near the hospitals. So there are reasons why some 168 things are downtown and why other things are not. The important point is to understand the reasons why things are located as they are. (E), The relationships we have discussed emphasize "attraction," the fact that there is a whole range of land uses that are attracted to other uses; but there are land uses that are not attracted to each other. (52, Of course, the other side of this coin is that many land uses are repelled from each other. Expensive homes are attracted to other expensive homes, but they are repelled from deteriorated housing. Grocery stores are repelled from each other, and you will rarely ever find one grocery store next to another one. You will rarely have a Safeway store next to a Humpty Dumpty next to each other. All of this is to show some of the principles as to why some things are arranged where they are. Think about it the next time you drive around town. Take a look at the way things are. Try to identify them. Just keep in mind that few things are located where they are at random or by accident. There is always some reason and order to a city. (H). But sometimes not enough reason and order. (R). True, but there is some. I want the Tulsa citizens to see if they can't think of some of them and identify and understand why things are like they are. If they will think, they will be pleasantly surprised at their understanding of their community and Tulsa. APPENDIX D DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES APPENDIX D DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES*' Tulsa, Oklahoma is, in a sense, a city possessed by its future. Unlike the congested metropolitan centers of the East and West Coasts, and the sprawling Midwestern collections of suburbs, Tulsa has long been a city which prided itself on the orderliness and quality of its growth. After nearly two decades of phenomenal expansion and devel- opment, Tulsa remains a city far more livable than most of her counter- parts across the country. While other cities have constantly been caught up in the process of living with and trying to deal with the specters of the past, haunting them through the magnification of time, Tulsa has consistantly been looking ahead. From the completed $18 million, 4l-story First National Tower, and the burgeoning $3 million State Office Complex and $200 million Williams Center Superblock in the downtown area; to the $31 million Eastland Shopping Center, the $34.5 million expansion of St. Francis Hospital and the $90 million Ford Glass Plant on Tulsa's Far Southeast Side; growth and expansion are the orders of the day. Even at the investment level of the individual family, home equities have soared as retail prices of Southeastern land have sky- rocketed to records as high as $35,000 per acre. After all, 1973 was the third straight 'bumper year' for Tulsa's Building Industry. The anticipated completion of the Broken Arrow Expressway and the Southeast Interchange of an Inner Traffic Dispersal loop around downtown, *Duplicate of original citizen training material from files of Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1973. 17A 171 as well as the purchase of additional Right-of-Way for the Mingo Valley, paved the way for greater ease in commuting from central Tulsa offices to homes in the Far Southeast. Commitments for the building of a limited sewage treatment plant in the Haikey Creek Flood Plain signalled not only the possibility of increased development of the Southeast, but also a new cooperative relationship between Tulsa and her neighboring communities. A computation based on City income through sales tax indicates that Tulsans spent more than $120 million in the last month of 1973 for consumable items. Those who deal in real estate have a saying which goes something like, 'Under all, lies the land,’ and it has been property value which has undergirded Tulsa's recent phenomenal growth. From the speculation and development of the Far Southeast to the clearance of developable parcels in Tulsa's downtown area, it has been the value of land which has provided stability to Tulsa's economy at both the corporate and the family level. But, it has also been with the value of land--in particular, with housing--that problems have been noted which have led to a questioning of the effectiveness of Tulsa's mechanisms for planning. What assurances can we have that Tulsa's growth is and will continue to be orderly and of high quality? It is an important consideration since the value of land is not only the reserve of Tulsa's economic wealth, but her social wealth as ‘well. Nothing can do more to weaken the delicate fabric of a family's life than loss of their equity in a home, the lowest common denominator of the community's stability and growth. By early in 1972, local planners began to become aware through 172 first-hand experience that Tulsa had a problem. Staff people at a number of local agencies were beginning to discover an alarming number of vacant, usable homes in certain areas of Tulsa, most particularly on the North side. What proved even more disturbing, in the face of Tulsa's phenome- nal 'housing boom,’ was that many of these homes had been re-possessed at public expense by the FHA and VA when owners simply walked off and left their mortgages on houses less than five-years-old. They also were becoming aware that on the other side of town, increased traffic demands far beyond the capacity arterial streets and intersections should have been constructed to handle had all but made the intersections of Harvard and Slst, Yale and 4lst and Sheridan at Slst potential death-traps of the first magnitude. Wheel counts showed these intersections to be more heavily used than the completed portions of the Inner Dispersal Expressway, far better designed to handle such demands. At about this same time, the Tulsa Public Schools began to discover a dramatic shift in the racial balance of the system. The number of black students was remaining fairly constant, but the number of whites was dropping rapidly. Since a stable peak of 80,000 students in 1968, they discovered, there has been a drop of 12,000. Projections of the current trends pre- dict a decline to 50,000 students by 1980, with black composition increas- ing from 16 to 24 percent. As a result, Riverview and Jefferson Elementaries have been forced to close, schools such as Longfellow have been 're-tooled' for specialized educational programs, Central High School's old downtown building will soon be retired, and other schools face possible closing 173 as their student bodies dwindle to less than 200. Meanwhile, the school system has been called upon to invest millions of dollars in schools such as Thoreau and Mason, just within the Southern and Eastern boundaries of the District. Such further investment has been necessary since population shifts from other areas to the South- east since 1970 have produced a gain of 10,000 additional households in that area, the equivalent of 210 percent of Tulsa's total gains in house- holds. The City was also finding that the strain on its existing facilities and service systems was rapidly increasing. Miles of new roads and water and sewer lines were being demanded in certain areas of town while in others demand on the already-in-place systems was decreasing measurably. In older, built-up portions of the city, and on the North and West Sides, large areas had become almost like 'consumer commodities,‘ there to be used up and thrown away, in favor of the areas of new growth and development. With a normal market vacancy rate set at 2 percent, East and Southeast Tulsa have been able to hold a rate of between 2.7 and 3.5 percent, in spite of the rapid growth of the areas. North Tulsa, however, has an overall vacancy rate of about 10 percent, with some areas ranging as high as 28 percent. But what disturbed planners even more was that the abandonment 'problem' also began cropping up in areas of Southeast Tulsa and some of the newer Subdivisions in Broken Arrow. The complexity of contributing factors made the issue a thorny one, indeed. Among contributing factors were: high unemployment in the early 1970's, which led to family budget problems and marriage difficulties; the rapidity with which homes went out of style in favor of the growing 174 new areas of development; deterioration of older neighborhoods where the older, residual population found it more and more difficult to maintain their homes; the lack of near-by jobs, adequate shopping centers and entertainment facilities in many areas; and the lack of adequate trans- portation routes, as priorities for expressway construction shifted to the Southeast. Of key importance, planners found, was the influence of what has been called our '1egacy of race.’ Fear of racial transition drove whites farther to the South, away from the integrated areas and across the Tulsa School lines. The fear and subsequent 'white flight' made it appear, for a while, that all of North Tulsa would become black. The only problem.was that Tulsa has about 40,000 homes North of Admiral, but only 13,000 black families. In the wake of such a disturbance in the normal supply and demand of the Tulsa housing market, the cost to individual famdlies in loss of equities and to the City as a whole in the waste of facilities and service systems could become staggering. Planners also began to become aware of problems in their own shop. It was true that the City did have a Comprehensive Plan. But its lack of specific policy guidelines, complicated by non-conforming zoning decisions by officials not committed to the principles of the Plan, had: rendered it virtually ineffective by the early '70's. Attempts to return to more Orderly growth began to be overturned by the District Court as developers were able to argue convincingly that the incoherent maze of City zoning decisions left no real precedent for denying zoning to any applicant. Planners became convinced that, without the development of a new 175 set of policy guidelines to insure more orderly and higher quality growth for the entire city, their efforts to deal with growing problems would be continually frustrated. The result was the development of an innovative planning mechanism called Vision 2000. That Vision, as described by those who helped develop the program, was one which would involve commitments on the parts of both Tulsa citizens as they designed plans for their own neighborhoods and City officials through their adaption of overall policies and guidelines for the City's future growth. Early in 1972, consultants began the work of defining prototypes, 'pure' forms which Tulsa might take over the next two or three decades and staff members of the Planning Commission began the work of drawing together citizens for groups to act as advisors in the process: such as; high school students, a Mayor's Youth Review Committee, and the Mayor's Advisory Committee of appointed city leaders. Also, meetings were called in each of 15 City planning districts to elect citizen representatives; and 10 appointees from surrounding communities came to join them on the Greater Tulsa Council. It was to be these representatives' responsibilities to draw together citizens in their neighborhoods for input at the policy-making level and to eventually work with planning consultants tO‘draw detailed plans for their own areas. In the Summer of 1972, the consultants returned with three alterna- tive forms for the future shape of Tulsa. And the advisory bodies began preparing to make their recommendations to City and County Fathers concern- ing which form Tulsa should pursue in the years ahead. Under their sponsorship, a sampling of Tulsans' views on growth and development patterns was taken through use of an opinion questionnaire, administered 176 in conjunction with an explanatory slide presentation. Though the sample was somewhat 1imited--the response did indicate 'that a redirection of Tulsa's growth should be encouraged, with provision of City services endorsed as a means of accomplishing such a redirection. By the Spring of 1973, the City and County Commissions had acted on the recommendations and data, selecting a combination of two of the suggested forms for the city. In the face of the problems they were becoming aware of, they called for attempts to 'balance out' the growth of the city by providing incentives for increased development in presently deteriorating areas. But, a general policy that is officially adopted is still only a general policy. The adoption of the policy did, however, set in motion a number of mechanisms to begin dealing with Tulsa's developing problems. While consultants began working with the Planning Commission to develop a policy for implementing Balanced Growth and a set of Develop- mental Guidelines to aid decision-makers in their tasks, other groups and agencies began dealing with the situation as well. Of key significance was the formation in 1973 of the Housing Task Force. A broadly representative group, it came to be made up of members of the Planning Commission, INCOG, the FHA, the Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, the Urban Renewal Authority, the Community Relations Commis- sion and the Tulsa Housing Authority, and ECO. With the aid of staff from several of the agencies, they began looking for the causes and possible cures for the alarming dis-investment in certain areas of the Tulsa housing market. Amidst the multiplicity of factors they discovered, the influence 177 of racial attitudes emerged consistantly in their studies as a key deter- minant. By early 1974 the group had begun exploring approaches to mini- mizing the effects of race on the normal supply and demand of the market as a whole. Concerned elected officials also quietly lent their support to such efforts. The free enterprise world of business responded to the adopted Balanced Growth policy as well. The Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce cited Balanced Growth as one of its seven Principal Objectives for 1974. Chamber members committed themselves to 'encourage, foster, guide and support efforts toward the maintenance of proper balance as measured by both economic and social benefits.' In terms of Physical Development, the Chamber went on record to 'provide business leadership in the urban-planning and policy-making processes' for 'aggressively pursuing the community goal of achieving balanced urban growth through incentives.