IDENTIFYING KEY ELEMENTS OF PLACE By Maria Kornakova A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING Urban and Regional Planning 2011 ABSTRACT IDENTIFYING KEY ELEMENTS OF PLACE By Maria Kornakova Following research has been conducted in order to identify elements of place by talking with citizens through a community visioning process. Citizens’ responses have been collected through the Small Town Design Initiative Program, available through MSU-Extension. Out of three questions, which have been asked during the public meetings, responses for two of them have been analyzed and results are compared in the end of the Chapter five (5). Collected data has been coded using open coding method and analyzed using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Key findings of the research identified key elements of rural neighborhoods in Michigan based on citizens’ responses. Based on the analysis it has been determined that different citizens see different vital elements for their communities. For example, for some representatives of communities it is vital to preserve historical elements and features of the community as oppose to the natural features. Such findings can be applied to the process of designing communities in the future. DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother. Without her patience, understanding, support, and most of all love, the completion of this work would not have been possible. iii AKCNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and the help of several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study. I would like to thank all my committee members for their patience and steadfast encouragement to complete this study. First and foremost, my utmost gratitude to my major advisor, Patricia Machemer, whose sincerity and encouragement I will never forget. She has been my inspiration as I hurdle all the obstacles in the completion this research work. As my advisor, Dr. Machemer provided detailed guidance and encouragement throughout the course of preparing for and conducting the research. Also I would like to acknowledge Patricia Crawford for her unselfish and unfailing support as my thesis adviser. Her belief that it was, indeed, possible to finish kept me going. My sincere gratitude to Warren Rauhe, these studies would not be possible without his participation and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………...…...vi LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………..…...vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………….......1 CHPATER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………………...6 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………...………37 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………………………........42 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS ………………………………………………………………………………….57 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………………...…......73 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 “Population of communities participated in research”..……………………………......3 Table 3.1 “Number of responses from each individual community that participated in visioning process” ………………………………………………………………………………………….38 Table 4.1 “Number of responses in each category and subcategory”……………………………44 Table 4.2 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?”…………………………………………………………………...48 Table 4.3 Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?” …………………………………………………….........49 Table 4.4 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue for data set of question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” ………………………………………………………………………………………...…...52 Table 4.5 Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” ……………………………………………………………………………………...54 Table 5.1 List of principal components and discreet variables within them with most significant loading values for both data sets………………………………………………………………....69 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 “Map of State of Michigan which identifies the locations of each community that participated in the research” “For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figure, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis.” …..……………………......3 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A historical perspective suggests that the differences between one place and another have arisen, not from efforts to create long-range visions and grand designs, but from vernacular responses to the practical problems of everyday life (Crowe, 1995; Hough, 1990). To understand these vernacular responses, we need to understand the perspectives of the people in the community, through their own voice. “Paying careful attention to our experiences of places, we can use our own responses, thoughts and feelings to help us replenish the places we love. … Using the things we know or sense about places but seldom put into words, we can bring all of our minds to bear on the problems of how our communities, regions, and landscapes should change. We each have a contribution to make” (Hiss, 1990, p. xii-xx) This research has been conducted in order to identify key elements of place based on citizens’ participation, insights, and wishes. One of the major places where every person spends their time is at home. Along with the interior and physical appearances of their homes, people tend to look for an enjoyable neighborhood and a community with specific amenities and features. Communities may be different; such as in neighborhoods in a megalopolis compared to a smaller city or rural setting, but people tend to have common basic needs: availability of fresh produce, safety, appealing appearance, recreational areas, and others. However, cities and town have been planned in the past, and are currently being updated based on master plans. Impact of citizens’ opinion is minimal in such processes. This research identifies features that are most important for rural communities of Michigan. In order to identify key elements of the community, the research utilizes existing data from the Small Town Design Initiative Program (STDI) at Michigan State University. This 1 program uses a visioning process that was developed by MSU-Extension, MSU-Outreach and Engagement, the School of Planning, Design and Construction, and Landscape Architecture majors. STDI develops the program in order to address design issues, which rural communities of Michigan are facing. At a public meeting, citizens are asked three questions: What are they proud of, what are they sorry about, and what they would like to see in the future. All answers are recorded on flip charts during the meeting and typed into a power point slide for sharing back with the community. The research will use existing data from 47 communities who have already completed the STDI visioning process during the period of 2001-2008. Figure 1.1 indicates which communities participated in the research. The definition of a rural community used for this research was a community with a population less than 15,000. Table 1.2 shows the population for communities that participated in the STDI vision process in 2001-2008. Some of the communities could not be identified in census data as they are neighborhoods of bigger city, but the total population does not exceed 15,000. This first chapter provides a literature review in order to identify participation methods, which may be used for communities and planners to understand community concerns, needs, and values. The second chapter of this thesis will describe participation theory in the United States of America from the 1960s, when the father of advocacy and equity theory, Paul Davidoff, first presented it. Further, it will provide an overview of planning participation researchers and describe the different levels of participation. The next part of the literature review will describe suggested methods of participation in the urban design process, including the advantages and disadvantages for each. 2 Arcadia Au Gres Bath Township Bear Lake Beecher Bloomingdale Brethren Copemish Deckerville Delton Detour Douglas Eaton Rapids Fennville Forsyth Township Harrisville Homer Hubbard Hudsonville Ishpeming Kaleva Kinross Township Kochville Township Lake Odessa Manistee city Marilla Township Meridian Township Mio Oakland/Saginaw Onekama Potterville Prairieville Township Remus Rose City Rothbury Sebewaing Township Skidway South Haven Springdale Township Springport St. Joe St. Louis Stanwood Traverse City Urbandale Walled Lake Williamston Figure 1.1 Map of State of Michigan which identifies the locations of each community that participated in the research. “For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figure, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis.” 3 Table 1.1 Population of communities participated in research COMMUNITY Arcadia township, Manistee County, Michigan Au Gres city, Michigan Bath township, Clinton County, Michigan Bear Lake village, Michigan Beecher CDP, Michigan Bloomingdale village, Michigan Brethren, Michigan Copemish village, Michigan Deckerville village, Michigan Delton, Michigan Detour township, Chippewa County, Michigan Douglas, Michigan Eaton Rapids city, Michigan Fennville city, Michigan Forsyth township, Marquette County, Michigan Harrisville city, Alcona County, Michigan Homer village, Michigan Hubbard Lake CDP, Michigan Hudsonville city, Michigan Ishpeming city, Michigan Kaleva village, Michigan Kinross charter township, Chippewa County, Michigan Kochville township, Saginaw County, Michigan Lake Odessa village, Michigan Manistee city, Michigan Marilla township, Manistee County, Michigan Meridian charter township, Ingham County, Michigan Mio CDP, Michigan Oakland/Saginaw, Michigan Onekama village, Michigan Potterville city, Michigan Prairieville township, Barry County, Michigan Remus, Michigan Rose City, Michigan Rothbury village, Michigan Sebewaing township, Huron County, Michigan Skidway Lake CDP, Michigan South Haven city, Michigan Springdale township, Manistee County, Michigan 1 http://www.census.gov/ 4 1 POPULATION 621 1028 7541 318 12793 528 N/A 232 944 N/A 894 N/A 5330 1459 4824 514 1851 993 7160 6686 509 5922 3241 2272 6586 362 3911 2016 N/A 647 2168 3175 N/A 721 416 2944 3147 5021 730 Table 1.1 (cont’d) Population of communities participated in research COMMUNITY Springport village, Michigan St. Joe, Michigan St. Louis city, Michigan Stanwood village, Michigan Traverse City, Michigan Urbandale, Michigan Walled Lake city, Michigan Williamston city, Michigan 1 POPULATION 704 N/A 4494 204 14532 N/A 6713 3441 The methodology used to code and analyze received data is described in chapter 3. The findings chapter (4) illustrates the outcome of the statistical analysis of data. While chapter 5, the discussion chapter provides the author’s analysis of findings, a conclusion, and future recommendations. 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Community is one of the main parts of human life. A neighborhood is a space, dedicated to people and their activities. Neighborhoods include homes, the territory close to them, schools, churches, businesses, and places of interaction. Planners should consider neighborhood space not only as a shared space, but also as an “owned” space of each citizen. The roles of designers and planners are to delineate this “owned” property prior to designing a neighborhood (Hester 1984). Home is the place where people spend majority of their time. During the process of purchasing a house, people take into account several factors, such as the house’s condition, environment, and the quality and safety of neighborhood. Awareness of a community’s environmental situation is vital to preserving and planning sustainable communities. Other important information includes the history of the populated area. It has been found that Americans know little about the places they live in and their available resources (Beatley, 2004). In order to develop future sustainable environments it is vital for designers to plan for citizens, educate them, while helping them to express their needs and desires (Beatley, 2004). Researchers today state that urban planning and design is a vital component of built environment as cities and towns are reflection of human society (McClure and J.Bartuska, 2007). They represent social, culture and economic achievements of communities (McClure and J.Bartuska, 2007). Therefore it is important to urge communities to participate in the planning process. The intention of this paper is to create an observation of the arising, developing and current situation of the participation process in the United States. An overview of participatory planning begins with a review advocacy and equity planning theory, as well as participation theory, and recognition of the connection between these two theoretical foundations. 