‘ More specifically, the Chamber proposed to help 'establish a strong foundation for new growth in North and West Tulsa. And-by early in March, the Chamber had already called together representatives of several minority development groups to begin formation of their proposed Minority Affairs Council. A coalition for minority economic development was beginning in a very business-like way. Also of significance was the choice of Tulsa for a Federal grant to train local staff people in aiding local minority entrepreneurs in packaging their business proposals in ways acceptable to local lending institutions. Local guidance and resources were committed by several of Tulsa's major institutions, including the Chamber, to the work of the 178 Tulsa Urban League's Business Development Center. Meanwhile, back in City Hall, independent reports were received which called for better communications coordination and a tighter and more efficient budgeting mechanism to allow the City to more aggressively and directly pursue its priorities and policies such as the balancing out of growth by providing capital-expenditure incentives. By early in 1974, the Planning Commission had received lengthy reports from their consultants and begun the work of forming the material into an Implementation Policy and Set of Developmental Guidelines to be formally acted upon by City and County Officials. Plans called for publication of their proposals, community debate, and official adoption of the interim measures by the City and County Boards of Commissioners. Their proposal underscores the importance of achieving Balanced and Quality Urban Growth through a series of positive incentives, since the adopted policy is to encourage development rather than legislative negative controls or regulations. An example of their proposed approach can be seen in the area of Key Public Works. The placement of such Werks, they say, is 'critical to achieving the balanced metropolitan growth objective, especially with regard to accessibility and public utilities.‘ In terms of such works, they propose that 'priority consideration should be given to the completion of the Cherokee and Osage Expressways for opening up the north and northwest.' They also urge priority con- struction for the 'West Bank Interceptor Sewer opening up the Blackboy and Harlow Creek watersheds to development, and the Flat Rock West Trunk Main opening up the North Side to development. The proposal is, basically, to allot a certain share from bonds 179 or Revenue Sharing to carry out the Balanced Growth Policy. The 'balanced growth' share particular 'target area qualdrants to encourage growth in those quadrants;' the remainder would be spent according to population and needs in all quadrants of the city. In order to explore this and other implementations mechanisms, the planners and consultants recommend that a Strategy Committee be formed, involving both the public and private sectors. This group's charge would be to develop a coordinated policy and program to achieve the objective of Balanced and Quality Urban Growth. In the meantime, however, elected officials are still called upon to make decisions on the same basis that have continually been overturned by a District Court which must deal with concrete precedents. It is essential that such decisions must be related to a br 08 d 8 e t of policy guidelines. These Developmental Guidelines, consisting of both a conceptual ramework and sets of specific Evaluation Criteria to be applied to proposed developments, are designed to provide a groundwork both for elected decision-makers and for the citizen teams as they do detailed plans for their own areas. The intent of the guidelines, they say, is to prevent the enroach- ment of longer and longer strips of commercial development into residen- tial areas, a more adequate separation of neighborhood homes and streets from shopping centers and offices and industries, and alleviation of the snarls of traffic congested by having to carry automobiles to developments larger than they were intended to serve. The planners and consultants grant that 'an integral part of achieving Balanced Metropolitan Growth is development, regardless of its placement within the metropolitan area.‘ But such growth, in accordance 180 with the adopted policy must take into consideration the location of such development in the city and should take seriously the proposed Evaluation Policies and Criteria concerning its impact. The concerns of planners in drafting these policies and criteria were several. There was first of all a concern to maintain and provide a variety of life-styles, ranging from the more urban apartment and town- house styles to the more rustic ranch-styles, which could be kept in close proximity to employment, recreation, education and shopping. Such variety of design, they felt, was directly related to adequate transpor- tation routes and eventual rapid transit services. A second concern, therefore, was in the placement of higher intensity developments, such as offices and shopping centers, in closest proximity to higher level transportation systems such as freeways, transit systems and railways. Of further concern in realizing this variety of life-style was the development of a broader neighborhood concept, whereby larger areas of the city, with more diversity of housing styles, could begin to take on the more cohesive character of the smaller neighborhood. This involved also the recognition of such areas as downtown and those surrounding regional facilities as particular cases whose size and location would be matters of community-wide importance. As a result of these concerns the planners and consultants came more and more to see the importance of dealing with Tulsa's existing and planned transportation network as the framework in planning for balance and quality in the city's growth. They came to recognize that the real failing of the earlier 1960 Comprehensive Plan had been that it was based on specific uses of particular parcels of land. 181 Such overall criteria, they felt, were too restrictive to long stand the test of individual decision after individual decision. A far more workable general criterion would be that of basing decisions on particular proposed developments on the intensity of that particular land use in terms of the adequacy of the services the develop- ment would require. The varying capacities of different types of trans- portation routes, ranging from expressways to arterials to neighborhood streets, should be a primary key to such decisions. They came to realize that, although Tulsa does have a differentia- tion of various types of streets on paper, many streets were being used far beyond the capacity they were designed for, while others were under- used. The relationship between the intensity of land use and the adequacy of a transportation network, they felt, required that the framework for planning be shifted to take seriously a real "heirarchy of streets." The first step, therefore, in establishing realistic criteria for development was to define areas of the city in terms of the complet- ness of such a range of transportation routes. The result was the deter- mination of what the planners came to call Development Districts, larger areas which could relate smaller neighborhoods into more cohesive units. These would be areas of the city, generally bounded by express- ways or other high-intensity traffic routes. Within these areas, the system of primary and secondary arterials and neighborhood streets would determine the appropriateness of particular land uses and developments. Subdistricts, within the wider more cohesive areas, would be defined by the criss-cross of primary arterials. And the designation of particular land uses and developments, from single family to apartments to shopping centers, would be defined by the capacity of the transportation 182 could be used to determine the appropriateness of a planned development within the context of the micro-cosmic Development Districts. Such criteria would include the adequacy and safety of existing and planned transportation routes to carry the burden of traffic generated by the new develOpment; the adequacy of sewerage and water networks and other public services to support such development; the adequacy of the market demand in the area to support the growth, both residential and commercial, as well as industrial; and the compatibility of the planned development with both the environmental setting and the already-existing land-uses in the area. Particular questions would be addressed to any planned develop- ment in each of these areas to determine both its positive and negative effects in terms of these criteria. In terms of Public Services, for example, the proposed developer would have to show that his plans take into account: X (blank space on original transcript) connect his tract with water treatment plants and supply tanks. The volume capacities of these main distribution networks. The maximum.daily volume of water demand and average daily sewage flow likely to be generated by the proposed use. And, the maximum daily and current average volumes flowing through the network which would serve his proposed use. In terms of Fire and Police services, the developer would need to show that the time-distance relationship and manpower capacity would be adequate to provide sufficient protection. And, in terms of residen- tial construction, he should be able to show that the location and current service levels of elementary and secondary schools, and the current 183 network to adequately serve them. Such became the conceptual framework for the Developmental Guide- lines: placement of the highest intensity uses along expressways border- ing the Development Districts, with the intensity decreasing as one moved on through the intersections of primary arterials to secondary arterials and finally the residential neighborhood street. In the language of planning, this would mean that the expressways bounding the Districts would be designated as Intensity Corridors, with development along them taking the general form of 'region-serving' faci- lities such as major shopping centers and office complexes. Intersections of arterials, where 'sub-regional' and community facilities would be more appropriate, would be termed Intensity Nodes. The Central Business District, as well as areas designated as Conservation Sectors or Interchange Protection Districts, would be set aside to accomodate their own unique situations and requirements. The concept, the planners and consultants felt, was a good one. It would prevent the kind of situation where someone would wake up in the morning to find that a shopping center had been built right across his back fence in what had been a nice quiet residential neighborhood. It would even prevent added costs to the City and the taxpayer in having to ‘widen a road or enlarge the sewer and water pipes to serve a development for which the area had not been designed. But something more was needed if development was to occur in an orderly manner within the Districts and Subdistricts. Again they turned to the transportation system and the already in-place service systems for their criteria. They began the work of developing highly flexible criteria which 184 levels of health, recreation and other community services would be adequate for his development. Now being put in the form of a concrete proposal for adoption by the City and County Commissions, these Developmental Guidelines call for similar questions related to each of the other criteria. Once formally adopted, the planners and consultants feel, the combination of this conceptual framework and the criteria for placement of development can be instrumental in achieving Balanced and Quality Growth in the short-range future. These proposed Guidelines, built upon the existing physical, economic and social realities of Tulsa, are designed to recognize the inter-relationship of the transportation and other service systems with community land use. They also encourage development to locate in areas of Tulsa in accord with the ability of current tax dollars to provide the services necessary to support them. The flexibility of the Guidelines, planners feel, wdll give elected decision-makers an adequate framework for making zoning decisions which will preserve the orderliness and quality of Tulsa's growth. And the combination of the concept and the criteria should allow such offi- cials the freedom to relate each decision to its particular merits and context. There may be a number of occasions, they point out, where a pro- posed development may be approved which fits the concept and not same of the criteria, or vice versa, depending on the situation. But even in their flexibility, the necessity of documenting the reasons for each approval according to the concept of the criteria should allow these guidelines to stand the tests of District Court and keep the 185 precedents intact. But, the key to the proposal is the desire to provide the frame- work for real choices of individual family lifestyles in any and all sec- tions of the city. These proposed Implementation Policies and Developmental Guide- lines are now before the citizens of Tulsa. City and County officials will be asked to accept, reject or modify them sometime this Spring. It is their decision to make, but it is your voice that needs to be heard. APPENDIX E BALANCED METROPOLITAN GROWTH APPENDIX E BALANCED METROPOLITAN GROWTH!