6 Advocacy theory background First approaches of advocacy theory may be seen in the beginning of 20th century. Planner and architect Daniel Burnam and a group of Chicago business leaders created the 1909 Plan of Chicago with the intention of shaping the development of the city. This plan, ultimately adopted by the City of Chicago, was a reaction to the pollution and congestion of industrialization zones and urban growth. Although the main approach of this plan was linked to the city movement in the U.S., it is also associated with early examples of public participation in urban planning (Smith, 2005). When the plan was created in 1909, city governments did not have the authority to implement plans through zoning and an official planning commission as they do now. A public campaign was introduced in order to win support for the plan. Plan advocates viewed public education as integral to the planning practice itself. Plan implementation depended on the approval of citizens. Therefore, even before planners had an authority to implement plans, success of the planning process was dependent on voluntary public and private coordination. This coordination was created through public communication (Schlerenth, 1983). Despite the fact that citizens and civic leaders across the U.S. were creating city plans in the beginning of 20th century, government authority to implement them was still limited. The government had the power and ability to build public facilities, roads and government buildings, but zoning still had no authority to regulate development of communities and privately-owned land. This situation started to change in 1926, when Euclid’s zoning ordinance was considered by court as a reasonable extension of the town’s police power. This ruling made planners and officials realize that there was a necessity in creating an act to allow communities to adopt zoning plans. Thus, in 1926 the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act was adopted, and followed 7 by the Standard City Planning Enabling Act in 1928 (U.S. Standards Enabling Acts). Although the language of these two model laws was oriented towards guaranteeing property owners’ rights, it still was clear that there was a need for extensive public involvement (White, Edmondson, 2001) Between 1920s and 1950s, there had been movement in the planning process – public meetings became more common between citizens and planning commissions, for example, public hearings and public newspaper notices were established. With the new dynamic economy and availability of new government funds after World War II, there was change in urban renewal and limitations of the approach to planning. In 1949 The Housing Act was passed, allowing significant funds to be available for slum clearance programs. Often these programs were launched in low-income neighborhoods, especially in African-American communities. Another program aimed at helping the development movement in urban areas was The National Defense and Interstate Highways Act of 1956. Through this program funds were created for renewing and rebuilding highways in urban areas. These funds allowed planners and civic elites to remove low-income and African-American communities for urban renewal projects. A result of this is “…white suburbanization and justified a newfound white backlash against the urban poor...”.(Surgue, 1996, p. 196). Davidoff and advocacy planning theory In 1960s and 1970s, advocacy planning appeared as a theory in United States during a time of political instability and turbulence. In these years, a lot of movements took place, such as 8 the Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights Act of 1964. People were struggling against racial and sexual discrimination and inequalities. All this influenced politicians to create new laws and planners to come up with new planning theories, such as advocacy and equity. One of the first advocacy planners, the so-called father of the theory, to use and explain the term advocacy planning, was Paul Davidoff. As Barry Checkoway has noted, Davidoff: “…was an unyielding force for justice and equity in planning. He viewed planning as process to address a wide range of societal problems; to improve conditions for all people while emphasizing resources and opportunities for those lacking in both; and to expand representation and participation of traditionally excluded groups in the decisions that affect their lives. He challenged planners to promote participatory democracy and positive social change; to overcome poverty and racism as factors in society; and to reduce disparities between rich and poor, White and Black, men and women” (Brooks, 2002, p.108) During the 1960’s there was a movement of large numbers of people – many of them AfricanAmerican – into large cities. Racial discrimination and residential segregation forced them into the ghetto neighborhoods of cities. These areas were often considered to be unfitting places for human habitation because of high unemployment rates, inadequate education quality, substandard housing, poor health care and impaired infrastructure. Some of the residents of these areas struggled against these conditions, and the majority of them were secluded from participating in the development of the community. When African-Americans moved into the cities, white residents started moving out into suburban areas (Castels, 1983). These communities, unlike ghettos, were built near park areas, playgrounds, schools, and services. Government and federal programs directed towards the renewal, development and rebuilding of urban communities were much lower than the funds available for development of suburban areas. Evaluation of the urban renewal indicated that more houses were destroyed than built, housing conditions became worse, citizens had limited participation in planning process, and the relocation of business and residents resulted often in economic hardship (Castels, 1983). 9 Davidoff noted the growing turmoil regarding the distributions of riches between different layers of society in the world (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996). This difference created a gap between the ones who are wealthy and the ones who are not; this gap continues to exist today. But solutions to these problems cannot be found only through technical processes. They must arise from social attitudes. A planner should become an advocate for what he considers proper. Values should be covered, clarified, shared and become a key element to decisions which are related to planning (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996, p.211). Citizens alongside with planners must be included in the planning process. A planner's role here is to satisfy interests of both government and citizens. Advocacy planning theory has also been viewed as a bridge between professionals and the political realm. In his article, Peter Marris analyzes Davidoff’s theory from this point of view. He noticed that Davidoff wrote two statements in his article which seems to have the same meaning at first, “but in weaving it, he overlooks a central flaw in the concept of planning as advocacy” (Marris, 1994, p. 143). These statements are “the legal advocate must plead his own and his client’s sense of legal priority and justice. The planner as advocate would plead for his own and his client’s view of the good society” and “the recommendation that city planners represent and plead the plans of many interest groups is founded on the need to establish an effective urban democracy, one in which citizens may be able to play an active role in the process of deciding public policy” (Marris, 1994, p.143). Furthermore, Marris indicates that planners cannot be advocates and professionals at the same time, because as a human being, planners still maintain their own opinions, which may not reflect the interests of the community or client they represent. Marris states in his paper that planners should simply be more educated in order to be able to synthesize the needs of different people (Marris, 1994, pp.143-146). 10 Davidoff believed that planners should focus not only on the physical aspects of city planning: “The city planning profession's historic concern with the physical environment has warped its ability to see physical structures and land as servants to those who use them. Physical relations and conditions have no meaning or equality apart from they serve their users.” (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.219) Physical conditions do not have meaning if we observe them apart from the way they serve their consumers. When planning issues are put in terms of social, economic, psychological or aesthetic effects, they take on value. Professionals experienced “the high cost of exclusive concern with physical conditions” (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003). It has been explored that money distribution for removal of physical degradation may not improve physical conditions of society and even may generate urgent social consequences that lead to damage of social and economic institutions. One example Davidoff offers is regarding transportation in the 1960's. While planners knew problems of transportation from the provision low-cost houses to public schools, they have not forced themselves to understand social and economic problems, their solutions, and foundations. In other words, studies were not taking into account an issue that different classes could have different conditions to meet their interests and requirements. Davidoff states that he does not abandon physical planning it (Davidoff, 1996). He states that those who will benefit from planning, those who will feel the affect of planning should be engaged in it (Davidoff, 1996) Responsibilities of advocacy planner Davidoff has explained the concept of advocacy planning in the 1965 article in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners. In this article he stated that a planner should become an advocate “of the interests both of government and such other groups, organizations, 11 or individuals who are concerned with proposing policies for the future development of the community.”(Brooks, 2002, p.110). In other words, an advocacy planner should be responsible for interests of particular groups which could not have voice in urban planning without assistance, and to combine their interests with the planning process. Groups that could be represented by an advocacy planner include racial, sexual, ethnic minorities, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender), the disabled, political groups or parties, and groups that have lower social and economic status. The planner’s responsibility is to provide information to these groups in different ways. They must become well-informed consumers of information. Following this, citizens must be able to respond to the given information and express their own plans for considerations. They must be able to understand planner's proposals, understand what they need and want, and be able to explain their opinion on a problem. These groups should be able to react to urban planner's proposals in an appropriate language, the language of planners. The planner's role after this is to make their plans and views represented. According to Davidoff (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996), the practice that has been in use before advocacy planning theory had been originated and is based on the so-called “unitary plan”. This means that only one agency, either private or municipal, is making a plan. With this Davidoff asks why there are no agencies within a community that can produce alternative plans. He offers three main benefits of alternative plural plans. First of all, such “plans would serve as a means of better informing the public of the alternative choices open” (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.213). In other words, plural plans are the best way to examine different options and inform the public of alternative choices. Planners can produce as many plans as they want and strive to best represent the needs of individual groups, but still, these groups will express their needs better themselves. Thus, 12 alternative plans would represent real and actual needs of minority groups, and not the needs that planners think they have. Secondly, plural plans would force different agencies to compete against each other to win political support. With this kind of competition, agencies would improve the quality of their work. A third improvement that might arise from plural and alternative plans is forcing the people who were criticizing the founding plans to produce superior plans. Role of Advocacy Planner The next question that is being considered is the actual role of an advocacy planner. According to Davidoff “the advocacy planner would be more than a provider of information, an analyst of current trends, a simulator of future conditions, and a detailer of means. In addition to carrying out these necessary parts of planning, he would be a proponent of specific substantive solutions.”(Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.214). We can distinguish several responsibilities of planners. First of all, a planner is a provider of information. Planners should share knowledge with the people that he is working with and serving. This should include any information about public laws or relevant policies, utilizing skills that the planner has accumulated. Also, a planner should be an analyst of current trends, staying abreast of what is going on in the field of planning, including new theories or concepts being discovered or made. Planners should be looking at historical and current information to think as far as possible. The planner should be able to help a group that he/she is representing to identify ways to reach their goals. An advocacy planner is a proponent of specific solutions; he should work on solutions that address real social issues. Planners should be responsible to the client and represent their interests and views in the best of their knowledge. Ideally in advocacy planning theory the planner would seek 13 employment with an agency that has the same values as he/she. Planners are integral to the plan evaluation process. A planner can identify specific social benefits, costs and improvements that he has recognized during working with his group. One of Davidoff's beliefs is that the advocacy planner can help to clarify that there are no neutral grounds for evaluating plans (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.114). In spite of all mentioned above, a planner still will be a planner. He still will have to coordinate and account for the plans of others. The work of an advocacy planner is similar but in a different context – the context is working on particular needs of specific groups of population. Also an advocacy planner should be a critic of opposing plans. As the planner prepares his plans in response to other plans, he must be able to critique the works of others. It will help to discover opinions of other human beings. An advocacy planner must inform citizens, as well as be an educator. Planners must be responsible for informing other groups that they represent, identifying the problems and conditions of his group, as well as informing clients about their rights and the operations of government. This will help to create informed citizens and consumers of information. Planners should help the group to identify their goals and help to find ways by leading them. Also, by addressing issues and problems, identifying them and bringing them to the forefront of public life, a planner becomes an agent for social change. Reacting vs. proposing “The local planning process typically includes one or more “citizen” organizations concerned with the nature of planning in the community” (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.215). 14 Davidoff thinks that the problem of participation for current citizens is that they are reacting to the programs and plans, rather than proposing ideas and views and future actions. Such participation should be usual for democracy, but it is still limited. So the question is whether or not a private group is interested in preparing a proposal to hold community surveys and providing analysis. The answer depends on the work that the public agency would do. In some cases, the public agency will not have such surveys and analysis that will clearly reflect specific problems of a particular group. Davidoff recognizes that while the main goal of advocacy theory is to help underrepresented subgroups of society, other groups still have something to add to the planning process (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.215). He noted that although many of the groups have special interests and were involved in the process, they were still often reactionary as opposed to suggesting their own plans and ideas (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.216). With this, Davidoff is bringing up the next question in his article – what kind of organizations may be expected to gain in the plural planning process. There are several groups that can be defined as special interest groups, for example a political party. Although there is “… very little evidence that small political parties have interest, ability or concern to establish well-developed programs for their communities.... desirability for active participation in the process of planning by [them] is strong.”(Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.216). Ideally, local parties would create master plans for community growth and use them a way of estimating offers. If they are elected, than this party should use their planning agency to bring up their plans and offer it to the citizens. They are using their plans as a platform. Also Davidoff points out special interest groups that are looking to affect public policy, looking for the one to be changed (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.218). They may be groups like real estate boards, civil rights groups, chamber of commerce, labor organizations, anti-poverty councils. Groups like 15 these often have played a role in plan development, but they were hardly heard. There is a reason for these groups to operate against obligation to a plan. According to Davidoff, the commitment that has been declared may disturb groups from finding solutions and making proposals about the same plan (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.219). Groups that are blocked together for one specific purpose, like a neighborhood association opposed to a particular zoning change or the location of a public facility, also may be involved in the process of planning. These are the ad hoc protest associations that may look to develop alternative plans that would reflect their interests in the best way. Critiques of Advocacy Planning Regardless of the fact that advocacy theory seems to be very useful and positive, there were a lot of critiques of it. Although theoretically advocacy planning is effective for any social group, this term has been changed to “advocates for poor” (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.223). Davidoff states that a planner is an educator, who should try to convince his client to his own views on the client's interest (Campbell, Fainstein, 2003, p.221). In reality, this raises conflict between a planner and his client. Conflict between Oakland, CA officials and citizens in the West Oakland Model Cities planning area is an example of conflict between advocate planners and their clients. According to Miss May, who is an urban policy specialist in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the main points of this conflict are as follows. First, a planner as a professional should combine both technical and political skills, and plans for the Model Cities programs should be done in negotiations between city planners and groups' advocates. Secondly, as long as community leaders had no chance to express their views and points in the past, they are able to do this under assistance of professional advocates. The community of West 16 Oakland did not trust the planners to be their guides, they wanted to control the process by themselves. According to Miss May: Oakland's experience suggests that both planners and community residents view the new federal interest in urban problems as an opportunity to reduce their past ineffectiveness in influencing urban policies; and each has invented an ideology which justifies this new route to communal upward mobility: “advocacy” in the case of planners, and “community control” in the case of community residence.(May, 1969, p.4) Brooks highlights two main critiques of advocacy planning (Brooks, 2002, p.110). One critique comes from Roger Starr an architect; he argued that advocacy planning would promote conflicts if planners “would do better to focus on building consensus” (Brooks, 2002, p.113). Another critique comes from Richard Bolan. He says that “multiple plans could result in decision-making “gridlock” (Brooks, 2002, p.113). In other words, the more options a person has, the more difficult it will be to create one that will satisfy everyone and to move forward. Brooks also brings up two issues about advocacy planning. The first one is how people have met this theory. During Annual Advocacy Planning Conference in New York City in 1970, it became clearer, that the latter group is not agreeing with advocacy theory. They stated that they do not want money to be given to a planner so he can think what will be good for them. “...the money, spent on advocacy would serve our needs much more directly if it were simply given to us...” (Brooks, 2002, p.114). After this conference a lot of people who attended it found new insights into advocacy planning (Brooks, 2002, p.114). Something that seemed to be noble and principled became repressive, selfish, elitist, and colonialist. The second issue is that advocacy planning is politically naive. Advocacy planning without increased power will become a barren or useless plan and planner's services do not provide a group with additional powers. So, in theory it may 17 work, but the submission of different plans does not necessarily mean that they will be adopted. The motive power still will be the same, and it is unlikely that they will adopt some of the plans that will not satisfy their needs and desires. In this case, an advocacy planner may feel frustrations if plans collected from different groups are rejected. Another point that comes to mind is who will pay for advocacy planning? Davidoff recognized that some organizations could have resources to cover all expenses of such plans, but still it is very improbable that organizations representing minorities will have them. He suggests asking for foundation or federal funding, if they are willing to give money to such organizations (Brooks, 2002). One of the biggest and most controversial critics of advocacy planning is ability of planner to speak for others and represent them. Through the time, several different authors mentioned this in their works (Hooks, 1990; Stieglitz, 1999; Campbell, Fainstein, 1996). One of such comes from Bell Hooks, who has expressed her thoughts twenty years after Paul Davidoff has described it. She critics the following point of view: No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it to you in such a way, that it becomes mine, my own. Rewriting you I will write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer, the speaking subject, and you are now at the center of my talk.(Hooks, 1990, p.243) Speaking for others and the relationship between subject and object are still paramount issues and a question that is being discussed in planning and society by itself. It is impossible to reach objectivity in profession. Davidoff himself supports this saying “it would become clear (as it is not at present) that there are no neutral grounds for evaluating a plan; there are as many 18 evaluate systems as there are value systems” (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996, p.310). Davidoff gives an opportunity to advocacy planners to make decisions about the needs of other people. These issues can be found in all parts of social and professional life: “Can a lawyer who is black male represent a white woman? Can a male speak for feminism?”(Stieglitz, 1999, p.59) Linda Alcoff claims “there is always a narrower category” (Stieglitz, 1999, p.59). Another author, who supports such point, is Stieglitz. She points that speaking for others is a responsibility of planners, part of the profession (Stieglitz, 1999, p.59). And a planner should learn about others, not talk on their behalf. But learning still cannot be obvious – people and communities can change depending on central subject. Planners will never be able to learn about others and really understand their needs as long as they are not a part of the community. This introduces another question – who can be advocacy planners? Should students belonging to disadvantaged groups when they apply to planning school agree to work only with their own group? If you were born in one community, it is improbable that you will belong to some other community within years? You cannot change race or affiliation to work with other communities, if eligibility basics are common. This raises question of planner's eligibility. If a person had lived within a particular disadvantaged group, and in time had become a planner, he/she can say represent interests of that particular group and might know more than outsiders. Stieglitz suggests her own solution of this issue (Stieglitz, 1999). According to Stieglitz (1999), the planner's role should be changed. Planner should become a consultant to community, he/she should learn community, not speak for them. Today communities speak for themselves well enough to be heard. Davidoff mentioned that “much work along the lines of advocacy planning has already taken place, but little of it to be professional planners (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996, 19 p.311). More often “…the work has been conducted by trained community organizers or by student groups” (Campbell, Fainstein, 1996, p.311) Equity planning Brooks also provide information about equity planning, which was built upon advocacy planning (Brooks, 2002). The key point of this concept, and the biggest difference between equity and advocacy planning, is that according to equity planning, planner works within the current governmental system. Equity planning is advocacy planning lead by people inside government. John T. Metzger in 1996 wrote a useful overview of equity planning programs. He brought up cities that were, provided in different times, willing to adopt equity planning. Cities that he cited were Berkeley, Boston, Chicago, Burlington (Vermont), Cleveland, Hartford, San Francisco and Santa Monica. According to Metzger, equity planning is a structure in which advocacy planners can provide their knowledge, analysis and research skills to help to minorities within government (Brooks, 2002). Clearly that equity planning depends on the political environment in which it operates. It will not have a place in society if the current political system rejects social values. The last point that Metzger (1996) offers is that there may not be space for equity planning within current planning offices. In the middle of the 90’s almost all of the equity planners left their jobs and became administrators of housing, community development and economic development programs or city managers. They do not work in traditional planning agencies anymore (Brooks, 2002, p.116) Concept of participation theory Participation may be referred to in preliterate societies, but community participation is a recent theory. Community participation theory suggests that ordinary people have been excluded 20 from the community development process by politicians and bureaucrats (Sanoff, 2000). The main idea involves local people into social development in order to provide opportunities for all people to be politically involved in development process (Sanoff, 2000). Citizen participation is often defined as simply giving an opportunity to citizens to take part in planning process. However, this process is more complicated and complex. Traditional forms of participation are voting and related activities. Newer forms of participation are more continuous and designed to give an opportunity to citizens to make a direct impact on planning process. Participation activities may be motivated from an administrative perspective or a citizen perspective. From the administrative viewpoint, participation can build public support for activities. It can educate the public about an agency's activities. It can also facilitate useful information exchange regarding local conditions. Participation is often legally mandated. From the citizen viewpoint, participation enables individuals and groups to influence agency decisions in a representational manner.(Glass, 1979,pp.157-169) Public participation may be seen as a simple process, challenging the professional’s view of public participation in the creation of urban design and development standards. Public participation includes deliberated hearings between politicians, civic activists, media, business leaders, and other interested parties (Brooks, 2002). In the past, before the implementation of modern urban planning regulations, planners were consulting and communicating with the public to implement their plans. What do planners mean when they talk about participation in planning? Participation is an essential element of planning theory. The vital role of a planner in participation is to analyze, synthesize and synchronize a community’s goals and values. An ideal situation for participation is when every resident of the community is interested in the planning process and actively participates in it (Brooks, 2002). 