- A Recommended Urban Growth Policv for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area By Glen R. Turner and Associates Marcou O'Leary and Associates Hammer Greene Siler Associates Consultants To The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission January 10, 1973 Tul *3uplicate of original citizen training material from files of as etropolitan Area Planning Commission 200 Civic C t Oklahoma, 1973. ' en er' msa' ‘In—I VISION 2000 CONCEPT DIAGRAM BALANCED METROPOLITAN GROWTH POLICY . METROPOLITAN SERVICE COMMUNITY (MSC) Q2 CONSERVATION AREA SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES FULL SERVICE COMMUNITV(FSC) C! PARTIAL SERVICE COMMUNITY(PSC) r I LIMITED SERVDE COMMUNITY (LSC) [:] nun“ DEVELOPMENT man-canon“ TRANSPORTATION SERVICE more: nus nuaun qusmrn concurs omv. am. «wan. mo LOCATION or EAEII ms or couuunm I... m M mun- TO I! DETERMINED ounma DETAILED rumma ”use. .- on 189 FOREWORD Metropolitan Tulsans -- citizens and officials jointly -- are in the midst of a highly innovative VISION 2000 comprehensive planning program. This effort is designed to establish an urban growth policy which is in keeping with the life-style preferences of citizens and feasible of implementation through a partnership of public and private interests. The VISION 2000 process is a singular achievement in the practice of American urban planning, especially in its dependence upon grassroots inputs from citizens even at the neighborhood level. At this particular time, the VISION 2000 process calls for endorsement in concept form of an overall growth policy which can, in turn, be refined into allocations, responsibilities, and priorities which will result in a new Comprehensive Plan for the region. Such a growth policy is being recommended which combines the positive aspects of several of the "pure" growth policies developed during earlier phases of the planning process. Perhaps more importantly, the recommended policy re- flects the attitudes and preferences of citizens which were revealed through extensive discussions about those alternatives. The recommended policy is called "Balanced Metropolitan Growth". Its characteristis and implications are discussed fully in the attached pages. It is a balanced system of separate communities, each of which shares in overall urban resources, responsibilities, and functions in accordance with self- determined priorities. More specifically, the respective communities vary widely in size, character, and function. Each is clearly separated from others, in most cases by an interconnected series of open spaces. And the whole system is tied together by a transportation network which is compatible with the vary- ing roles of the communities. Again, implementation of the Balanced Metropolitan Growth Concept is based upon a strong public-private partnership in which full performance of all parties is essential. This is especially true since the concept calls for incentives rather than restrictions; emphasizes quality of growth, not quantity; and calls for a balancing of development resources across the entire metropoli- tan area. If this concept is endorsed, as recommended, Metropolitan Tulsa faces the difficult but not impossible task of forming a truly meaningful and effective partnership of regional public and private interests working together to realize the plan. 190 BALANCED METROPOLITAN GROWTH POLICY The Urban Form Study team is recommending a "Balanced Metropolitan Growth" policy for the Tulsa Region's VISION 2000. This concept is a modification and combination of the "pure" urban forms developed during the previous phase of the VISION 2000 process, drawing especially from the "Balanced Growth" and "Satel- lite" alternatives. The recommendation is based upon continuing work of the study team and especially upon the responses of citizens to the recent survey of growth policy attitudes and preferences. The recommended form has the fol- lowing distinguishing elements which are described more fully in the table attached: - Metropolitan Service Community (MSG); A highly urban core city developed in a balanced fashion around the central business district as a hub. The NBC is not necessarily coterminus with the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa. - Suburban Communities: The M50 is surrounded by three distinct types of suburban satellite communities. 1. Full Service Communities: Two or three relatively large, fully self-sufficient but physically inde- pendent cities tied to the MSC by high-capacity transit links. Built around existing satellite communities or as "new towns". 2. Partial Service Communities: More in number and smaller in size, these mod-level satellites include special service communities which might feature colleges, retirement centers, and other specialized activities. Again, either new towns or existing communities. 3. Limited Service Communities: Village or "bedroom suburb" in character, these homogeneous communities provide residential and immediately related services only. - Conservation Apgas: A carefully selected and extensive system of parklands, flood plains, open spaces, stream valleys, and other public and private areas of minimal development define and separate the other major elements of the recommended growth policy. 191 - Transportation Network: All elements of the recommended growth policy are connected by a transportation network which is compatible with the character and anticipated interaction between the Metropolitan Service Community and the satellites. This includes the possibility of a high-capacity mass transit system linking the more in- tensly developed elements of the recommended form. Rationale for Recommendations The Tulsa community has made its attitudes clear with regard to the lar- ger issues of urban form and growth. These attitudes are revealed through the recent urban form survey and by the work of groups such as the Greater Tulsa Council, the Mayor's Advisory Committee, and the Mayor's Youth Review Committee. On one hand, an anti-city sentiment can be read into the recent responses to the urban form survey. The generally negative attitude toward apartment living and apartment dwellers, a strong feeling that population should be stabilized or reduced, a clear preference for smaller, separate communities with their own identity, and several other trends could be interpreted as a reaction against "the city" and as a call to reclaim a small town or rural atmosphere. On the other hand, an equally compelling interpretation can be drawn to support a strong attachment to or at least dependence upon a highly urban city centered around a viable metropolitan core. The apparent conviction that the city should supply human services in needy situations (especially housing), the fact that the central business district is still looked upon with pride as an important image and service facility for the whole metropolitan area, the indication that a new generation of transportation and transit facilities are favored and would be supported, and the fact that Tulsans' seem willing to have their tax dollars spent to influence "urban form” all point to a strong urban preference. This contradiction in response may be more apparent than real. The complex issues involved probably reveal the need for a rational growth plan and policy which carefully coordinates structured suburbanization (in the best sense of the term) around a strengthened and somewhat redefined ("balanced") core city. Simply stated, this is the rationale around which the study team's proposed urban growth policy is based. Clearly, the recommended growth policy does not subscribe to the "path of least resistance". It is not the easiest and probably not the least expensive to implement. It does, however, satisfy the divergent needs and preferences of Tulsans in a number of specific ways: - It strengthens the role and image of downtown Tulsa and provides a framework within which the CBD can become a truly "central" district. 192 - It embraces a wide variety of life-styles, which range from rural and small town atmospheres to very urban settings. - It encourages a unified and extensive system of open spaces which is at once an essential element of the urban form and a provider of essential services for residents. - It provides the potential for a new generation of metrOpOlitan transportation service, possibly in- cluding mass transit corridors connecting the more intensely developed elements of the recommended form. - It provides a framework within which desirable re- direction of growth can be accomplished gradually through a positive system of incentives rather than negative regulations and restrictions. - By definition, it includes a balancing of the core Metropolitan Service Community in keeping with the established expressway system and the stated pre- ference for an equalized growth pattern. - It focuses attention on deteriorating parts of the city and makes it imperative that they be treated promptly. - It allows existing infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, schools, etc.) to be used efficiently. In summary, the study team believes that l) refinement and detailing of the Balanced Metropolitan Growth concept can be accomplished in accordance with good planning principles, 2) the recommended policy is in keeping with discern- ible national trends (especially the recent interest in complete "new towns", 3) the concept will provide a reasonable framework for resolving a number of problems that chronically trouble residents including zoning policies and infra- structure priorities, and 4) most importantly, it is closely in tune with ex- pressed preferences of the citizens of Metropolitan Tulsa. Citizen Survgy The objective of the metropolitan planning process in Tulsa is to en- courage an urban growth policy compatible with the needs and desires of today's citizen and to provide an urban fabric able to accommodate projected develop- 'ment while providing the optimum future quality of life for all citizens of Metropolitan Tulsa. 193 In keeping with these broadly stated objectives, the opinions of Metro- politan Tulsa's residents who utilize and shape the present and emerging urban form have been solicited. A brief slide presentation graphically portraying the regions urban Options followed by a questionnaire probing respondents' views on key issues facing Metropolitan Tulsa provided the basic instrument for mass citizen input. The slide show and questionnaire were presented at neigh- borhood meetings, employment centers, and civic groups. More than 5,800 citizens completed the questionnaire during the citizens survey process. The responses were tabulated by computer to provide a data input into the consultants recommended urban growth policy. Sample Bias One section of the questionnaire was designed to isolate respondent attributes such as income, race, residential location, etc. Since the sample of respondents was not randomly selected, a possibility existed that the sample could over or under represent one segment of the broad community. However, everyone who was concerned enough about Tulsa's planning and growth to attend 'meetings and complete the questionnaire, was given an opportunity to do so; and the respondents do represent a fair cross-section of the community. While the respondents did tend to closely match Metropolitan Tulsa's population characteristics in many respects, lower-income families, nonwhites, elderly persons, apartment dwellers, and people recently moving to their present address were somewhat under-represented, but the data distortions introduced 'were not severe and the processing permitted each of these groups to be analyzed separately anyway. Because of these biases indicating that the sample may not be reflective of fill citizens, the utility of a direct link between the survey and the desired urban form is reduced. Nonetheless, sample biases do not eliminate the validity of the survey in indicating the general dimensions of Metropolitan Tulsa's desired urban form. The survey permits a number of insights into the pervasive strength of existing development trends, the favorable and unfavorable aspects of those trends and suggests improvements in Tulsa's emerging urban form. Survey gesults Dissatisfaction with Existing Development Trends. Metropolitan Tulsa's existing urban form reflects a multitude of public and private decisions made throughout its history, not all of which were totally rational. More signifi- cantly, not all of them were made with reference to the needs of contemporary Tulsans. Consequently, a disparity exists between Tulsa's emerging urban form and the desires of the respondents. Of the respondents, 63.1 percent indicated that redirection of Metropolitan Tulsa's growth should be encouraged. Moreover, this dissatisfaction with current trends was expressed by at least half of the respondents in each district, racial, income, age and occupational group. Dissatisfaction with the emerging form is apparently widespread. 