21 Levels of community participation Some researchers define different levels of community participation (King, Feltey, Susel, 1998; Gary, Chapin, 1998; Plein, Green, Williams, 1998; Sanoff, 2000). Informing participation is “pseudo” participation, according to Sanoff (2002). He defines that if purpose of participation is only to inform citizens about possible changes, involve them into process of making decisions on the latest stages of project development and participation is not real and cannot be successful. Genuine participation is involvement of public into administrative decision making process. Usually citizens are the owners of government and coproduces of public goods in such situations (King, Feltey, Susel, 1998). Government’s participation in such cases is only to provide information, set goals, and provide incentives and monitoring of the whole process (Gary, Chapin, 1998; Plein, Green, Williams, 1998). Ladders of participation Citizen involvement levels may vary from nonparticipation to citizen power. Different authors define different ladders of citizens’ participation (Arnstein, 1968; Connor, 1988; Potapchuk, 1991, IAP2, 2000). Arnstein allocates 8 levels: manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control. Among them, she distinguished three different degrees of participation (Arnstein, 1968, pp.216-224). Manipulation and therapy are both non participative. The aim of these levels is to cure or educate the participants, proposed plan is considered to be best as an axiom and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations. Informing, consultation and placation are tokenism. Informing considered as first step to legitimate participation and does not have channel for feedback. Consultation is a legitimate step, its attitude are surveys, neighborhood meetings and 22 public enquiries. Placation allows citizens to advice or plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. Partnership, delegated power and citizen control have degree of citizen power. Such in partnership power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared, e.g. through joint committees. Delegated power appears when citizens hold a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. Citizen Control appears when citizens handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing programs, e.g. neighborhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds (Arnstein, 1968). As a response to Arnstein, in 1988 Connor proposed a “New Ladder of Citizen Participation”. This ladder aims to reflect progression form one level to another in a more logical way. Another intention of this ladder is to “prevent and resolve public controversy about major issues”. This ladder includes following levels: resolution/prevention, litigation, mediation, joint planning, consultation, information-feedback, education. All of the levels include work of both professionals and public, however litigation, mediation and joint planning include leaders of public interest groups. Consultation, information feedback and education levels involve the general public and professionals. Connor claims that unlike Arnstein, he does not design ladder to emphasize citizens empowerment, but focuses on situation when one of the parts holds primarily authority of making decisions and engaging others and does not hand decision-making power to them (Connor, 1988) In 1991 Potapchuk made a point that building consent in communities should go beyond traditional decision making members of development and ensure engagement with all represented parts of communities. Participation should start as early as possible in order to 23 outline and frame common issues and problems, educate each other, develop alternatives, achieve consensus in the process and share in implementation a “positive, open and collaborative civic culture”. Potapchuk (1991) described in typology of shared decision-making to “capture the essence of power” and define who decides and who supports outcome. The first type of Potapchuk ladder is when government makes all decisions without involving the public (Potapchuk, 1991). In the next type, the government consults with individuals, however decisions are still government made and decides if take in account opinions of others or not. In the third type, government consults with a representative group and decides, decisions are made again only by government. This type differs from previous by adding representatives from groups of different involved organizations and the public. Another type states that the government works with a representative group and they make join decision. The highest level of participation, according to Potapchuk, is when a government delegates all decisions to others and gives opportunity for them to become main decision makers of the development (Potapchuk, 1991). International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) organization describes five different levels of participation (IAP2, 2000). They are inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower. In order to assist public in understanding of the problem, alternatives, opportunities and possible solutions, inform level provides public with balanced and objective information. Planners keep the public informed on this level. The consult level is developed in order to get feedback of public on analysis, possible alternatives and decisions. The promise to the public here is keeping them informed and listening to their concerns regarding issues and problems. The involving level is working directly with public in order to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are fully understood and considered in the planning process. Promise to public on this 24 level is to work with people on their issues and provide their feedback during the development process. The collaborate level creates partnership with the public in every aspect of decision making. Planners are looking for public advice on this level. The empower level gives opportunity of making final decision to public. Planners are implementers of public decision on this level (IAP2, 2000). Five principles of participation The next question to be asked is what are the principles of participation? Sanoff defines five major principles (Sanoff, 2000, pp.13-14). First of all, he acknowledges that design cannot have the best solution, and each problem can have several different solutions based on facts and attitudes of design projects. The next principle states that the “lay” decision may be better then decision of an expert and planner should advise and explain possible outcomes of each solution, not to force on choosing the best one in their opinion. The third principle recognizes that design can be made transparent and users can successfully generate their own design based on alternatives brought up by planners. Sanoff states that it is important to bring together all participants from all groups – age, ethnic, social and economic. And the last principle is to accept that design process is changing and continuous. This principle appears because after designing there are several additional steps of plan implementing, such as managing, revaluating through time and adapting changes if needed. Types of participation organizations Different researches define different types, ways and organizations, involved in public participation in design. Such, Sanoff identifies several different types of organizations, which involved into community design process. One of them is Community Design Centers (CDC). 25 According to Sanoff and Sachner (2000), they developed in order to stipulation of planning, architectural and development services, which are unavailable to community-based organizations and civic organizations (Sanoff, 2000, p.5). Services, provided by CDC usually include planning, technical assistance in selection projects, technical assistance in financing these projects, support of management of housing and community facilities. Another program is Community Building, which is an approach, focused and dedicated to the idea of residents taking control of their destiny and fate of their communities. (Sanoff, 2000, p.7) Principles of community building are: involving residents in setting goals and strategies, identifying assets and liabilities of communities, working in communities of manageable size, developing unique strategies for each community, build social and human capital, emphasize community values, develop partnership with institutions in community (Naparstek, Dooley, Smith, 1997). Alongside the community, governments play an important role in the design process. Today we are facing development issues and the arising of governance questions. Government agendas on all levels bring up questions of who should be responsible for quality of city, and who should decide upon their “destiny”. Clara Irazabal has done several case studies, and identified that urban design and planning should be done in more accurate manner and closer to the governance (Irazabal, 2005). Studies also indicate importance of including all possible factors in order to create sustainable designs (Irazabal, 2005). One of these factors is participatory. According to several authors, there are three impacts of participation on government (Langton, 1978; Creighton, 1981). First, participation occurs in order to satisfy needs of community. In other words, communication between a community and its government helps the latter to understand needs of their citizens better (Creighton, 1981, pp.11-12). Second, 26 participatory process helps community and government to set organizational goals, priorities in services, and fiscal commitment. Public interest and goals may differ from that of developers’, and having legitimate statements, reflecting interest of the community helps governments in solving conflicts of difference (Langton, 1978, pp.13-24). And finally, participation creates improvement between the public and the government, which leads to the public’s trust in decision making process (Creighton, 1981, pp.11-12). Methods of participation The methods for citizens’ participation in the planning process need to be identified. Different authors define different methods. Strategic planning is a method that identifies what a community does and why they do it. This method sets goals and priorities, identifies problems and issues, develops organizational approach, and evaluates the results (Checkoway, 1986). A usable strategic plan should be flexible, actions oriented, consider several options of future outcome, allow revisions in light of new factors, and be focused on the outcomes of decisions (Bryson, 1988). Visioning is another method of participation. This process develops guidelines for public action on the future of community (Thomas, Means, Grieve, 1988). Professionals seek participants’ view on their future community and can also express these contributions in images. Usually this process starts with a large group of people and brainstorming; later the group is divided into several smaller factions in order to get citizens’ impact on the process (Sanoff, 2000, p.43). In 1997, The National Civic League distinguished ten steps of a visioning process. The process starts with initiating committee, identifying goals and objectives, creation of active plans, and creation of an implementing group, whose goals are to revise the project and support its implementation (Okubo, 1997). Another participation method is utilizes charrettes. There are several, different definitions of word charrette. “Charrette is defined as an intensive workshop in 27 which various stakeholders and experts are brought together to address a particular design issue, from a single building to an entire campus, installation, or park.” (Lindsey, Todd, Hayter, 2003, p.3). This process may apply to a short and focused project, brainstorming and planning meetings, or to extensive community visioning events. Sanoff (2000) identifies two main objectives of a charrette: to gain support of citizens committed to implementing the proposed solutions, and to get structural support for the entities responsible for the necessary resources to affect the proposed changes. The charrette process should create a common goal for community, and involve all parties of community while ensuring full participation, creating a sense of individual participation, solving all possible conflicts during the process, and forwarding energy to solving the problems (Sanoff, 2000). In 1997 a group of researches defined a Community Action Planning (CAP) (Hamdi, Goethert, 1997). A CAP recognizes that master and development plans take a long period of time to implement and revise, and that their scope is broad. Therefore, CAP should start with small scaled projects, which are faster and easier to implement. This method focuses on creating links between governmental and non-governmental entities, and competing community groups. Hamdi and Goethert (1997, p.31) note that community participation will occur when all parties understand that partnerships are more effective in serving all needs. Another method of participatory planning integrates participatory action plans. Participatory action plans are proposed as a method of utilizing knowledge of “environment behavior community” through integration of design, planning, and participation (Sanoff, 2000). Participatory action plans may involve participatory research. Participatory research is an approach that develops the capability of participants to organize, analyze and summarize concepts at a scale needed for solving particular issue. Additionally, participatory research 28 develops a process for engaging participants into decision making, including researching the assumptions, and methods of evaluation and design. Outcomes include findings that are disseminated to the participants (Ramasubramanian, 1994). Models of this research offer reflection on the views of community inhabitants and allow them to be active contributors of the design research process. Participation techniques also may vary depending on the type of project and type of issues. Rossner (1978) notes that before applying any of them, community and professionals should have sufficient planning time and allocate starting points and goals of design process. Awareness methods include exhibits, news media, and walking tours. These methods allow citizens to recognize the planning problems and issues. Indirect methods may assist in gathering information and collecting opinions from a sample of citizens. These methods include surveys and questionnaires. Group interaction methods usually characterize all types of face-to-face interaction. Among them are focus groups, charrettes, and workshops. They may be a short term one day meeting, or may last longer. Open-ended methods include community meetings, public hearings, and public forums. These methods are utilized to gather information and opinions from a large group of participants. Brainstorming is a process, which allows participants to generate various ideas. Traditional brainstorming includes teamwork. Sanoff (2000) identifies several additional methods, including: a gallery, where each member writes down their idea on the board; pin card, when participants write their ideas on cards and have them evaluated by other teams; nominal group technique, in which ideas are written down in five minute periods and evaluated; cranford slip writing, used to collect ideas of large groups; ringii process, ideas are written down on a paper and each participant adds own ideas to it; Delphi method, which collects all ideas and opinions in a survey, questionnaire, or online form and does not involve interaction 29 between people. Interactive brainstorming is used to combine written brainstorming ideas with oral discussion afterwards (Lumsdaine E., Lumsdaine M., 1993). Group process as a method of participation develops an environment for people to share their ideas in small groups and to create individual proposals for solving each problem. Another technique involves digital technology. With the rapidly increasing numbers of different technology innovations, today we have variety of programs, allowing face-to-face communication, simulating projects while combining video. Such programs allow multiple users to participate in decision making process from their computer desks or laptops. Some of such programs are simulator games, such as SimCity (Bremer, 1993). SimCity allows people to create all types of cities – from rural communities to megalopolises. Player here is a planner with unlimited options in design decisions and modifying of landscape; players can create short- and long-term goals for their city; all scenarios of the game include various disasters as tornados, fire and flooding (Sanoff, 2000, pp.67-77). Several researchers offer games as part of participation process (Burner, 1967; Duke, 1974; Sanoff, 2000). Games simulate real situations, allow people to react on problems, yet remain an educational tool for planners and participants (Burner, 1967; Duke, 1974). Games allow engage public into a problem solving situation, which is condensed in time, but still allows public to examine in essential issues of the problem. Games are used as teaching tool, which is meant to produce various outcomes, such as learning participants of principles and structures, strong sense of efficiency, understand real-world pressures and problems (Abt, 1970). Using games allow groups to explore their values and ideas. Such tool is used to resolve different conflicts between participants and facilitate communication between opposite groups (Greenblat, 30 Duke, 1981). There are several reasons to use design games as participation process, however three main ones are: 1. Participants have an opportunity to argue the problem from the specific chosen position; 2. Organizing of complex details into one model allows participant to clutch different details. 3. Participants are improving their though processes, because games require trial decisions. Professional’s role in this process is a facilitator and technical specialist, who is able to make recommendations and develop various documents based on the results of games (Sanoff, 2000). Postoccupancy evaluation is a tool which may be applied to any size of development (Sanoff, 2000). There are three levels of Postoccupancy evaluation – indicative, investigative and diagnostic. Indicative evaluation is a short term process targeted on identifying successes and failures of project. Investigative evaluation relies on literature in order to find evaluate criteria and similar projects. Diagnostic is most detailed approach, which includes data surveys, observations, questionnaires and measurements of process (Preiser, Rabinowitz, White, 1988). All methods of Postoccupancy evaluation involve user participation. According to Friedman, Zimring and Zube, there are four methods of postoccupancy evaluation (Friedman, Zimring and Zube, 1978). Direct observation collects data from different contacts which are dealing with a similar setting and its associated problems and outcomes. Interviews collect data on people’s reactions on different physical settings. Simulations evoke participants’ comments from 31 representations of settings. And pencil and paper tests offer open ended questions for the public, which allows them to reflect their opinions on problems, with put being influenced by professionals’ point of view. Swanson, Cohen and Swanson defined four different action modes for small communities, which are targeted at creating more livable and satisfactory spaces for the inhabitants (Swanson, Cohen and Swanson, 1979). The first approach is categorical. This approach tends to resolve issues in a particular timeframe, all issues should be treated separately and the participants’ role is to think critically about existing issues. The comprehensive planning approach examines existing problems, however, it does not tie them with social structures. The third approach is integrative, which should involve the public’s opinion into planning process. It should tie existing problems with the community’s social, political, and value context. The dialogical approach intends to regulate public opinion, participant points of view and their values. Planners should make ensure that the public understands how their values relate to and reflect the goals of community. Participation in population groups Participation may be specific to a particular population group. This highlights the connection between advocacy planning, community participation, and advocacy theories. Several authors note that it is important for all groups of citizens to participate in planning process, as all of them have specific needs and issues and as a result want to see different elements of the community to be improved or developed (Grustein, Lovato, Ross, 2003; Frank, 2006; Pittman, 1996; Sanoff, 2000). Yet certain groups are often left out of the planning process, for example youth. Several authors state that today’s youth tend to be ignored in the design process, but yet 32 the importance of their participation is recognized among professionals (Grustein, Lovato, Ross, 2003). Youth participation differs from that of adults in several ways, and thus needs special consideration. Researchers have noted that there are different levels of youth participation and that the outcomes vary depending on the community (Grustein, Lovato, Ross, 2003). Some communities highly consider youth participation, others however neglect it. In both cases, youth participation is acknowledged and recognized by planners and urban designers, but due to different factors is not effective (Frank, 2006). In 1994 the National Network for Youth developed the idea of “community young development”. This idea stresses the importance and value of tying youth to community (Pittman, 1996). Through case studies it has been determined that youth learn how to analyze information, evaluate it, improve skills of teamwork, communication and “develop attitudes and behaviors of world work” (Sanoff, 2000, p.21). Including children in the planning process is another important and effective way of addressing current and future issues of the community and city design. Children participation is considered to be best way of creating more sustainable and friendly cities by UNICEFF (1996). Although not all cities and communities are planned for children, more and more designers involve children participation in planning process today (Sanoff, 2000; Fransis, Lorenzo, 2002). This movement has coined another way of characterizing participation, namely “seven realms of children’s participation” (Fransis, Lorenzo, 2002). The romantic realm allows children as planners; the argument being that children have different and sometimes better ideas than adults. A liability of this realm is that adults may overrule the children’s ideas. The advocacy realm grew out of advocacy theory movement and sees planners as advocates for children, alongside with other minority groups. Liabilities of this realm are not directly involved in the process. The needs realm involves social scientists who use environmental psychology research in order to 33 develop a more advanced thinking process about children’s participation. Such research states that the unique needs of children must be included in environmental design. A limitation of this realm is that children have no need to be involved in the process directly, as good social scientist is able to represent children’s interests. The learning realm sees children as learners. The central focus of this realm is involvement of environmental learning and education. The rights realm sees children as citizens and is targeted on guaranteeing involving children’s rights in urban environments However, this realm is focusing on children rights rather than on environmental needs. The institutional realm considers children as adults. Children’s participation recently has moved towards the institutional realm. The proactive realm views emphasizes children visioning and reflects the current thinking and practice of participation as visionary process. Limitations of this realm are the lack of possibility to apply this realm in every situation and the need for additional education for planners and designers (Fransis, Lorenzo, 2002). Alongside with population groups, participation may differ for types of facilities or communities, i.e. in educational facilities, housing, and urban versus rural environments. Master and comprehensive plans are traditional tools of urban and rural planning and they are tied to physical information. Recently, planning became goal-oriented and all policies are tied to both social and physical information. In big cities and megalopolises, planning is often implemented at the district and neighborhood level. Here, planners may address opportunities and constraints in ways similar to small town planning. Small towns today are associated with the human scale and human activities. However, small towns are more dependent on the “outside: world, and the interests of people returning or immigrating differ from the ones living there; additionally, participation is higher in small communities (Sanoff, 2000, pp.221-222). Connections between theories 34 From the information provided above we can see that advocacy planning theory has emerged into community participation theory over time. Pierre Clavel studied Davidoff’s theory and found a bridge between the evolving advocacy planning and the emerging, more diverse culture of today (Clavel, 1994). According to Clavel (1994), advocacy planning theory appeared as a response to political practices, which combined pluralism with an effective exclusion of poor and minority people. Another response was to the professional planning culture, which was monolithic in devotion to the actual plan. Davidoff’s proposal that planners could contribute to an inclusive pluralism was astounding. The theory resulted in advocacy planners working with the poor, particularly African-Americans and Latinos. Davidoff exposed that young planning professionals can become both advocate planners and part of the new emerging planning system. According to Clavel (1994), Davidoff’s theory was out of that time because of the continuing suburbanization movement. Due to this fact, advocacy planners started to work with emerging problem, which was not fully developed in the moment. This led planners to create opposition to the basics of politics. And soon planners realized existing criticism of the theory at the time (Clavel, 1994). Planners realized their mistakes and learned to see differences between their backgrounds and the people and cultures they were advocating. As a result, they have started to work with each other and discuss how and whom they should represent and what may be changed in the ideology of the theory itself. Thus, in the 1970’s, advocacy planning theory’s main idea was changed; the main idea was to work more with communities rather than within a pluralistic framework. Some advocacy planners changed their direction and started working as regular planners when they realized that some communities were excluding interests of poorest groups of communities. This led to the creation and establishment of advocacy positions in governmental agencies. 