194 Some specifics of this dissatisfaction include a desire to maintain the identity of smaller cities near Tulsa (76.9 percent of the respondents) and a belief in the importance of downtown Tulsa as a symbol or image (81.8 percent). Both of these "majority viewpoints" will be unmet if existing Tulsa trends proceed unchecked toward a sprawling, undifferentiated urban mass and a central city increasingly void of viable functions. Less than half (49.5 percent) of the respondents indicated that if they were to move they would select their same general neighborhood. This additional measure of dissatisfaction indicates a serious discrepancy between residential desires and attainment. While dissatisfaction is widespread, the discrepancy is most prevalent among lower income, elderly and nonwhite respondents -- the groups which have the least amount of choice regarding their location within Metropoli- tan Tulsa. Since their options are narrower and their present dissatisfaction more pronounced, the needs of these individuals must be directly addressed in the determination of a future urban form. The survey implies other indications of dissatisfaction with Metropolitan Tulsa's existing and emerging urban form. Most respondents (69.2 percent) advocate taking steps to fully utilize existing public facilities first, before building new ones. Existing trends promoting the abandonment of central and northern investments and reinvestment in the southeast are in conflict with this desire. The respondents are in support of a strong public role in Tulsa's future development. Specifically, the respondents support planning streets and high- ways to influence the direction of growth (79.7 percent), an increasing emphasis on public transportation (67.9 percent); the provision of sewers, schools and parks on a programmed basis to achieve a desired urban form (57.6 percent); and the utilization of tax dollars to provide facilities in advance of develop- ment (57.6 percent). Inspection of data cross-tabulations adds additional validity in that respondents indicating that Tulsa's growth should be redirected consistently support a more active public role in that redirection. Strength of Existing Trends. Existing development trends indicate the continued expansion of the southeast sector of the metropolitan area and actual losses in other areas. Respondents clearly found serious shortcomings in these trends as highlighted above; however, the strength of these development trends revealed in the questionnaire is also pervasive. If growth is to be encouraged in a more balanced pattern, growth in the north and northwest areas will have to be realized. Yet, the residents of these "deficit areas" were least likely to indicate they would remain in the same neighborhood in the event of a move. Conversely, respondents in the path of existing development trends were more likely to remain in the same neighbor- hood -- an indication of relative satisfaction among areas, but even in the southeast about one-third indicated a preference for another area. 195 While respondents indicated that downtown Tulsa was important, less than half (40.6 percent) indicated they would prefer a major metro serving facility downtown and only 28.5 percent should prefer to see future employment growth concentrated primarily in the City of Tulsa. This seeming incompatibility between desires for redirection of growth and stated residential preferences, reflects the fact that while respondents recognize inherent problems and irrationality in existing development trends and while they advocate a strong public role in encouraging growth in new areas, they also recognize the desirability of present developing areas suggesting that the prime tool in redirecting growth is to make other areas more attrac- tive. Unless significant shifts in preferences can be realized, the only people remaining in Tulsa's North, Central and Northwest areas will be those few residents who have no other choice. The resulting urban form will distort the balance of supply and demand for public facilities, increasingly polarize the income, age and racial distribution of Tulsa, limit the diversity and vitality of the Central Business District recovery, and threaten the environmental, social and physical holding capacity of Southeast Tulsa -- eradicating much of that area's present attractiveness. In the opinion of the consultant team as ‘well as respondents to the citizens survey, growth must be encouraged in other sections of the metropolitan area. Support for the Recommended Urban Growth Policy. As described earlier, the growth policy recommended by the study team is a combination of the balanced growth and satellite alternatives with some modification of each. The recom- mendation was developed primarily from the realization that present development trends do not respond to the needs of many residents. Although existing de- velopment trends cannot, and in several respects should not, be reversed immediately, the survey revealed that respondents in the Southeast and far Southeast districts already feel that more people cannot comfortably live in their neighborhoods "...even if proper housing were available". A large number of respondents, most of whom are already located in Tulsa proper, indicated that they would remain in their same neighborhood even if they were to move. These individuals tend to be owners, in the middle age brackets, with higher than average incomes. These individuals have the ability to maximize their residential choices and are apparently well served by the existing urban form. Additionally, the survey revealed a number of individuals ‘who felt a need for Tulsa's services but were unsatisfied with their present location. These individuals tend to be renters rather than owners, fall ‘within the $4,000-$10,000 income category and be young rather than old. The desirability of an urban fabric with a variety of housing types can be inferred despite the fact that most Tulsans believe that apartment dwellers don't carry their fair share of civic responsibilities. Whether or not this belief is valid, many residents who play a critical role in the area's economy simply cannot afford to own housing. Additionally, nearly half of the respon- dents in single family homes indicated that apartment living appeals to them now, or might appeal to them in the future. Apartments are a necessary element of the area's housing stock in this sense as well. 196 Besides balancing growth in the city, the concept calls for much of the new growth to be directed into the satellite communities. This is supported by the respondents of which 61.2 percent expressed a preference for less growth in Tulsa and more in the surrounding communities. While the number of respon- dents from some outlying communities was disappointingly small, a consistent trend emerged indicating that respondents from outlying communities favored continued growth within their own communities. The data supports the concept that some of these communities should be more than "bedroom communities" serving central Tulsa. Seventy percent of the respondents favor distributing employment among Tulsa and the surrounding com- munities and nearly 77 percent favor maintaining the identity of smaller cities through open space or similar devices. Moreover, 23.9 percent of the respondents indicated that if they were to move they would move to an outlying community. These respondents tend to be owners in the $10,000 through $15,000 income range, and in the 35-54 age groups. For a variety of reasons including perhaps residential preferences and a desire for a "small town" life style, the outlying communities present attractive alternatives for these individuals. The role of these outlying communities is significant, particularly if they can present a range of life style options to Metropolitan Tulsans. Summary The Citizen Survey has revealed significant discrepancies between a desirable urban growth policy and the present development trends. The survey also revealed the pervasive strength of those trends emanating from the re- spondents' prospective mobility. Unless these trends are reversed, central and northern Tulsa will continue to be neglected. These major points are only a brief capsule of the survey results. The information obtained via the citizen survey will continue to provide valuable inputs into the planning process and the refinement of this recommended urban growth policy. Implementation Policies Any city's plan for growth and development is an important tool in pre- serving the quality of life for the present and the future residents of that community. But it is only one tool and there is nothing inherent in one plan over another which will solve all of today's urban ills. No urban form alter- native will automatically create racial harmony; no concept plan is a panacea for crime or deterioration; and any plan can be subjected to administrative mis- ‘managament and abuse. There are many policies which have been proposed by the consultant team and other advisory groups in connection with this study which are valid and necessary objectives in order to have a healthy urban environment, 197 to maintain the quality of life, and to provide safeguards against economic exploitation of any group. However, the implementing policies discussed here are those required, or appropriate, for the implementation of the recommended urban growth policy as opposed to other alternative forms. The specific policies discussed here notwithstanding, the most important implementing policy will be the general commitment made to an overall concept and the detailed planning which will follow, for that will become a policy input to most other decisions regarding public expenditures, zoning changes and other points of public involvement in accommodating growth. The two features of the recommended growth concept which require the greatest departure from the current trends are the "balancing" of new growth within the Metropolitan Service Community and the creation of the Conservation Area system. Within this framework the growth which will occur can be channeled into areas defined in the detailed planning through the normal considerations of zoning, public service systems, job location and physical and environmental capacity. Consequently, the major emphasis here is on these two objectives. Balanced Growth It is recognized that current development trends are a reflection of free market choice at the broadest level. While the survey indicates that the cur- rent trends are not the preferred choice of the majority of the people of Tulsa, the trends nevertheless have been set in motion by past market choices and the inertia is now a powerful force influencing growth. The major policy recommendation of the consultants is that growth be encouraged in new sectors of Tulsa through the use of incentives for the private development sector and the priority allocation of discretionary expenditures by the public sector. The consultants recommend the establishment of a "Growth Incentive District", a defined zone in which a "package" of incentives would be offered. The list of possible incentives is exhaustive and limited only by the ability to secure enabling legislation from the State; but such incentives might include: - Development intensity bonuses offered to encourage private investment. - Expeditious and priority handling of PUD applications and other development proposals requiring more than routine administration. - An automatic priority factor to be applied along with other considerations in the selection of the city's capital improvements expenditures. 