35 The main difference between the two theories is the planner’s role. An advocacy planner is the one who should represent citizens, be their voice. Community participation planner is the one who brings voices of community in the planning process. Another difference is that advocacy planning theory was intended to serve minorities, while community participation serves all types of communities and groups. The literature review has provided information about participatory theories, explanation of design participation and different methods of participation. However, there are still several questions for future research. Based on literature review we can see that there is no one “good” or “bad” participatory method. Each community is unique and different participation methods and tools may be applied. The current research will use indirect participation method of collecting data (open-ended responses) to determine if key elements of a community can be identified and categorized. In particular this research is focused on community elements that residents are “proud of” and also elements that they would like to see in their “future” community. A key question is whether there are any community features or grouping of community features that would be helpful in creating communities. Following research tends to identify key elements of place for rural communities of Michigan. 36 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The hypothesis of the research is that citizens of a community can articulate signature place elements of their community. In order to test this hypothesis, data was collected from 47 rural communities in Michigan. The number of individual responses was 4798. Table 3.1 shows the list of communities that participated in the visioning process and the number of individual responses from each community. In order to investigate the hypothesis, collected qualitative data has been analyzed and coded using an open coding method. This method allows the data to be broken into individual parts, allows the close examination of the parts, and allows for comparisons of similarities and differences. Such analysis allows a researcher or investigator to sort all responses and break them into categories. Categories may then be further discriminated and differentiated. In other words, all responses can be labeled and classified into categories. Each category and the responds within it may be analyzed again for additional classification into narrower subcategories (Staruss, Corbin, 1990). 37 Table 3.1 Number of responses from each individual community NAME OF COMMUNITY Arcadia Au Gres Bath Township Bear Lake Beecher Bloomingdale Brethren Copemish Deckerville Delton Detour Douglas Eaton Rapids Fennville Forsyth Harrisville Homer Hubbard Lake Hudsonville Ishpeming Kaleva Kinross Kochville Lake Odessa Mainstee city and Environs Marrila Township Meridian Mio Oakland/Saginaw Onekama Potterville Prairieville Remus Rose city Rothbury Sebewaing Unionville Skidway South Haven Springdale Springport NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONCES 50 83 235 164 117 97 35 24 125 72 148 110 98 128 153 98 214 83 85 46 27 114 86 145 116 26 131 108 156 116 103 70 108 93 85 131 104 110 19 80 38 Table 3.1 (cont’d) Number of responses from each individual community NAME OF COMMUNITY St. Joe St. Louis Stanwood Traverse City Urbandale Walled Lake Williamston NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONCES 84 84 71 185 105 61 115 Total= 4798 Data for this research was coded in the following order. Every participating community was assigned a coding number, from 1 to 47. This number represents the alphabetical number of community. Three questions that were asked during the public meetings of the Small Town Design Initiative (STDI) vision process and were assigned codes in the following order: What are you proud of in your community? – 101, What are you sorry about in your community? – 102, If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see? – 103. The responses were codified into nine main categories: • Green aesthetics (1) – includes natural green features, such as flora and landscape; • Natural features (2) – includes different types of water bodies, wildlife, natural settings of communities; • Recreation and tourism (3) – includes different types of sports, tourism features of communities, recreational areas and activities; • Transport and infrastructure (4) – includes infrastructure utilities, transportation options, pollution; • Community activities (5) – includes all possible activities of community, such as business opportunities, services and different types of events; 39 • Community characteristics (6) – include characteristics of communities from the view of their citizens, such as safety, setting, homelike feeling; • Food (7) – includes all dining options and groceries, mentioned by respondents during STDI public meetings; • Architectural and Rural appearance (8) – includes physical characteristics of communities; • Shopping (9) – includes shopping options of communities. Four out of 4,798 responses were discarded during the coding process as they did not fit in any of the categories. Each main category was then divided into 9 subcategories. Each subcategory was assigned a coding number based on the number of main categories, i.e. under main category #1 subcategories have been coded 11 through 19, for #2 subcategories have been coded 21 through 29, and so forth. Results are analyzed in order to determine the frequency of the total number of responses in each category and subcategory. Additionally, the data is analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to group the 4798 total responses to the open ended questions into dimensions or components that explain the variance in responses and generate hypotheses. PCA is used to address this study’s hypothesis: that place signature elements of community can be identified. PCA simplifies the data and identified groupings of variables (responses) based on the raw data, and also identifies which variables and the resultant components are most important (Burley & Brown, 1995). 40 The central idea of this method is to reduce dimensionality of a data set consisting of a large number of interrelated variables, while retaining as much as possible of the variation present in the data set. This is achieved by transforming to a new set of variables, the principal components, which are uncorrelated, and which are ordered so that the remaining few retain most of the variation present in all of the original variables (Jolliffe, 2002). Principal component analysis is a procedure used to reduce variable procedure. It is used when data has a significant number of variables, and there may be some redundancy among those variables. Here, redundancy means that variables correlate with each other. Reasons for such correlation may be measuring of the same construct. Such redundancy allows us to reduce the number of observed variables into a smaller number of principal components, which will account for most of the variance in the observed variables. Principal components are artificial variables, which account for most of the variance in observed variables. The number of variables (the subcategories in this research) in the investigation is 69. PCA allows us to simplify and classify these variables by using statistical indicators. This method examines the relationship between variables when, if using other methods, will allow us to focus on the magnitude of such (Kaplan, 1985). PCA allows us to determine the number of dimensions in order to explain the variance in citizens’ responses variables set. This investigation is based on covariance and extracted components of variables, which have been tied together on the basis of same features and characteristics. The first component extracted in PCA stands for a maximal amount of total variance in observed variables. This means that it will be correlated with some or many of the observed variables. The second principal component has two important characteristics. This component will be accounted for a maximal amount of the data set’s variance which has not been accounted by first principal component. This means that second component typically will be correlated with 41 some of the observed variables. These variables are usually not displayed with strong correlations with the first principal component. The second principal component will not be correlated with the first component, i.e. if the investigator will correlate them, the correlation will be zero. The remaining components will show the same characteristics as the second principal component. Each of the components will stand for a maximal amount of variance in observed data set, which have not been accounted by previous components. PCA is designed in a fashion, when each next component has smaller and smaller amounts of variances, hence only the few first components are retained and interpreted. The resulting components display varying degrees of correlation with observed variables; however they are completely uncorrelated with each other (Stevens, 1986). In order to determine the strength of each dimension, PCA allows investigator to calculate eigenvalue. Eigenvalues have different dimensions and the highest one is typically related to the first principal component and the smallest to the last principal component. The largest eigenvalue represents the largest proportion of explained variance and the smallest one explains the smallest proportion. If the eignevalues of different principal components are mapped against each other in multidimensional space it is considered to be independent. The component is considered to be significant if its dimension represented by eigenvalue is greater or equal to one. In order to determine the relationship and correlations between each variable (subcategories) within the components, each of the principal components contains a set of eigenvector. They are used to explain dimension. String association is characterized by a minimum loading value of .4 on no more than one eigenvector. Eigenvectors found in two or more dimensions with loading value equal or greater than .4 are associated with its dimension (Burley & Brown, 1995). 42 All subcategories of the data define dimension if found in a single dimension or component. PCA identifies hidden patterns of the data set. It allows the investigator to create a deeper analysis of citizens’ responses. A dimension takes into account all of the variables and determines hidden patterns for their relationship and correlations between each. In some components preference for one variable is linked with another variable. This is indicated if both subcategories have the same direction, i.e. either positive or both negative meanings. In other components preference for one variable is related to an aversion for another variable. This appears when both subcategories have different directions, with coefficients being one negative and one positive. PCA determines patterns of preference found in variable responses of citizens. Interpreting each component is more challenging than identifying the components. Hypotheses are yet to be tested. PCA has been used to analyze the data set, which is created by the investigator. Therefore, if somebody else will take a look at the data, they may notice that responses have been categorized in different ways. This is one of the limitations of the process in this investigation. However, the strength of PCA here is that it allows the investigator to create hypotheses and generate more narrowed research questions. 43 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter is conducted in order to illustrate all of the tables and graphs that have been developed through the statistical analysis process. Table 4.1 shows the number and percentage of responses in each category and subcategory. Percentage of categories has been counted out of 4794 responses, and percentage of subcategories has been counted within each category. Subcategories “all other” have been illuminated. Table 4.1 Number and percentage of responses in each category and subcategory CATEGORY PERCENTAGE RESPONSES 5% 17% 12% 8% 1% 12% 13% 30% 7% 5% 21% 241 36 25 16 2 25 28 64 14 RIVER 11% 22 BEACH 12% 22  WILDLIFE 15% 28  NATURAL RESOURCES 15% 29  WATERFORNT GREEN AESTHETICS  GREEN & OPEN SPACE  FLOWERS  GARDENS  LAWN  FARMS  LANDSCAPE  TREES  WOOD/FOREST NATURAL FEATURES  LAKE     6% 11 NATURE 14% 26 MARINA 6% 12 11% 32% 549 165 RECREATION AND TOURSM  PARK   3% SPORTS  PLAYGROUNDS  19 18% FISHING/HUNTING  57 4% WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT 17 11% CAMPS   248 40 93 3% 14 TRAILS/BIKE PATHS 15% 79 TOURISM/RECREATION/LODGING 14% 76 44 Table 4.1 (cont’d) Number and percentage of responses in each category and subcategory CATEGORY PERCENTAGE RESPONSES 13% 34% 603 194 24% 136 9% 48 11% 65 POLLUTION 3% 14  RAILROADS/TRAINS 3% 19  TRAFFIC/SPEED 13% 73  PUBLIC TRANSPORT 3% 19 19% 19% 896 155 14% 114 TRANSPORT AND INFRUSTRUCTURE  ROADS  WALKABILITY  PARKING  OTHER UTILITIES  COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES  ECONOMICS/BUSINESS  COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES/CLUBS  TEENS AND KIDS ACTIVITIES 9% 74  SENIOURS ACTIVITIES 3% 23 DEVELOPMENT 7% 54  CITY SERVICES 23% 188  ZONING/PLANNING/LAND USE 6% 53  COMMUNITY EVENTS 19% 153 19% 8% 912 50 5% 10% 29 58 6% 40% 36 233  COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS  SMALL TOWN   FARMING/AGRICULTURAL DIVERSITY/ETHNICITY/ DEMOGRAPHIC  SAFETY  FAMILY/PEOPLE/FRIENDLY/ CARING  HISTORY 10% 57  QUALITY/CALM/SLOW 12% 69  EMPLOYMENT 9% 53 192 34 FOOD  GROCCERIES 4% 18%  FINE DINING 44% 81  FAST/QUICK FOOD 22% 41  FARMERS MARKET 10% 19 BARS/PUBS/TAVERNS 4% 8 BAKERY 2% 3   45 Table 4.1 (cont’d) Number and percentage of responses in each category and subcategory CATEGORY PERCENTAGE ARCHITECTURAL AND RURAL APPEARANCE  HOUSING RESPONSES 20% 979 17% 102  SIGNAGE  AESTHETICS  LIGHTING 8% 47 CHURCH 3% 19  THEATER 4% 27  LIBRARY 6% 34  SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY 11% 66 4% 25% 173 27  9% SHOPPING  DEPARTMENT STORES 52 42% 252  RETAILS/MALLS 22% 24  GAS/OIL/CARS 22% 24  STOREFRONTS 9% 10 CONVINIENT STORES 4% 4  ANTIQUE 3% 3  PHARMACY 9% 10  LIQUOR/DRUGS 6% 7  Based on this table we can determine the highest and lowest number of responses among main categories and variables within each category. Each of the main categories contains one variable named “all other”. This variable contains responses that have been repeated a low number of times, usually 1 or 2. Therefore these variables have been illuminated and not taken into consideration during analysis due to containing insignificant information for this research. PCA has been developed for 69 variables and for two different data sets. The first data set included responses to the question “What are you proud of in your community?” Variables that have not been accounted are “all other” for all categories, “lawn” for the main category “Green aesthetics,” “bakery” for the main category “Food” and variables “storefronts” and “liquor/drugs” for the main category “Shopping.” The variables “all other” have been dismissed due to the insignificance of information within each. The variables “bakery,” “storefronts,” and 46 “liquor/drugs” could not be calculated using PCA as the minimum and maximum values equal zero. This occurred due to a response rate of zero in these variables; i.e. none of the communities picked any of these responses. Results of PCA are given in 23 components for 66 variables. Revealed components are explaining 85.9% of variance. The first dimension or principal component explains 10.2% of the variance, the second component explains 7.2%, the third component explains 6%, and so forth (see table 4.2). All of the 23 components are significant based on their eigenvalue being greater than 1.0. However, principal components 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have not had any variable with a loading value equal or greater than .4, therefore they were not included into the analysis. Further, component 15 does not have significant discreet variables; therefore it will not be included in the analysis as well. The rest of the components appeared to have one or more variables with loading values being equal or greater than .4. However, only components explaining more than 5% of variance will be analyzed and discussed further. The first component has nine variables that meet the criteria, and PCA indicated that all of the variables have positive value. This is indicating that if citizens mentioned one of the variables they were likely to mention the other eight. Components 2 through 8, 10 and 11 all contain at least two variables with significant values. Additionally, some variables within these components have the same direction, either positive or negative. This indicates that if citizens mention one of the variables, they tend to choose others as well. However, if within the same component two or more variables have different directions, it indicates that citizens were likely not to mention such variables. Components 9 and 12 through 16 hold only one variable that meets the criterion. This indicates that these components are insignificant and will not be deeply analyzed in Chapter 5 of this research (see table 4.3). 47 Table 4.2 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?” Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component 5 Component 6 Component 7 Component 8 Component 9 Component 10 Component 11 Component 12 Component 13 Component 14 Component 15 Component 16 Component 17 Component 18 Component 19 Component 20 Component 21 Component 22 Component 23 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue Total % of Variance Cumulative % 6.772 10.261 10.261 4.746 7.190 17.452 3.964 6.006 23.457 3.624 5.490 28.947 3.414 5.172 34.119 2.969 4.499 38.618 2.919 4.423 43.041 2.835 4.296 47.337 2.664 4.036 51.373 2.563 3.883 55.256 2.378 3.603 58.859 2.036 3.085 61.944 1.936 2.933 64.876 1.809 2.741 67.617 1.727 2.617 70.234 1.624 2.460 72.694 1.501 2.275 74.969 1.353 2.050 77.019 1.315 1.992 79.011 1.255 1.902 80.913 1.229 1.862 82.775 1.062 1.608 84.383 1.021 1.546 85.930 48 Table 4.3 Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?” Component 1 GREEN & OPEN SPACE FLOWERS GARDENS FARMS LANDSCAPE TREES WOOD/FOREST LAKE 2 3 4 5 6 7 .401 .024 .296 -.132 -.006 .354 .163 .611 -.066 -.122 .013 -.217 -.034 -.370 .068 .242 .009 .505 .440 .325 .157 -.082 -.061 .062 -.102 .324 .260 -.130 .080 .306 -.605 .006 .128 .010 .275 .411 -.275 .422 -.210 .246 .213 .144 -.179 .277 .371 .049 -.142 0.486 -.160 -.032 .266 .539 .102 -.120 -.066 .085 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 .116 .003 .201 -.310 -.215 .065 .096 -.077 .032 -.142 .175 -.115 .234 .308 -.164 -.012 -.037 .154 -.111 -.177 -.054 .088 -.124 -.141 .229 -.005 .350 -.238 -.051 .125 -.156 -.019 -.165 -.289 -.199 .035 .205 .166 .061 .151 -.241 .137 .018 .051 .190 .293 .118 .005 -.052 -.079 -.026 .292 .013 .204 -.103 .014 .107 -.260 .269 .069 .013 .176 .273 -.260 RIVER BEACH .081 -.266 .039 .387 -.243 .320 .187 .296 -.095 -.019 .011 .092 -.035 -.054 .449 .591 .430 -.291 .187 .167 .125 -.353 -.161 -.063 -.056 -.079 -.089 .026 -.025 .041 WILDLIFE -.122 .624 .254 .132 -.117 .117 .101 .019 -.167 .156 .233 -.230 -.013 .080 .067 NATURAL RESOURCES .299 -.284 .045 -.278 .324 .328 -.133 .181 -.075 .135 -.031 -.075 .148 -.176 -.058 WATERFORNT .207 .066 -.123 -.056 -.084 .384 -.026 -.221 -.316 .260 -.063 -.084 -.285 .003 .040 NATURE -.046 .442 .008 .292 .052 .099 -.001 .319 .138 -.129 .060 -.261 .038 .254 .192 .072 .431 .166 .409 .217 -.200 -.334 -.155 -.035 .036 .081 -.001 -.002 -.043 -.107 .272 -.212 .215 .058 .187 -.018 216 -.030 -.270 .228 .073 -.019 -.070 .154 .248 MARINA PARK CAMPS WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT FISHING/HUNTING SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS TRAILS/BIKE PATHS .029 -.064 -.074 .201 -.007 .160 .041 .477 -.179 -.163 .378 .327 -.255 -.116 -.202 .141 .390 -.179 .491 .427 .068 -.260 -.150 -.342 -.004 -.149 -.046 -.013 -.088 .001 .559 .514 -.013 .077 -.049 -.019 -.070 .205 .269 -.223 .043 .117 -.143 .079 .418 .162 -.163 .253 .393 -.172 .154 .276 .472 .192 -.093 -.093 0.24 .001 .090 .188 -.117 -.476 -.085 .031 -.297 -.444 .251 -.013 .295 .258 -.019 .119 .267 -.014 -.145 -.063 -.030 .016 .094 -.080 -.297 .009 .041 .006 -.183 -.044 .130 -.054 .095 -.084 TOURISM/RECREATION/LODGING -.082 -.072 .210 .082 .609 -.324 -.155 .001 .104 -.178 .179 -.108 .094 -.162 -.144 ROADS .241 .042 .079 -.080 .055 -.446 -.358 -.233 -.017 .294 .032 -.028 .103 -.018 -.257 49 Table 4.3 (cont’d) Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?” Component WALKABILITY PARKING OTHER UTILITIES POLLUTION RAILROADS/TRAINS TRAFFIC/SPEED PUBLIC TRANSPORT ECONOMIC/BUSINESS COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES/CLUBS TEENS AND KIDS ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 .060 -.461 -.027 .411 -.076 -.035 .178 -.145 -.275 .204 .293 -.259 -.075 -.038 .627 .236 -.308 -.379 -.055 .035 .181 -.276 -.126 .092 .061 .147 -.038 -.058 .010 -.152 -.101 .265 .300 .246 .055 .190 -.302 .003 -.143 .056 .465 -.230 .157 -.233 .027 .252 -.399 -.261 -.118 .106 -.166 -.080 -.221 .137 .141 -.032 .565 .111 -.120 -.297 -.058 -.164 .271 -.165 -.043 .327 .329 .486 -.307 .051 -.133 -.054 .094 -.118 .108 .099 -.311 .149 -.236 .059 .352 -.227 .406 .324 .079 .208 .110 .178 -.214 .223 -.208 .224 16 .011 .075 .105 .015 -.097 .174 -.305 .064 .159 .019 .280 .028 .072 -.026 -.032 -.007 .109 .118 .057 .185 -.063 -.277 .368 -.186 .090 -093 .045 .319 SENIOURS ACTIVITIES .310 .246 -.178 .206 .004 .108 .008 .274 .182 .056 -.087 .446 .045 .232 .105 .419 -.326 .428 -.045 .049 .346 .161 -.212 .190 -.152 .017 .327 -.107 .075 -.059 .084 .607 -.133 .186 -.178 .028 -.315 -.082 .248 .251 .052 .231 -.088 -.011 -.156 DEVELOPMENT .171 -.117 -.223 -.009 -.034 .107 -.272 .100 .149 .218 .314 -.517 .167 .127 .252 CITY SERVICES ZONING/PLANNING/ LAND USE .303 -.118 .494 .317 -.129 -.228 -.025 .052 .234 -.170 .057 .040 -.115 -.198 .006 .538 -.175 -.075 -.308 .101 .124 .137 .113 -.109 .168 .430 .120 .216 .012 -.193 .338 -.314 -.011 .385 .063 .069 -.336 -.162 -.100 -.343 .200 -.163 -.216 .179 .186 COMMUNITY EVENTS SMALL TOWN .407 -.029 -.100 .169 FARMING/AGRICULTURAL .308 .128 -.263 -.391 DIVERSITY/ETHNICITY/DEMOGRAPHICS .069 .005 .420 .431 SAFETY .364 -.110 .052 .098 .095 .139 .212 .070 .322 -.006 .308 -.277 -.208 -.215 .006 .374 -.176 .021 .313 -.002 .109 -.114 .109 -.094 -.177 .022 -.003 -.143 .412 -.133 -.146 .026 .035 .013 .168 .076 -.131 .530 .059 -.24 -.031 -.046 .051 -.284 .111 -.203 .204 -.123 FAMILY/PEOPLE/ FRIENDLY/CARING .300 -.349 -.225 .204 .362 -.271 .083 -.121 .203 .034 -.153 -.013 -.012 -.161 .166 HISTORY QUALITY/CALM/SLOW -.180 -.402 -.296 .132 .153 -.308 .104 .175 .141 .027 -.203 -.115 .305 .144 .037 .272 -.248 .347 .174 .081 .270 -.299 .082 .136 .114 .120 .052 -.262 .169 -.072 EMPLOYMENT -.205 -.273 -.030 -.174 .280 -.330 -.182 .161 .288 .111 .327 .054 .173 .055 50 .33 Table 4.3 (cont’d) Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What are you proud of in your community?” GROCCERIES FINE DINING FAST/QUICK FOOD FARMERS MARKET BARS/PUBS/TAVERNS HOUSING SIGNAGE AESTHETICS LIGHTING Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 .477 .329 -.053 .002 -.190 -.242 .246 .281 -.293 -.272 .008 .080 .114 .090 .057 .348 .181 .221 .018 .088 .056 .092 .201 .182 .233 -.004 -.102 .307 .014 .157 .371 -.390 .072 .045 -.020 -.258 -.159 -.075 -.340 -.080 .243 .210 -.073 .133 -.023 .116 -.110 -.446 .195 -.001 .241 -.138 .010 .250 .290 -.150 .062 -.163 .340 -.103 .017 .372 -.052 .161 .130 -.211 .246 -.231 .149 .019 .360 .000 .252 .006 -.083 -.013 .005 .180 .128 .287 .073 .462 -.320 .287 -.247 -.103 -.010 -.104 -.057 -.217 .052 .208 -.296 .076 -.149 -.130 .297 -.301 -.164 .419 .118 .202 -.273 -.206 .161 .461 -.349 -.297 .114 .029 -.158 .087 -.240 -.215 .151 -.022 -.307 .104 .020 -.278 CHURCH THEATER .079 .025 -.078 .215 -.068 .157 -.363 -.531 .177 -.004 .337 .144 .213 -.136 .254 .312 .271 -.224 -.059 .107 -.139 .136 .418 .341 -.077 .186 .137 -.048 .238 -.036 .255 -.244 -.070 .378 -.542 .045 -.223 .133 .089 .004 -.005 .183 .394 -.091 -.150 LIBRARY .544 -.095 .043 .121 .015 -.162 -.016 -.047 -.362 -.304 -.135 -.073 -.071 .391 -.023 SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT STORES RETAILS/MALLS GAS/OIL/CARS CONVINIENT STORES ANTIQUE PHARMACY .402 -.195 .201 .325 -.243 .410 -.217 -.058 -.098 -.362 .691 -.048 .009 -.042 -.412 .637 .038 .256 -.415 -.022 -.223 .176 .130 .234 .242 -.225 -.105 -.149 -.096 .009 -.110 -.202 .019 .168 -.131 -.071 -.117 -.216 -.434 -.118 -.061 -.065 .071 .256 -.112 -.202 -.185 .109 .168 -.012 .189 -.009 -.070 .010 -.125 .140 -.038 -.086 -.243 .198 .003 -.240 -.274 -.073 .249 -.013 -.150 .308 .012 .191 .478 .041 -.155 .204 -.280 -.072 -.150 .190 -.036 .176 -.113 -.114 -.313 .210 -.167 .072 .409 .071 .205 .236 .016 .302 .218 .111 .037 -.413 -.038 .172 -.041 .393 -.132 .110 -.184 -.070 .171 51 The second data set analyzed with PCA included responses to the question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Variables which have not been accounted in this data set are “all other” for all categories and “church” in the main category, and “Architectural and Rural appearance.” This occurred due to zero responses rate in these variables; i.e. none of the communities picked them. Results of PCA are given in 23 components. These 23 components explain 85.9 % of variance. The first dimension or principal component explains 10.5% of the variance (see table 4.4) Table 4.4 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue for data set of question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component 5 Component 6 Component 7 Component 8 Component 9 Component 10 Component 11 Component 12 Component 13 Component 14 Component 15 Component 16 Component 17 Component 18 Component 19 Component 20 Component 21 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue Total % of Variance Cumulative % 7.252 10.510 10.510 4.565 6.616 17.126 4.068 5.895 23.021 3.909 5.665 28.687 3.577 5.183 33.870 3.393 4.917 38.787 3.029 4.389 43.177 2.792 4.046 47.223 2.608 3.780 51.003 2.419 3.506 54.509 2.246 3.255 57.764 2.129 3.085 60.850 2.048 2.968 63.818 1.998 2.896 66.714 1.826 2.647 69.360 1.811 2.625 71.986 1.782 2.583 74.569 1.674 2.427 76.995 1.571 2.277 79.272 1.428 2.070 81.342 1.192 1.728 83.070 52 Table 4.4 (cont’d) Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue for data set of question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Component 22 Component 23 Total Variance Explained for Initial Eigenvalue Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1.184 1.715 84.786 1.088 1.577 86.363 All of the 23 components are significant based on their eigenvalue being greater than 1.0. However, principal components 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have no variables with a loading value equal or greater than .4, therefore they have not been included in the analysis. Further, components 9 and 13 do not have significant discreet variables; therefore they will not be included in the analysis as well. The rest of the components appeared to have one or more variables with loading value being equal or greater than .4. However, only components explaining more than 5% of variance will be analyzed and discussed further. The first component has 13 variables that meet criteria and PCA indicated that all of the variables have positive value. This is indicating that if citizens mentioned one of the variables they were likely to mention the other 15. Components 2, 4 through 8, 11, 12 and 14 all contain at least two variables with significant values. Additionally, some variables within these components have the same direction, either positive or negative. This indicates that if citizens mention one of the variables, they tend to choose the other as well. However, if within the same component two or more variables have different directions, it indicates that citizens were likely not to mention such variables. Components 3, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17 contain only one variable which meets the criterion. This indicates that these components are insignificant and will not be deeply analyzed in Chapter 5 of this research (see table 4.5). 