198 - Establishment of an investment insurance plan supported by all financial institutions in Tulsa to encourage investment in the Growth Incentive District. - A more rapid (hence favorable to the developer) re- bate of sewer and water costs. - Temporary tax incentives for industrial development, through the operations of the Tulsa Industrial Authority. While such incentives could be offered without reference to a specific geographic area, it is felt that a defined district established through ob- jective criteria would provide a sound and defensible rationale for granting development incentives to favor selected parts of the city. The criteria would have to be worked out but the two major tests must be the stated objec- tives of the city's plan and the lack of private investment in response to that plan. There are other steps which can be taken to implement a balanced develop- ment pattern in Tulsa either within or outside of the framework of a Growth Incentive District. These include: A commitment to excellence in education and school facilities in the central, northern and western portions of the city. - Creation of the opportunity for a single major development input on the north side of town such as a new town-in-town. - A major institutional input in the north side such as a new hospital or college. - The priority completion of the Cherokee, Osage and Gilcrease Expressways. - The promotion of the north side to outside in- vestors, particularly major employers, as is now being done by the Chamber of Commerce. - Construction of the much discussed River Lakes Park or other major amenty feature in the central northern and western portions of the city. - A commitment to coordination and cooperation and the execution of specific agreements among govern- mental and private bodies respondible for the area's 199 development (cities, county, federal agencies, school board, Chamber of Commerce, citizen committees, etc.) in support of the adopted plan concept. Again, it should be noted that these are specific policies aimed at generating a more balanced growth pattern in Tulsa. It is expected that more general policies relating to the reduction of deteriorated structures, provid- ing decent housing for all citizens, providing equal opportunity in all sectors of community life, and protecting the environment would be an inherent part of any urban growth policy. Conservation Areas and Community Separation The permanent preservation of undeveloped or low density areas between the communities of Metropolitan Tulsa will require innovative techniques where development pressures will be felt over the planning period. It should be noted that in remote portions of the metropolitan area, communities may con- tinue to be separated by normal rural activities without public actions; but to provide the type of separation and identity called for by the response to the citizen's survey some positive means of conservation must be adopted. The policies described below are means of achieving this objective: - An equitable system of zoning and taxation in the conservation areas so that rising taxes will not force owners to develop their land. In order to avoid abuse of the low tax on bona fide agricultural and open space uses, such a system should include a retro- active tax provision or other safeguards. - Extensive use of the planned unit development (PUD) with a requirement for interconnecting open space between projects -- just as streets are required to be lined up among traditional subdivision development. - Zoning of environmentally sensitive areas such as flood plains to prohibit development. - Establishment of a system of transferable development rights which might, for example, permit developers within the Growth Incentive District or Metropolitan Service Community to purchase partial or full development rights from those land owners in the conservation areas. This would provide incentives to the purchaser, full economic return to the seller, and a guarantee of permanent low density or open space development. - Design all public service systems, including the Haikey Creek sewer plant, to accommodate the amount of growth called for in the ultimate Comprehensive Plan. 200 Aside from these two major considerations there are additional commit- ments which must be made if the Balanced Metropolitan Growth Policy is to be achieved. These include: - Planning now for a future transit system. - Strong intergovernmental agreements to assure that citizens of even Limited Service Communities do indeed receive all necessary services. - Establish an equitable system of taxation and service costs to avoid competition among the satellites to get the cream and avoid the problems of development. Obviously, many of these approaches are not possible within existing statutes and some are only suggestions for further analysis and study; but such measures are necessary if Metropolitan Tulsa is to bring new approaches to coping with growth and preserving the quality of life. The challenge now lies with the citizens and their representative civic and governmental organizations to make a firm commitment to an urban growth policy such as the one outlined here and in the attached summary table, and tO‘work together in detailing the new Comprehensive Plan and seeing that it is implemented. r ......uitict . ..R»~.«.4§R..z 0...... pink-... u. «R , a. u. an.“ «first. . . 22(11 .eowauwemvcsu unseen comes, e we acme apeeeoee mugsuosLum —sucoe ucgm>om «Hexagon e u>ue no: see to An: .Auvcseeoo we» o:_cme use c_eecou eo_ex .uuw .msme Eeocum .maezmmoeexm .Ame_meeomcuv meoemAm mueem cues xe =x__eceouxw= emceeme xp—eumexe see Leopu one momem .xeozuoc cowesucoemeeee zuvoeesu emwe cons acme -cmeme so: ese o» upewmmoouo xpeecOmsmm .meou -cmoesm Loeeo Lo .povucwssoo .Peweemsecv Loewe o: "memo: ooemecoscou sooecoeemeoe Loewe ecu memeeoem so» mono: Pavemewocv “ucweaoposme pewucoepmoe »u_mcse sop new -Lsueo» cmuoeceeu er «soocouoeoe xF—ecucou .co_uomempesn ueocee e xe eoewsoee Apeeeoee mgsuoscumoeucw “acmsxopaeo sou_s_p aims to once aeoexopeem oc “n.ouu .eowusmgume .mcweaoem oucm_co>eouv »_co mou.>emm sweeps; see Pewueoewmoe mosesoca .Amemc< cowussemmcou use um: emueempmoe we» coazuoe tweets sm_s» co .833 a 333.03 3255.8 33.8... oequ on» vcaoxo scones asceuw> cu ooo.o~ :oeoe "macs; coeeepseoe “Aces maceF a xpewmmoev eueoaeeeu e? =etsesw eootsoe= so mmeppv> “guess: ca souvevpee A~mWeesme=sesou asap—meow oue>tom soeesee Aumm ou Lepwewmv Hume cu emprewmv .xuwcssEou mo co,» -uesw see maze co memeeoeoe .xcemmoooe use use m—eecwmou seems; we goucvoe .me see um: ou eoeuuueeoo auxmmmtexu .—eueoevuc. one «toecmoesm Loewe use access—sew “new unsoe xuwmeme muscseoe o» zap xe voeeso; -Lsm meeuvpvoee moe>com see seweeoem mo msoposc spoc.m a neweucoo appoovexh $355.3 323.5... 05 .3 333.3 we use see to xoe sisuoscumeewcv “mowu_mcou Lozop m:_~*mseeeo .mmaxu mc_msoe mo emcee Lusaka: £78 3533.. 3225.3 yo mocmweo>coo to» coev>oge meow: wov>cmm eoeeo see meeeeoem nemawwmeoses Lo o>wmcouxm so: use once acoexopaeo meow use; see eucoFwamsm-wpsm muse .exoe 3m: mesuvumeou to exoe mc_smexa enacts “_ese we see sooo.om-om “macs; cowee_seoe "a.oum .mmvu -wpvuee seems; so eeoeoe_uoe .mmoa—Pouv moree>veoe oneness pawooem assess» see "weaves—use see moms co woes; emueerp utmuoeeeeu c— gaze»: Lo Auvo FPoEm as»? -esEEou muv>cmm ones: we» scsoes xpcw>o suesestemse see-me loses: cs Falusum Awwmvxuvcseeou oqu—muum wov>gmm —evueoa -Loecooe. ouacaemm a we use ass to so: .Amowuwo eousioegouc, use use u—aEsxo Lou .zmexou roe: assay co_usgumveee -uo mayo eeoeeoeoecv euF3 women uses .mmmeu Loewe cw eeo>om see woesueow —oopw>ee Loeeo co .gmupoecooem= .mxcv_ aoeow "mamas «saw as gomew=v meseaa» sewem_ssewu -mpe 0e we um: soc» wueeumwe “emcee - -oe specsem we no: see go see momem Lw .Emumxm Asxmmmeexo possess; a» mucous powers amps ”Asp—ovu.cp momse mmmcexo . xpepmmoev um: mo coueou ou xevp use _ -ceeu mace Fosup emg_e .auwoeeeu ems: -ee 0AM .umz as -m save me use use Louueeseu cw cuecs mes movuwmemu Ppseoso "mo_urswuoa mmoecse - Fewooem Loeeo ecu acmexopeem to» mean -cmoesm —eeopuwees mo guess: ecume_— a ne'ecmu u_meeeu .mevmsoe xu_meme so: we .oeveeoem cvoucou F—wx caucus -esm tonne uFoepm a .xppeuwexu “Anew: -eepe copweume acrcse vouoopom we say gsouompuscg ..tosatrou. .=suoem= .s.o .upevmmoe mercy ecwenoposoe mo xumpces .? .: .emx_e so .Aumz xe .a.ov wermuso see» eme_>oee .umcveucoo-c_om we xee wesuoseumetmew tonne "noeuoexm moo»o_eeo we mcwuseeoo -uso use use seam use mmee acme -onQEo o>emcmuxm exo mceeucwee n.6uo .eo_uemeuot .mmvurpvus .movuememe see mouse ucwmsoe mo xuowges .oeveeoem new nespocw muow>tmm ovpese see mowuwsveos we macs; Ppsm "um: c? cess» were -wpwoe» see muow>sum cease vewx-s-uo uses no» ueooxo ueovuvwmsmuwpom apps; Pas as uno .e :0.- .umx ace» vouegeemm xpcempo u+ooc.om "emcee eo_ue_seoe “etc“ :o: a we eouegom seem up_se we go »u_cseeoo swappaeem scrumwxo ouagoagouew see "mmwu.>wuoo see moms :aees mo mace; .ps» "eauoeeeeu cw :sets "Aeoemumspu uoev amps» Pseucoo eon» meowuoocwu msovgos ep emueoop "Acoom Leo» »e n c to ~ xpeo meeegoev guess: c? souveee In 8313528 3:233 82:8 :3 d .mco_uocsm peecoe -ecosoo newsgwmuotuos ppm wereucou .A=meoc< m>_eu> -mecou= veers» wee magmas—m omoeu .xpm>wuomp_oov meson see moreoe as: .me_epe veep» me eosm mcmwese Peo_m»ee Loewe use .xu_mcoe acme eo_o>oe cw mmmceeo unseen .mooeew coeo eo~weemeo xe vmcveme xptempu .mme_——wuem as; mewxcwp mace» >F_e_owemm assumxm ewmcete see Fpee .xezmmtc Fe to» msooe we um: exgozeu: cove Loemceeu sate ocume oc_uew mo es: o_uw>_eoe emeuo use psesepso .oew soe .ucmE:Lm>om .mgseemo acmexope -Eo ecu mcweeoem .moooppoov meme cooesm to mono: xew>_uos msoLmEsc mcweucoo um: “Loeeoce oe Loucmo -esm oco soc» mcoPHewces xupmcoe us.3 use pestm>o mmee_mcms esp; xposwuepoc mes; opewmws ecu oeoeem a no eoeo_o>me we euPe: emu see ecsoca cavemem emoeepee a cw emuse gum_e A.ouo .mmomscmm .uemexoPQEm owes—seen .o.*v acmenopmsoe csece .emc_scwe we memes ewes seems Loewe see um: so» oesuuseemecucw o~-eowe mosesoge "once acoe>o_eem Pmcouxo ”.6uo .co_use_eemme .se_e em .eowueucoemceee .oocsc_e .ucme netm>om .cowusosem .eemEeweuLmeco u_eoe Pegsapsuuumcowuocs» m:_>tmm use ouosmce see uwpesa ppm co es: coweueem_tse Pmeu_cco guess to engage empsh we xu_o eu_3 mscwELouoo acemmmomc we: a? ems. .+ooo.OOm ”omen; cove _seoe “moexu unuseopusoe ecu moms seep mo heavens se,: "cauoeeoeo ? eeecs xpemve “sage sour—oeocuoe one to .=»e_u= ensues? ea. Passage wrea»PcsEEou oovsgmm csu.FomoLumz mhzmIwpmInbnKzlunlzphknhanMDIw>thnnntou ESSEEDEEEEE ms Illll'.‘ all?" '1’! cowua_ceMWD —ecmeww VISION 2000 TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA BALANCED METROPOLITAN GROWTH CONCEPT .0" le" ILLUITIAM ONLY ‘ltl. MANGO ND "III 0' [LC-INTI '0' '0 II flTII'I'VEO WIMLIV APPENDIX F PLANNING DISTRICT PROTOTYPICAL BYLAWS APPENDIX F PLANNING DISTRICT PROTOTYPICAL BYLAWS* DISTRICT 4 BYLAWS ARTICLE I The full name of this organization shall be "District 4 of the Vision 2000 Process." ARTICLE II Purpose The purpose of this organization is to keep the citizens of the district informed of plans for change-growth, development and improvement within the community. ARTICLE III Membership Membership and the attendant rights to vote in district-wide elections and hold district or sector offices shall be open to any person satis- fying one or both of the following criteria: 1. Be an owner of real property located in the district, 2. Have resided in the State at least six months, in the County two months, and in the district twenty days immediately proceeding the date of an election. ARTICLE IV Meetings General district meetings shall be held at the call of the District Steering Committee. An annual meeting shall be held in the spring of each year. All meetings shall be open to the general public. Seven day notice shall be given prior to any general district meeting. Public notice shall be by mailings, newspaper and/or local broadcast media and posting in public places. *Copy of protypical bylaws from files of Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 200 Civic Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1973. 204 ARTICLE V Officers 205 Section 1 All officers shall be elected at the annual spring meeting for a term of one year. Section 2 Section 3 a. C. d. 3. District Representative The District Representative shall serve as the represen- tative of District 4 on the Greater Tulsa Council. He shall also serve as Chairman of the Steering Committee and Planning Team and Chairman of the District Organiza- tion. He shall preside at all meetings. He shall be responsible for calling and presiding over all Steering Committee and Planning Team meetings. Alternate Representative The Alternate Representative shall serve as Vice-chairman of the District Organization and shall represent the dis- trict on the Greater Tulsa Council in the absence of the representative. The Alternate shall fill the responsi- bilities of the representative in the absence of the representative. Sector Representative There shall be two sector representatives from each sector. They shall be elected from the sectors on which they reside or own property. They shall serve on both the Steering Committee and the Planning Team. Sector Planning Team.Members There shall be chosen from each sector, two persons, in addition to the Sector Representatives, to serve on the Planning Team. Alternates Each sector may choose up to two additional people to serve as replacements to either or both the Sector Representa- tives or the Planning Team Members in the event of their inability, either temporarily or permanently, to attend meetings. A person may serve in such capacity only if so elected at the same meeting as chosen the Sector or Planning Team Members. Vacancies In the event of a vacancy in one of the elected positions, that position will be filled by another elected officer in the succession indicated: District Representative by first- elected Alternate Representative by second-elected Alternate Representative. Sector Representatives by Sector Planning Team Members by Alternates. ARTICLE VI Committees Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 206 SteeringfiCommittee The Steering Committee shall be composed of the District Representative the two Alternate Representatives and the ten Sector Representatives. It shall be responsible for the announcement and planning of all District meetings, and shall assist in organizing the sectors. It shall perform such other functions as it may deem necessary or desirable in furtherance of the purposes of the District Organization. PlanninggTeam The Planning Team shall be composed of all of the members of the Steering Committee plus the other ten peOple chosen as Sector Planning Team Members. The major purpose of the Planning Team is to maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan for the District. To this end the Planning Team shall: a. Review all proposed zoning changes or exceptions related to property located within the District, and make rec- ommendations for approval, modification, or disapproval of such proposals to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, or Tulsa City Commission as appropriate. b. Annually, review the Plan and if necessary, make rec- ommendations for updating it. Meetings a. Meetings of the committees may be called by the District Representative or by any four committee members. Notice of time, place and purpose of any meeting shall be given by mail or telephone to each member at least three days prior to such meeting. b. All members shall have equal voting rights of one vote each. An absent member may be replaced by one of the sector alternates from the same sector as the member. c. A quorum shall be required for transaction of any business brought before a committee. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum. When a quorum is present, but neither the District Representative nor the two Alternate Representatives is present, the members present shall elect a Temporary Chairman and business may be transacted. d. Meetings shall be open to the public and non-members desiring to present views to the committee may do so when recognized by the Chairman of the meeting. 207 e. Operating procedure shall be by these Bylaws and by Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, and shall be binding on all members as well as non-members. ARTICLE VII Amendments These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those present and voting at the annual spring meeting. Notice of the proposed Bylaws change must be given with the announcement of the meeting. APPENDIX G LEARNING VARIABLE LIST "’ ""'"' ‘ ' ' APPENDIX G ___TNE SDCIAL SCIENCES SPSSH - RELEASE_6.02 . H m .m _q,_“, LEARNING VARIABLE LIST* -..-c- —.—— ...---~— to -- LOCATION FOR 7115 RUN” ANDUNT REQUESTED ’ "" ' " '40960'8YTESWW ‘ _..-___..__.__-...._L-._- “1.----- _ L _ I: I -- L, 07/29/77-.-- .1.-. .. TRANSPA CE...AL.LU.CAI [UN _- 5120.--BYJES- -.- _-______- - Ax ND 0F TRANSFORMATIDNS PERMITTED"_” ' MST , Ax~ ND _DE_REC_DDE VALUES .__L_ _ _LHH__ZO§I._LL --- -L;L__muumw--_u_iu.- _ Ax ND 0F ARITHN. DR LDG. DPERATIDNS ‘ Aos IDRESPACE ALLDCATIDN ‘ ’ —3§§£6 BYTES RUN NANE CDNNUNITT PLANNING PRJCESS INQUIRI-LARII TDNPKINS 6-17-77 VARIABLE LI§I._!ARQQIWIDLVARIZIL ”H_ m_-u _ LL1_LL,- ____LL_HL.LL-.L_L_L. VAR LABELS VARooI SEX! VARQO}. ..A.G.EI -- ---_..-..,__ 1.. ' _.__. L. ----.. - VAR003 RACEI IAROOALYEARSIOEFSCHOOLI..__”__.I _ LLL_ M.“_ L“1-_ 1_ VAR005 FAMILY INCDNEI .HVAROOS_EMPLOYHENT STATUSI ..... V,L.. ‘_ ,-_ _ ,m_i___ VAR007 ENPLDYNENT CLASSIFIC ATIDNI V $991-1 IVE .-J M -ELA NNI .N 1.0.1.518. I CST/-..--- .. _- ..-- -..- - VARoo9 NUMBER OF VISIJN zooo HJRKSHOPSI __ -_m_ _V_ARD1D_ NUNAER OF _EURNAL PLANNING HURKSIOPS I VARDII NOTICE OF DISTRICT PLANNING NEETINGSI _.MYABQJZHDISCUSS,PLANNING-HAITERS_HITH NEIGHBORL-. VAR013 DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS NITN ETIENDS I V AR 0 l 5 D I SC U,S§.ElA.Nl‘IL1&JlAI.I ER 51. .HIJILFAH _LI..Y_.L__. _._ - ~ VAR015 DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS VITH PLANNERSI -“VARDJS.QISCUSSHELANNIN&-MAITERSLHITH_DEFICALSIV-1- VARDIT DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS NITH STAFF I .WVARQIB_C0HPREHENSI(EMPLAN PREPARATION.SEETINGIHHHI..-L--..L VAR019 PLAN CDNPLETED HEETINGS ATTENDEDI .e..MARQ;2_£DRNALL1_fl£EI_Q1§IRJ$I_£LANNERSI _e..i_ne_-____- VAR021 FORHALLY NEET DTHER DISTRICT PLANNERSI __VARQZ§MIHINK_PLANNI G CHANGING DISTRICT Lm”___m_mms ;L--, VARoza INFLUENCE PLANING TEAN DN DECISIDN-NARI _MVAROZQ CITY PLANNING ND CITIZENS PARTI:IPATDNI VARozs RDLE BUSINESS IN DISTRICTI ---- ...—....__. —-...~__— A—-».._-—— -._ ... -o-—--v'.'- VAROZ? VISION 2005 PLAN NAAE DIFFERENCE! «VAROZB,BE$ILSIATENENT-EXPLAINS PLANNINSIWW _L." _ H L _ VAR029 FIRST ESSENTAL SUBJECT TD DISTRICTI , ”yARQAQ,SECONQ_ESSENIAL SUBJECT TD DISTRICTI- _ LL_- -_- VAR031 THIRD ESSENTAL SUBJECT TD DISTzICTI VAR03;_u5££yLN£SS_QE_1£CHNICALLTRAININGI - ____,_LL VAR033 KNOH HDN NELL - NDVERS INTD DISTRICTI _A _"u VARQQjHKNQfl_HOH HELL :“CITY IHPROVEHENTSL.-M“_ -._ L m L VAR035 KNDN HOH HELL - RESIDENTIAL VALJESI __ [5R03§_5NOHHHOH HELL‘§HCOH5ERCIALVVALUES!m_____H.____-_ VAR037 KNOH HDu HELL - INDUSTRIAL VALUES! VARQBB KNQLUQLILELL - £R_I_‘_IE_I___._ *Ef—“’*PCDpy‘-or‘é*omputsi~ frlnféufi’SPSSfJuly 29,1977: ‘* ”“— m '- ““‘” * are ' "“‘ ‘ “""" ' ’ APPENDIX G .....I35. 5.99 {ALHSCLENCES -SPSSH__‘ RELEASE- 6-02 . . ,. .. . - - LEARNING VARIABLE LIST* ...-.....- __-.. A--O~v.~.—»-.-ln-—O..- -... -.. LOCATIDV FDR INIS RUVo. __.. .-e_._...___-.__,__.' ANOUNT REQUESTED ' ’ ”” " 'AORBO‘BYTESWW . .. _ e- 07/29/77-.--mw. e __IBANEEACEJLLUCAT ION 5120.8 YJES. --- --____- .- ._ Ax NO OF TRANSFORMATIONS PERMITTED““"' ‘"§I”WPI ‘ Ax NO _QEMRECO_DE VALUES m_-"~ _ .--L". 2051---- m-_ -;.IL_I“_-H.H_._.-I- AX NO OF ARITHN. 0R LUG.0PERATIONS ‘ 608 a- —-.-.—-—-—-——- “-—- IOR€SPACE ALLOCATION 35840 BYTES RUN NAME COMMUNITY PLANNING PRJCESS INQUIRY-LARRY TOMPKINS 6-17-77 V A N A 8. .L.E--..|...I .51. ., ILAILQQI. -110. ALA El. 11 -.. - _. .....- .-_ --- - . _ -- .._- -..--- .... -... _. -..__. -..---w- . --. . VAR LABELS VAROOI SEXI ..-!ARQQZ_A§EI ” -_”m_-_Lm~_ ' -L_“-L__,h-- VAR003 RACEI MARCOSLYEARS.OEISCHOOLI_.-.“I- . _,H._- I.“_ _nn _-L- VARoos FAMILY INCONEI .UVAR006_EMPL0YHENT STATUSI ,..; _- H__ _ IM_M-_- ”_. VAROO? EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFI: ATIONI VABQQQLLIMELJNLELANNING_QISIRIQI[._M__ n_--..ue " VAR009 NUMBER OF VISION 2000 MORKSHOPSI __ __MuEVAROIQ_ NUMBER OF _FORNAL PLANNING VORKSNOPS I VAROII NOTICE OF DISTRICT PLANNING MEETINGSI _MYABQJZHDISCUSSIPLANNINGLHATTERS.WITH NEIGHBURL_. VAR013 DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS NITM FRIENDS I -- __ y AR 9 1 SLQJ§£1155_E.LA_N1\II'1&-.£LAI.I EB SLMUHJAH l L Y I __ VAR015 DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS VITH PLANNERSI "VARDJQ-QISCUSS“RLANNIN&-HAITERS.WITHLDEEICALSI..M_ VARDIT DISCUSS PLANNING MATTERS NITM STAFF I _"VARQIBLCOHPREHENSI[EMPLAN PREPARATION NEETINGI ”-m..__ -. I... VAR019 PLAN COMPLETED MEETINGS ATTENDEDI -..)! 53.0.Z_9__EURJ‘IALLY_.H_E_CI_.D_I§J_RJ 5.1-91-4 N 11.5.8.5 I ..- .. . _ _- .. _— .- VAR021 FORMALLY MEET OTHER DISTRICT PLANNERSI A, _"__ VAR_022_ TNINK _PLANNING CNANGING DISTRICT I ,_m -_ __ ;L-- - VARoza INFLUENCE PLANING TEAM ON DECISION- MAKI _mVAROzA CITY PLANNING NO CITIZENS PARTI: IPATONI VAROZ5 ROLE BUSINESS IN DISIRICTI ---- n-—.>r-- . ~¢—-— ...—— VAR027 VISION 2003 PLAN MAKE OIFFERENCEI ..PVAROZB,BESJMSTATENENT_E381AINS PLANNINSIWI L-u-- I _ I VAROZ9 FIRST ESSENTAL SUBJECT TO DISTRICTI - __LVABDSO,SECOND_ESSENTAL SUBJECT TO DISTRICTI- ,,- _“ -__ VAR031 THIRD ESSENTAL SUBJECT TO DISTRICTI VARDBZ_M$E£QLNE$S_QE.IEQHNI£ALHIRAJNJNSI , ___II__- VAR033 KNOM HON HELL - MOVERS INTO DISTRICTI __ M_ [ARQ13“KNOU-HOH HELLutiCITY IMPROVEMENTSI-_LI. -.I VARoas KNOH HOH HELL - RESIDENTIAL VALJESI g. _“____1A&QQQwSNOHNHOI HELL f CONNERCIAL VALUESIM___U -___I_ VAR037 KNDN NOV HELL - INDUSTRIAL VALUESI VAROGB KNQILJJQILEELL - £R_L‘1E,I___- _. 4ET’*"“*COP}"OY‘EOmpdti-§f p‘nnwufi"spss;*Ju1y 29,1977: * ““- -—- -' ______ 0AA _PBJCESS_IHQUIRY- LARRY_ TOMPKINS ,HJ.H" V- “-n, VAR_32_ [RENQ_0F -PRflPfiRIY :VALUES":_1ACAXT- LANDI”-_..__I_-WHHL-MUSA. 210 VAROAD TREND OF PRJPERTY VALUES - AGRI LANDI VAROAZ TREND OF PROPERTY VALUES ‘ COHMERCIAL I VAROAO TREND 0F PRJPERTY VALUES - PUBLIC LANDI _MARQ52_NEIQHBORHOOD_PLANNI$G BESIKDESCRIBEDI VAROAb THINK DIFFERENCE IN DISTRICT‘NEISHBORI -.- VAROAB YES DIFFEREVCE- -SIZE OF AREAI VARO5O YES- -DIFFERENCE- -HAJOR BOUNDARIES! VAR051~1E§;DIEFEREJCEHIDJAL.PDEULAIIOVI_ VAROA3. TREND- OF PRJPERTY VALUES €;INDUSTRIALI___H, .- -..—...-_-.-— .VARQfil YES DIFFERERCE: NUMBER OF FRIENDSIMM-_,--;N "WVARQA9 YES: -DIFFERESCE TYPE OF COMMUNITYL ,m”-_n, _ 07/29/77 _VARQjIITRENQ-UF_PROPERTY VALUES-?-RESI)ENTIALI. -P H ..--....- .-.. VAROSZ SERVICES KEPT JP HITH DISTRICT VEEDSI _WNARQSIuBALANCED.GROVTH HEARS?I_W__m“U__L-LLI_-_ _ VAROSA QUALITY GROHTH HEANSII _--... - VAR055 RANK I IN QUALITY 3F LIFEI VAR058 RANK 3 IN QUALITY OF LIFEI VAROSQNRANKHEM IN QUALITY,JE LIFEI”I_W- -.-.”m" _— -..o—a— VAROOO RANK 5 IN QUALITY 3F LIFEI ”VAR061_ RANK _6 IN_ QUALITY- JF LIFEI _ VARObZ RANK 1 MOST IHPORTAVT IN PROPER PLANI VARObA RANK 3 HOST IMPORTAVT IN PROPER PLANI VAR065- RANK 5 MOST IMPORTANT IN PROPER PLANI ‘VARDGS RANK 5 MOST IMPORTANT IN PROPER PLANI -.IYARDGJIRANK DMHDST_IHPJRTANT IN PROPER PLANI VAR068 MAJOR CAUSES OF CHARGE FIRSTI .MABQEI_RAMK_Z_-IN-QUALIIY_3F.LIEE1_.-“H.-L_E”._.WD- ——_._....-—--. ...-..— A_.~. VAROb3_BANKLZ -HDSML_IMPORIANI.IKMPRUPER PLA3L_._.-__”I.__--“I.IL VAROQRMHAJOR_£AUSES_OEICHAlfiE-SECONDI VARO73 HAJOR CAUSES OF CHARGE THIRDI VARO7Z YES GROVTH PROBLEM - DENSITYI _VARDIB YES_ GROHTH.PROBLEH - IRAFEICIH“-I a-“ -.L. ’" VARD7A YES GRONTM PROBLEM - ABANDONMENTSI VAROZE YES GRDKIH.£RU&LEH_:_£RQPERIJ_ V.AL.UESL_-M”*. VAR076 YES GROHTH PROBLEM - OVERCROHDIHGI VéfiflllnlfiivfiflflfllflmflfiflfiLEHI:WLD1ER REVEXUESL. VAR078 YES GROHTH PROSLEH - LOVER INVESTMENTS] YARD]? YES-GROHTH PROBLEM f OVERCROdD SCHOOLSI ‘”’"”""""VARDBS YES GRONTN PROBLEM - UNEHPLUYHE‘ ’ .VARQ71 RAPID GROHTB PROBLEH - YES- NOI _IML LIEU-,.H ‘. ...-4 -.— . VARDBI YES GRONTM PROBLEN -_OINERI VARoBz GUIDED CITY GRJNTMI VARO83 VALUE_ OF PREVEVTING _S_TRIP DEVELOPHENTI_ ",d- VARO8§ VALUE OF ALLEVIATIOI TRAFFIC COIGESTGNI VA R085 IMPROVEMENTS ' _PRIVATE _EDU_CATIOVI_ - --.... .....- -.— firv VARO86 IMPROVEHENTS - PARKS] VAR087 IHPRDVEOEEIS_:_£UBLIC_EQUQALIDHLL___;.-____mn___-a"_-w- VAR088 IHPROVEMENTS - CODE ENFORCEHENTI _”“1_m4 VAR082_1HPROVEHENI§ - __ORBAN RENEHALI __, --HI -. VARO99 IHPROVEMENTS - DISTRICT PAPERI MV_AR09I-1HPROVEHENTS_ - LOANS TO INDUSTRY] ___”I-. VARO9Z IMPROVEMENTS - LOANS TO BUSINESSI —_—m..__..—_— _V —.—-_-- --P RQC. 5-5.5-1?! 9913 1-7L ARR Y“ [0 NPR I N5 _ 211 _HOZIZ9177 ”3-9.9.3. J-l‘18.BO_Y.EflENTS_-_..P L ANN I NC .- SLUD If SI ' -, ...... .. VARO9§ IMPROVEMENTS HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS! VAR09§,INPROVEHENTS --SOCIAL dELFAREMNEEDSI-"_fl.IH_--"__ - VAR096 INPROVEMENTS PUBLIC PROTECTION! - ,VARO97 CRIIMERIA - IN_ PLACE SERVICE SYSTEHLMH,___._HEE-EEH_- _WVARQ93_CRIIEBIA_:m10NING.l_. “VARIQZ.QH_NQI_KNQN”LEALIS_JE_QISIRJCI;1LANNERSI .. ,-_‘.- ___.——.—... ...—— VARO98 CRITERIA - TRANSPORTATIUNI VARIOD,§RITERIA - SUBJIVISJN REGULATION! -.flMVARIOI_CRITERIAmzuTAXATIUNI- -u.m_ ~_M.,n_“_mI_wmwr_-_.. W VARIOZ CRITERIA - HOUSING LOCATION] _m“_.YARlO3.CRITERIA_:.COMPREHENSIVE PLANIuL m“___mu._”“--w VARIOI CRITERIA - METRO PLANI VARIOb CHARACTERISTICS - HDNESTV VARIQZECHARACTERISTICS_- HILLINGNESS.TONLISTENL - A--__,V VARIOB CHARACTERISTICS - HILLINGNESS T] ACTI' VARIQQMQBABACTERISTICS-:_TRUSTI.M_-_H_M_,-m_m“.__“__u--“.w VARIIO CHARACTERISTICS - LEADERSHIP! VARIJJ.JHIJMELUIDN_QN_ELANN[59-IEAHSI ---..u-u_ VARIIZ RATING- CDNMUNICATIJNI VAR113_RAIINGT EEEICIENCY IN_DECISION_NAKINGI. VARIIS RATING- INTEREST IN DISTRICT! _“VARIIQ.RAIING‘-INTEREST"IN-HETRO.AREAI”.m_ - , ,, ”--.. VARII? RATING- FDLLOH- UP ON DISTRICT! VARIJ_8 R_llflG’ “RELIAN;§_DN_QJSTRICI REjJUR£.E$I._ .unwfi.-_uu_n_ VARII3 RATING- TECHNICAL SKILLS] .. ---.“YABJ 1.2-1.093."AGREEJIENLV113-81. MINER? S , IDEQIS IONS! _ ,_ VARIZO PLANNER'S REACHED GOALS! .....YARIZLJIIIST INPQRT-_.GQAL__.OE__TEAH'I ...--- ___ , VALUE LAB'EL'S' —— - —--——-_.--- .— V—.--. ——..-— — - .— — -- ..._ _....-——.—o—.—. —. - , —..-—— .. ...---- --- . VAROOI IIIFEHALE IZINALEI V AR 0 0 Z LIL). 5 AND U N DE R I 21.1.6- 14431 .2 i:3.§...L’LL3..5:. 6.1.12 M 5.1.-.. ..- _ 6‘ IbIbS AND OVER] _lARODB III WHITE. IZIBLACK I3IINDIAN III OTHERl-m- VAROOI III I- AVRS IZI 5-6 VRS I3I 7-8YRS IQIHS I- 3YRS I5)_HS-AWIRS,I5ICDLLEGE I 3YRS I7)9YRS.I8I5-JR~- HORE VRSI VAR005 III.L§§§_IHBSHQQQQ_LZISLQQQTQA232*1111LQ9Q221931_N___“ I4IIO:OOC-I§:999 I5I159000-249939 I6I25p000-299000 _I7IHOVE _THA_N _309000! __m_ - VAR005 III PRIVATE CDNPANV IZIDNJN BUSINESS I3IFED EHPLDV ”uIfiIASTATE ENPLJVEE ISILOCAL GJV IbI SELF ENPLOT I7I UNPAID FAMILY WORKER! V “3.91.1.1 UJEJELJILQS C. 1;. NE 55.1 -3 I LVLC EJLE 53-1.4.1!) NCEJIDNI H _ - - I5I THICE HDNTN IbIDNCE YEAR ITIDCCASIONALLVI VARQIZHID.VAROII,IIINEVER I2I-DNCE_HEEK“I3IDNCE NDNTH IfiIDNCE YEARI _VARQZQ;VARQZI,LIINEV R IZISDHETIHES I3IREGULARLVI“ VAROZZ T0 VAROZTpVARD32 T0 VAROfifip VAR347 TD VAROSZ: _V AR 0 5 5 v V 43 27.Z___LQ.-!A 80.3.9 1. HR. 0.9.7_T Q__VA.R.1-Q 5.;__V_A_8.l_9~6_- 10.... - .. - _. - - VARlIOpVARIIZ T0 VARIZO IIISTRONGLV DISAGREE IZIDISAGREE ___”13IN§UTRAL IAIAGREE ISI STRONGLY AGREE IEIDDNVT KNOU I9) NO OPINION! _VARQZIaVAROTI IIIVES IZINOI _ VAROZB IIIPREPARE PLAN IZIPREPARE FOR ‘UTURFI3IPREPARE ,_—._..__.—_-a——__-L_ -— APPENDIX H COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS INQUIRY .213 APPENDIX H DIVISION OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 346 West Avenue (501) 5753459 COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS INQUIRY Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 n; UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS - College of Arts and Sciences The attached questionnaire is about the Tulsa community planning process. It is part of a study of the strengths and weaknesses of the innovative Vision 2000 planning process as a learning experience. The purpose of this inquiry is to solicit your candid opinion about planning in the city of Tulsa. Results of this study will help in the development of better planning methods in Arkansas and perhaps Oklahoma. Because of your knowledge and interest in your neighborhood you have been selec- ted at random to participate in this study; We particularly need your responses because you live in the largest and most dynamic metropolitan.area in our feur state region. Please feel free to add any comment or*notes next to any question you wish. All information will be held in strictest confidence and used only in statistical aggregate. It will be appreciated if you will complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed envelope before June 28th. We will be pleased to send you a summary of the results should you desire. If you would like any additional infor— about the study please contact Larry Tompkins, Division of Community Affairs, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark. 72701 (501-575-3h58). Thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely yours, C. Larry.Tompkins Assist. Professor The Unwersn; of Arkarsas us an Eoual Opportumty EmpIOyer TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING DISTRICTS — DISTRICT IOUNDAIIH 215 COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS INQUIRY 1. Study Participant Information: (v6 a. Female Male b. Age: 15 and under 25-34 45-64 16-24 35-44 65 and over c. Race: White Black Indian Other d. Years of school completed: Elementary school: 1-4 yrs.____ 5-6 yrs.____ 7-8 yrsn___ High school: 1-3 yrs.___| 4 yrs.___ College: 1-3 yrsa___ 4 yrs.____ 5 or more yrs.____ e. Annual Family Income: Less than $3,000 $10,000-14,999___ More than $30,000 $3,000-6,999 '___ $15,000-24,999 $7,000-9,999 $25,000-29,000___ f. Presently employed____ Unemployed___ 3. Employment Classification: , Employee of a private company Local government employee Employee of own business Self-employed worker Federal government employee Unpaid family worker State government employee h. What planning district do you live in? (see attached map for number)' 2. How many of the following types of citizen planning workshops or training sessions have you attended since 1972 to date? a. Initial Vision 2000 training presentations GvO #1 #2 #3 Development Guidelines Session b. Other formal planning training sessions (circle total number; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more c. None 3. How often do you receive notice (by newspaper,phone,friend,etc.) about your district planning team activities? (v6 Never___ Twice-a-week__; Twice-a-month;___ Only occasionally___ Once-a-week;___ Once-a-month___ Once-a-year 4. How often do you now discuss district planning matters with the following persons? 6») Never Once-a-wk. Once-a-mo. Once-a-yr. a. neighbors b. social friends c. family members d. professional planners e. elected officials f. staff of city departments 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 216 During preparation of the comprehensive plan for your district about how many planning meetings did you attend each month? (circle average number) 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more Now that the comprehensive plan for your district has been completed, how'many planning meetings do you attend each month? (circle average number) 0 l. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more How often do you meet formally with other district planning teams or members to discuss planning matters (other than Greater Tulsa Council monthly meetings)? 6!) Never Sometimes (on call) . Regularly (once-a-week, me.) How Often do you meet informally with other district planning teams or members to discuss planning matters (other than Greater Tulsa Council monthly meetings)? (v) Never Sometimes (on call) Regularly (once-a-week, me.) Do you think interest in planning is changing in your district? (circle number) Decreasing l 2 3 4 5 Increasing rapidly (constant) rapidly How much influence do you think your planning team now has on the Tulsa community decision-making process? (circle number) Absolutely I 2 3 4 5 Great no influence (some) influence Do you think city government, as now structured, would be able to prepare a comprehensive plan for your district which would meet district needs without the assistance of community residents? (circle number) Absolutely I 2 3 4 5 Very not (somewhat) capable What leadership role, if any, should the private business sector take in district planning matters? (circle number) None at all 1 2 3 4 5 Complete leadership (some) How essential are professional planners(private consultants and public planners) to district planning activities at the present time? (circle number) NOt at 811 1 2 3 4 5 Absolutely essential (some) Do you think the Vision 2000 planning process has made any real difference in the way planning is carried out in your district? (circle number) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Great difference (some) 217 15. Which following statement best explains planning? (circle letter) a. prepare a comprehensive plan b. prepare for the future c. prepare and implement a land use and zoning plan d. control things we now have e. daily decision-making about land use f. a means to achieve what you want 3. understand how a city functions 16. What three general planning subject areas do you think most essential to the preparation of a district's comprehensive plan? (circle 3) a. capital improvements program e. zoning b. working-living areas f. Public facilities c. policies and objectives g. circulation d. bond issues h. population growth 17. Do you think technical training in planning (e.g. in traffic engineering, zoning, design, etc.) would be useful to you and others living in the district? (circle number) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very useful (some) 18. How well do you know what is going on in your district at the present time for .the following? (circle number for each item) (some Nothing things) Very knowledgeable a. type of persons moving into dist. l 2 3 4 5 b. city improvements(streets, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 c. level of residential property values I” If 3 4 5 d. level of commercial property values 1 2 3 4 5 e. level of industrial property values 1 2 3 4 5 f. crime II, III 3 4 5 19. In general, what do you consider market values in you district to be at the present time for the following? Do not know___ (circle number) Declining rapidly (stable) Improving rapidly a. vacant land 1 2 3 4 5 b. agricultural land 1 2 3 4 ‘5 c. residential land 1 2 3 4 5 d. commercial land 1 2 3 4 5 e. industrial land 1 2 3 4 5 f. public land 1 2 3 4 5 20. The "neighborhood" planning concept is best expressed by which statement? (circle number) a. a comprehensive plan b. good traffic circulation through area c. safe access to schools and parks d. maintenance of property values e. provides adequately planned industrial areas 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 218 Do you think there is a difference between the idea of neighborhood and the idea of planning district? Yes No___. If yes, how important is each of the following? (circle number Not at all (some) Very important a. number of friends b. size of area (no. of blocks) c. type of community facilities d. major boundaries (streets,etc.) e. total population HH.—Hr- NNNNN UUW4U U'IUIUIUIUI To what degree have urban services (street improvements,sewers,parks,etc.) kept pace with such needs in your district? (circle number) No opinion Far behind l 2 3 4 5 Well ahead (even) Briefly comment on what the term "balanced" growth means to you. Briefly comment on what the term "quality" growth means to you. Do you think planning "jargon" or technical terms used in newspapers,T.V. or by professional planners to be a problem to the citizen's understanding of planning in your district? (circle number) U‘ Not at all 1 2 3 4 Very much (some) Rank six of the following 26 planning districts as to the quality of life you believe each district now has. (l=highest quality of life, 2=next highest, 3= next, etc.) See attached map. No opinion Dist. 1__ Dist. 8_ Dist. 15_ . Dist. 22— Dist. 2___ Dist. 9_ Dist. l6_ Dist. 23— Dist. 3 Dist.10 Dist. 17 Dist. 24___ Dist. 4: Dist.ll: Dist. 18: Dist. 25_ Dist. 5_ Dist.12___ Dist. 19_ Dist. 26___ Dist. 6 Dist.13 Dist. 20 Dist. 7 Dist.l4 Dist. 21 219 27. What six items listed below do you think most important to the proper planning of your district at the present time? (Rank using 1: most important, 2= next, etc. Land ownership or holdings Unique natural features(e.g.river) Topography or terrain Major physical barriers(e.g. streets) Family income Available vacant land Age of population Social status Type of houses Stable market values Number of children Racial transition Zoning Adequate urban services IIIIIII IIIIIII 28. What do you think have been three major causes of change (growth or no growth) 'within your district? (l=major cause, 2=second cause, 3=third cause) Government leadership Property values Educational opportunities Citizens demands Quality of urban services Convenient shopping Good transportation system Safe environment Availability of housing Planned orderliness 29. Do you think rapid growth has contributed toward problems now facing your dis- trict? Yes____ No____ If yes, how much has gnowth added to the following prob- lems? (circle number) Not at all (some) Greatly a. increased residential densities b. traffic congestion c. abandonment of property d. lower property values e. overcrowding of residences f. lower city revenues g. lower investments in district h. overcrowding of schools 1. unemployment j. other: I-‘I-‘l-‘HI-‘I-‘f-‘I-‘t-‘H NNNNNNNNNN uuuwuuuuuw fib§3>bl>bbbb uuummuuuu 30. Should the direction of growth of the city be guided? (circle number) Not at all' 1 2 3 4 5 Completely controlled (some) 31. How valuable is each of the following development goals of your district? (circle number) No value (some) Great value a. Prevent strip commercial in residential areas 1 2 3 4 5 b. Alleviation of traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 5 32. Given $100,000 for improvements within your district how much of the money would you spend for the following interests? (allocate to one or more interests) Private education $7 , Loans to local business$ , New parks or improvements , Planning studies , Public education , Home improvement loans , Code enforcement , Social welfare needs , Urban renewal , Public protection , District newspaper , Loans to local industry , 220 33. How important is each of the following criteria in controlling land use development in your district? (circle number) Not at all (some) Very important a. "In place" service systems(water,etc.) l b. transportation systems c. zoning enforcement d. subdivision regulations e. taxation f. housing location and availability 3. comprehensive plan of district h. metropolitan comprehensive plan I-‘D-‘I-‘l-‘l-‘I-‘H NNNNNNNN uuuwwuuu kbbbbbbb mmmmwumu 34. To what extent do you think your district planning team now has the following traits? (circle number) 00 not know Not at all (some) Very high a. honesty I 2 3 4 5 b. willingness to hear ideas of district citizens regardless of subject 1 2 3 4 5 c. willingness to present citizens ideas regardless of repercussions l 2 3 4 5 d. trust 1 2 3 4 5 e. leadership 1 2 3 4 5 35. How would you rate the district planning team at the present time on the following? (circle number) No opinion Very poor (fair) Excellent a. communication with citizens b. technical planning skills 1 c. efficiency in reaching decisions 1 d. interest in district matters 1 1 l e. interest in metropolitan issues f. "follow up" on district decisions g. reliance on district resources rather than on planning experts NNNNNN 090009000090 bk§bbb UMU‘IUIUIUI 2 3 4 5 H 36. How often are you in general agreement with the decision of the district planning team? (circle number) Never 1 2 3 4 5 Always (some) 37. Has the district planning team attained its original goal(s)? (circle number) Absolutely not 1 2 3 4 5 Completely V(some) 38. What do you think is the single.most important thing the district planning team can achieve at the present time? THANK YOU for completing this questionnaire. If you would be willing to comment further on any of the above questions it would be appreciated. Please note your name, phone number, and best time to be contacted for interview. Name , Phone , Best time BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Altshuler, Alan A. The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1965. Anthony, William P. The Social Responsibility of Business. New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1973. Barker, Roger G. Ecological Psychology, Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. California: Stanford Press, 1968. Bartos, 0. Simple Models of Group Behavior. New York: The Columbia Press, 1967. Bates, Frederick L. and Harvey, C. C. The Structuneof Social Systems. New York: Gardner Press, Inc., 1975. Bell, Gwen. Urban Environments and Human Behavior: An Annotated Bibliography. Stroudsbwig, Pennsylvania: Dowden, 1973. Bennis, Warren G.; Benne, Kenneth D.; and Chin, Robert. The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Bentley, Arthur Fisher. Behavior, Knowledge, Fact. Bloomington, Indiana: The Principia Press, 1935. Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1971. Berelson, Bernard; Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1964. Berkman, Herman J. Planning Theory. Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography 33, 1967. Bernard, Jessie. American Community Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Bierman, A. K. The Philosophy of Urban Existence: A Prolegomena. Ohio University Press, 1973. Birch, David L. The Businessman and the City. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1967. 222 223 Bolan, Richard S. "Mapping the Planning Theory Terrain: A Search for Benchmarks and Contours" (Paper delivered at the Symposium on Planning Education, University of North Carolina, April 19, 1974. Boskoff, Alvin. The Sociology of Urban Regions. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Boyce, David E.; Day, Norman D.; McDonald, Chris. Metropolitan Plan Making: An Analysis of Experience With the Preparation and Evaluation of Alternative Land Use and Transportation Plans. Monograph Series Number Four. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Regional Science Research Institute, 1970. Bruner, J. "Theorems for a Theory of Instruction," in Learning About Learning, ed. J. Bruner. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Budd, W. Richard; Thorp, Robert K.; Donohew, Lewis. Content Analysis of Communications. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. Buechner, John C. Public Administration. Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Co., Inc., 1968. Cary, Lee J. Community Development as a Process. University of Missouri Press, 1970. Catanese, Anthony James. Systemic Planning: Theory and Application. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath Lexington Books, 1970. Chadwick, George. A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1971. Chamberlain, Neil W. Private and Public Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Clark, Terry N. Community Structure and Decision-Making: Comparative Analysis. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968. Cook, Theodore Stuart. City Planninngheory: The Destiny of Our Cities. New York: Philosophical Library, 1969. D'Antonio, William V.; Foran, William H.; Loomis, CharlesP.; and Erickson, Eugene C. "Institutional and Occupational Representations in Eleven Community Systems." The American Sociological Review, Vol.26, No. 3 (June 1961): pp. 440-46. 224 Dames, Thomas Allan. The Urban Planning Process. Purdue University, Ph.D., 1972, Engineering, Civil (Dissertation). Davidoff, Paul, and Reiner, Thomas A. A Choice Theory of Planning. Reprint from the Journal of American Institute of Planners, 1962, pp. 103-115. Deibert, Alvin N. New Tools for Changing Behavior. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press Co., 1971. DeMuth, Christopher C. "Deregulating the Cities." The Public Interest, No. 44 (Summer 1976): pp. 1154p. New York: National Affairs, Inc. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916. Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1910. Downs, Anthony. Urban Problems and Prospects Second Edition. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Company, 1976. Doxiadis, C. A. A City for Human Development: Eighteen Hypotheses. In Ekistics, Vol. 35, No. 209, April 1973, pp. 177-187. Dyckman, John W. "Planning and Decision Theory." AIP Journal, XXVII-4 (Nov. 1961). Edwards, John N. and Alan Booth. Social Participation in Urban Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Elbing, Alvar O. Behavioral Decisions in Organizations. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1970. Ericksen, E. Gordon. Urban Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1954. Erber, Ernest. Urban Planning in Transition. New York: Grossman Publisher, 1970. Ericksen, E. Gordon. Urban Behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1954. Etzioni, Amitai. The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. New York: The Free Press, 1968. 225 Etzioni, Amitai. Readings on Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentiEe-Hall, 1965. Faludi, Andreas. A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1973. Faludi, Andreas. Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1974. Feibleman, James K. The Institutions of Society. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD, 1956. Friedmann, John. "A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning Behavior." In A Reader in Planning Theory. pp. 361-67. Edited by Andreas Faludi. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973. Gamson, William A. "Rancorous Conflict in Community Politics." The American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 1966). George, Frank Honeywell. The Anatomy of Business: An Introduction to Business Cybernetics and Executive Information Systems. London: Associated Business Programmes,l974. Gist, Noel P. and Halbert, L. A. Urban Society. 4th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1956. Gross, Bertram M. The Managing of Organizations. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. Gross, Bertram M., ed. Social Intelligence for America's Future. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969. Gross, Bertram M., ed. Action Undgr Planning. "The Institutional Contextfi_by John Friedmann. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Gross, Bertram M. The Managing of Organizations: The AdministratiVe Struggle. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, Vol. 1 and 2. Hall, Arthur D. A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962. Hamachels, Don E. Behavior Dynamics in Teaching, Learning and Growth. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1975. Hawley, Willis D., and Rogers, David. Improving the Quality of Urban Management. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974. Hilgard, E., and Bower, G. Theories of Learning. 3rd ed. New York: Appleton, 1966. 226 Hillery, George A., Jr. Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968. Homans, George Casper. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (ReVISed Edition), 1974. Honey, John C. Planning and the Private Sector. Cambridge, Massachusetts: University Press of Cambridge, 1970. Huse, Edgar F. Behavior in Organizations: A Systems Approach to Managing. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1973. Husen, Torsten. The Learning Society. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1974. India (Republic) Planning Commission. The Planning Process. Delhi Manager of Publications, 1963. Jefferson, Ray. Planning and the Innovation Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1973. Kammeyer, Kenneth. "A Comparative Study of Decision-Making in Rural Communities." Rural Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 3 (September, 1962), pp. 294-302. Karen, Robert L. An Introduction to Behavior Theory and Its Applications. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1974. Karp, David A.; Stone, Gregory P.; and Yoels, William C. Being Urban: A Social Psychological View of City Life. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1977. Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Kimball, Solon T. Learning and Culture. American Ethnological Society Symposium, Washington, Seattle: University of Washington, Press, 1973. Klausmeier, Herbert John. Leagning and Human Abilities. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Klopf, Gordon J. Perspectives on Learning. Papers from the Bank Street Fiftieth Anniversary Invitational Symposium,New York, Published for the Bank Street College of Education by Mental Health Materials Center, 1967. 227 Kobler, R. "Contemporary Learning Theory and Human Learning," Humanistic Viewpoints in Psychology, ed. F. Severin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Lawson, Reed. Learning and Behavior. New York: Macmillan Company, 1960. LeBreton, Preston P. and Dale A. Henning. Planninngheory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1961. Levine, Robert A. Public Planning: Failure and Redirection. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1972. Lichfield, Nathaniel; Kettle, Peter; and Whitbread, Michael. Evaluation in the Planning Process. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1975. Likert, Rensis. Some Applications of Behavioral Research. UNESCO: United Nations, 1957. Mayhew, Leon. Society: Institutions and Activity. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971. McCloskey, Michael C. Planning and Regional Planninge- What Are They? Exchange Bibliography 174, Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, 1971. McGehee, W. "Learning Theory and Training." Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology, ed. E. Fieishman. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1967. McGuire, Joseph William. Interdisciplinary Studies in Business Behavior. Cincinnati, Ohio: South- Western Publishing Co., 1962. McLoughlin, J. Brian. Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971. Meier, Richard L. A Communications Theory of Urban Growth. Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University: M.I.T. Press, 1962. Meyerson, Martin, ed. The Conscience of the City. New York: George Braziller, 1970. Michael, Donald N. On Learning to P1an--and Planning to Learn: The Social Psychology of Changing Toward Future--Responsive Societal Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publishers, 1973. 228 Michael, Donald. The unprepared Society. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Miller, George A.; Galanter, Eugene; Pribram, Karl H. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1960. Miller, Paul A. "The Process of Decision—Making Within the Context of Community Organization." Rural Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1952). Morrison, Henry C. Basic Principles in Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1935. Mowrer, 0. Learning Theory and Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1960. Needham, Barrie. How Cities Work. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Nelson, Richard L. and Aschman, Frederick T. Real Estate and City Planning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. Northern Natural Gas Company, Area Development Department. Planning Primer. 1962. Optner, Stanford L. Systems Analysis for Business and Industrial Problem-Solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Ozbekham, Hans. "The Emerging Methodology of Planning." Fields Within Fields, Winter 1973-74, No. 10. The World Institute Council (Quarterly Publication, pp. 63-80). Panunzio, Constantine. Major Social Institutions. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951. Porter, Lyman W. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Reiner, Thomas A. The Place of the Ideal Community in Urban Plannin . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (Third Printing), 1963. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. "The Sociological Study of Communities." Rural Sociology 24 (1959): 126. Roberts,Margaret. An Introduction to Town Planning Techniques. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1975. 229 Robinson, Ira M. Decision-Making in Urban Planning. London: Sage Publications, 1972. Robinson, Ira M. Decision-Making in Urban Planning: An Introduction to New Methodologies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1972. Rothstein, Robert L. Planning, Prediction, and Policy- Making in Foreign Affairs: Theory and Practice. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972. Sanders, Irwin T. The Community: An Introduction to a Social System. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1958. Schiffman, Irwing. The PlanningyCommission in the City Planning Process: A Study of Three Communities. Dissertation, University of California, Ph.D., 1974. Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1957. Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1960. Smith, Alfred G. Communication and Culture: Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Snelbecker, Glenn E. Learning Theory, Instructional Theory and Psychoeducational Desig_. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1974. Soule, George Henry. Planning U.S.A. New York: Viking Press, 1967. Stewart, Murray. The City: Problems of Planning. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1972. Studer, Raymond G. "Behavior Manipulation." In Ekistics. June, 1968, 25, pp. 409-413. Taber, Julian; Glaser, Robert; and Schaefer, H. H. Learning and Programmed Instruction. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1965. Thomlinson, Ralph. Urban Structure: The Social and Spatial Character of Cities. New York: Random House, 1969. Thorndike, Edward L. The Fundamentals stearning. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. 230 Thorndike, Edward L. Human Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1931 (1966). Travers, Robert M. W. Essentials of Learning. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. University of North Carolina, Dept. of City Planning. Tps Planning Process for New Town Development: Soul City. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969. Vente, Rolf Erwin. Planning Processes: The East African Case. Munchen: Weltforum, 1970. Vickers, Geoffrey. Making Institutions Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. Weber, Max. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.