53 Table 4.5 Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Component GARDENS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 .363 -.029 .046 -.017 .190 .039 .479 .207 .019 -.061 .013 -.184 .088 -.445 -.172 -.280 .339 -.032 -.020 .021 .032 .303 .282 -.213 .019 -.246 -.079 .365 -.171 -.119 -.056 .424 .360 -.140 -.302 -.106 -.363 -.004 .090 .226 -.213 -.244 -.027 -.031 -.050 .320 .040 -.143 LAWN -.090 .293 -.184 -.130 .168 -.227 -.116 .282 .325 .142 -.003 -.012 .102 .178 -.156 .234 GREEN & OPEN SPACE FLOWERS FARMS LANDSCAPE TREES WOOD/FOREST LAKE RIVER BEACH WILDLIFE NATURAL RESOURCES WATERFORNT NATURE MARINA PARK CAMPS -.053 -.171 -.106 .174 -.166 -.109 -.139 -.515 .133 .457 -.228 -.173 -.335 .196 .406 .052 .131 -.011 .455 -.219 .172 .049 .336 -.094 -.028 .452 .115 -.272 .152 059 .402 .247 .099 .254 .234 -.156 .302 .118 -.121 .214 .061 .137 .076 -.074 .151 -.191 -.198 .018 -.093 .133 .182 -.187 .071 -.142 -.070 -.178 .040 -.101 .042 .054 -.023 -.165 -.048 .102 .243 .179 -.235 .495 .219 -.188 -.030 .098 .159 .258 .213 .106 -.007 -.123 .132 .199 .071 -.156 .082 -.153 .489 .136 .199 -.282 -.045 -.188 .018 .211 .329 .110 -.249 .274 .094 .335 .290 -.280 -.204 -.109 -.065 -.220 -.139 .308 -.021 .339 -.355 -.195 -.079 .135 .466 .279 -.377 -.040 .146 .148 .320 .198 .085 .334 .342 .429 .004 .186 -.050 .601 .048 -.198 -.069 -.052 .018 -.097 -.214 -.262 -.017 -.090 .251 -.128 -.147 -.264 .290 .096 -.394 .114 .231 -.053 -.064 .191 .131 .079 .012 .518 -.036 .064 .065 .066 -.077 -.180 -.078 .109 -.121 -.201 -.135 .136 .367 -.043 .321 .120 .129 .144 -.017 .102 -.046 .023 .150 .535 .201 .260 .007 -.229 -.017 -.308 .115 .182 -.031 .018 -.168 -.049 -.182 -.344 .351 -.442 -.084 .084 .111 .086 .351 -.149 .051 .138 -.216 -.030 -.012 -.056 .130 -.094 .146 -.195 .234 -.076 .360 -.269 -.083 -.018 .372 -.285 .076 -.197 -.137 .087 .151 .040 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT .206 .084 .205 -.125 .365 -.186 -.148 -.438 -.061 .373 -.071 .159 -.156 -.261 -.117 -.229 FISHING/HUNTING .194 .486 -.018 -.037 .316 .065 -.246 .251 -.107 .140 .107 .005 .016 -.100 .130 .199 SPORTS .581 -.170 .067 -.122 -.034 -.265 -.062 -.122 .397 -.167 -.151 -.085 -.036 -.095 .157 .205 PLAYGROUNDS TRAILS/BIKE PATHS .440 -.316 -.202 -.003 .112 .053 -.167 -.230 .183 -.201 .013 -.101 -.078 .080 -.130 .099 .448 .179 -.119 -.219 .047 .159 .189 -.306 .295 .160 -.077 -.128 .263 -.070 -.261 -.061 54 Table 4.5 (cont’d) Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What would you like to see in your community in the future?” Component TOURISM/RECREATION/ LODGING ROADS WALKABILITY PARKING OTHER UTILITIES POLLUTION RAILROADS/TRAINS TRAFFIC/SPEED PUBLIC TRANSPORT ECONOMICS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY CTIVITIES/CLUBS TEENS AND KIDS ACTIVITIES SENIOURS ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT CITY SERVICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 .321 -.159 .143 -.262 .029 -.390 -.224 .259 .248 .187 .160 -.212 -.050 .170 -.423 -.061 .558 .149 .088 .001 -.287 -.094 .150 .021 .212 .261 .132 -.130 .030 .059 .234 -.017 .417 -.212 .304 .320 .497 .360 .471 .153 .206 .448 .303 -.293 .249 -.172 .165 -.127 -.087 -.261 .238 -.077 -.132 -.071 -.106 -.113 .184 -.439 -.083 -.071 .098 -.083 .059 .014 -.065 -.132 -.087 .217 .119 -.093 .040 .275 .237 .159 .049 -.024 -.330 .036 -.147 -.168 -.013 .186 -.303 .561 .057 .138 .145 .132 -.100 -.146 -.166 .090 -.145 .008 -.134 .035 .217 .002 .426 -.085 -.390 -.410 .060 .180 -.155 -.171 .268 -.123 -.298 -.264 .026 .167 .221 .274 -.230 .478 .271 -.028 .334 -.343 -.051 -.063 .293 .123 -.052 -.102 .335 .138 -.128 .054 -.378 -.345 .096 .014 .166 -.104 .155 .525 .000 .177 .289 .070 -.139 -.406 .044 -.247 .303 .120 .516 -.042 -.140 -.332 .018 .101 .219 .163 -.046 -.113 -.079 .042 -.143 -.028 .254 -.058 .071 .253 .071 -.178 .145 -.320 .197 -.258 -.165 .251 .022 .350 .095 -.421 .149 -.121 .122 -.115 .105 .156 .323 .064 .002 .109 .164 .097 -.329 .182 .138 .195 .065 .295 -.225 .270 -.012 -.071 -.237 -.156 -.317 -.036 .130 -.120 -.335 .231 -.246 .264 .104 -.116 -.183 .307 .136 -.240 .137 .232 .210 .025 -.027 -.128 .195 .093 ZONING/PLANNING/LAND USE COMMUNITY EVENTS .564 -.109 .032 .019 -.297 .042 -.047 -.019 .068 -.057 .457 .126 .339 -.071 .103 .000 .220 -.475 -.244 .226 -.111 -.028 -.360 .042 -.014 .071 -.068 .131 .003 -.153 -.017 .010 .361 -.226 .087 -.171 .113 -.148 .024 -.073 -.346 .087 -.388 .263 .237 .105 .215 .155 SMALL TOWN .007 .328 -.281 -.162 .222 .251 -.017 .101 -.044 -.085 -.205 -.020 .344 .129 -.108 .116 FARMING/AGRICULTURAL .498 .165 -.030 .441 -.028 .235 -.273 -.098 .045 .071 -.131 -.210 .162 .086 -.085 -.113 DIVERSITY/ETHNICITY/ DEMOGRAPHICS SAFETY FAMILY/FRIENDLY/CARING HISTORY .087 .303 -.337 -.136 .291 -.128 -.091 -.010 .069 -.222 -.056 .110 -.202 -.253 .064 .121 .096 -.170 .242 .192 .115 -.319 .034 .367 -.097 .146 .211 -.212 .202 -.426 .140 .224 -.122 -.253 -.188 -.217 -.279 .403 .105 -.004 -.035 .113 .387 .057 -.088 -.176 .130 -.003 .211 .227 -.255 .032 -.037 -.141 -.069 -.466 -.345 -.222 -.050 -.048 .095 .015 -.006 -.034 55 Table 4.5 (cont’d) Component Matrix of Component Eigenvector Values for data set of question “What would you like to see in your community in the future?” Component GROCCERIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 .208 .479 -.147 .113 .036 .128 -.398 -.116 -.225 -.088 .160 -.152 -.023 .007 .263 .027 .262 -.077 -.056 .053 .122 .168 .268 -.122 -.107 .065 .517 .034 -.340 .352 -.290 .073 .416 -.380 -.394 .082 -.116 .076 -.199 .200 -.150 .165 -.025 .155 .043 .217 -.091 -.257 FINE DINING .398 -.195 .177 .366 .316 -.027 -.360 -.025 .082 -.103 -.042 -.104 -.148 -.138 .297 QUALITY/CALM/ SLOW EMPLOYMENT FAST/QUICK FOOD FARMERS MARKET BARS/PUBS/TAVERNS BAKERY HOUSING SIGNAGE AESTHETICS LIGHTING THEATER LIBRARY SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY .065 .477 .114 -.274 -.043 .337 -.075 .090 -.209 -.108 -.024 .200 .092 .042 .126 .136 -.301 .260 .334 .348 -.160 -.355 .349 .287 -.017 .046 .077 -.276 -.049 .002 .001 -.113 .310 .510 .293 -.166 -.053 -.183 -.094 -.247 .192 .373 .386 -.197 -.269 .356 -.444 .383 -.222 -.253 .180 -.358 -.021 .088 .553 -.028 .072 .085 .165 -.229 .003 .064 -.116 -.155 -.213 .417 -.029 -.172 -.147 .083 .036 .069 .006 .025 .181 .143 -.070 -.112 .047 -.275 .222 .074 -.151 -.043 -.008 -.232 -.168 -.086 .205 -.143 .383 -.025 -.095 -.008 .078 -.197 .116 .397 -.322 .299 .158 -.063 .059 -.119 -.044 -.121 -.279 .031 -.045 -.189 .010 .028 .152 .158 -.470 .332 .033 .166 .299 -.078 .019 .207 .001 -.272 -.125 .268 .031 .039 -.009 .545 .013 .304 -.086 .049 .014 -.122 .345 -.039 -.096 .177 .272 .354 -.101 .008 -.048 -.016 .293 -.615 -.082 .023 -.040 .111 .266 .296 .119 -.146 .088 .206 .000 .043 -.155 DEPARTMENT STORES RETAILS/MALLS .323 .104 -.058 -.217 -.537 -.207 .125 .088 -.010 -.393 .000 -.164 -.028 -.353 -.144 -.038 .162 -.286 -.056 .075 -.024 -.185 -.085 -.256 -.438 .126 .081 -.141 .402 .052 -.284 .006 .340 .095 .204 .248 .257 -.029 .264 -.086 -.340 .127 -.189 .030 .057 .316 .293 .051 GAS/OIL/CARS .160 -.001 .213 .517 -.193 .114 .214 .220 .254 -.104 -.115 .235 .008 .111 -.107 -.112 STOREFRONTS .016 .086 -.134 -.286 -.148 .050 .320 .114 .066 .174 -.468 -.262 .052 .198 .159 .200 .253 -.130 .191 -.222 .497 -.008 .172 -.162 .201 -.208 .226 .191 .093 .236 -.006 -.076 .065 .298 .238 -.057 -.056 .652 -.439 .094 .034 -.020 .158 -.200 .249 .041 .126 -.012 CONVINIENT STORES ANTIQUE PHARMACY LIQUOR/DRUGS -.043 -.181 -.150 .295 -.269 .067 .007 .035 .391 .066 .106 .478 .152 .086 .300 -.012 .387 .021 -.524 .107 -.114 .007 -.141 .164 -.325 -.229 .046 -.012 -.050 .034 -.166 .000 56 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS The sampling number of research is 4794. Based on findings we can see that 20% of all responses fall into the category of Architectural and Rural appearance, 19% fall into Community characteristics and the same percentage falls into Community Activities. This shows that both of these categories are equally important for responders. The next valuable characteristics are Transport and Infrastructure and Recreation and Tourism. Natural features and Green aesthetics have an equal 5% of responses and the same insignificant amount is for Shopping and Food, 4%. Three top categories that have been chosen by citizens of rural communities of Michigan are Architectural and rural appearance, Community characteristics and Community activities. These three categories represent the main concerns and wishes of citizens. However, the analysis described above cannot be determined as reliable. Data used for the analysis does not tells us the full picture of communities due to the broad variety of answers. The number of answers cannot be a reliable source due to the different number of participants in each community. As such, every community may pick a particular feature, however it does not guarantee that this feature will have the highest number of responses in contrast with the others. The question to be asked is which of these subcategories (variables in the PCA analysis) have been chosen by all communities. At this point, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is the technique that will indicate hidden patterns between responses. In order to test the hypothesis that signature elements of place in a community can be articulated by the citizens of a community, PCA analysis has been run for 2 different sets of data. 57 Although literature supports idea of experts to identify what is significant for communities, this study indicates that citizens can articulate what is significant for them. We found that PCA yielded 70 variables to 23 principal components for each data set. Some public participation is still at the token or informal levels. This work also supports the idea that citizens can participate at the upper levels of involvement such as involve and collaborate (IAP2, 2000). The first set of data has been analyzed in order to determine frequencies of responses for the question “What are you proud of in your community?” Based on the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) we can determine several connections between citizens’ responses. 66 variables have been reduced to 23 variables. All 23 components have an eigenvalue greater than 1; this indicates the significance of all components( Burley and Brown, 1995), however only components containing variables (subcategories) with loading values equal or greater than .4 will be discussed further (see grey cells in tables 14.12 and 14.13). PCA analysis just determines the number of dimensions and variables; it does not explain connections between each and the grouping of variables together. Such interpretations are done by the investigator and open to critiques and debate. Following is a discussion of initial interpretations, explanations and inquiries for components, which meet the criteria for strong association. Principal component 1 meets 10.3% of variance, labeled “core strengths” and is the strongest association in the data set. Component contains 9 discreet variables and they all have positive direction. Positive direction means people tend to choose them together; i.e. if citizens mention one of the features they tend to mention the other eight. Discreet variables for component 1 are green and open space, flowers, parking, railroads/trains, small town, groceries, aesthetics, library and school/university. Examples of responses in these variables include green space and open space within the community, and flower boxes along streets. The variable 58 parking indicates availability of parking, specifically parking lots, their quality, sufficiency and location. Appearance of this variable is not surprising, as parking is one of the vital needs for citizens on daily basis, including parking next to their houses, in downtown area and next to recreational areas. Because rural communities tend to have minimal public transportation, private vehicles are their primary model of transit. Taking in account this factor, parking is definitely characterized as a basic need. The variable railroads/trains indicates availability and conditions of train stations and railroads within communities. Responses within this variable are “train depot, monorail, etc”. At first the appearance of this variable was surprising as some may see railroads and trains as negative characteristic of the community due to noise and traffic. However, this variable has positive characteristics. Such, some communities indicate railroads, trains and stations as one of the character features, and it may be suggested to preserve and develop such features in future as an icon of their heritage. Also, for various communities availability of railroads indicates connection with bigger cities, other regions, and the country as a whole. Railroads may also indicate availability of industrial connections, they may be used to provide community with various basic products, and transport goods. Based on such responses within the variable small town as “small town feel, small town America”, the assumption can be made that it indicates an important character of the communities for their residents. This variable indicates that residents of rural communities have strong feelings about their perceived traditional qualities of a small town. However this raises the question of what citizens mean by “small town”. This may be indicative of what they sense as traditional town or it could reference size. Further studies are needed to clarify this variable. Groceries is another variable that represents features are needed on a daily basis, and the appearance of this variable as a basic need for citizens is one of few that were expected by the 59 investigator. The variable aesthetics includes such features as a community theme, facades of buildings, architectural features, and beautification of the community. Appearance of this variable is not surprising for investigator due to common sense. People in general tend to want to live in communities appealing architecturally and design wise (Norman, 1995). This variable is also very broad and needs further clarification. Library and school/university are two variables which are being considered as enhancing yet basic, as they bring more value and resources into the community. Educational opportunities are a draw for residents into area and create more appealing and desirable place to live (Sweet, Swisher, Moen, 2005). Based on the analysis above, we can determine that all of the features of the nine discreet variables are basic elements of place for citizens of rural Michigan communities. In summary, nine variables of principal component 1, associated with positive comments assets are: green and open space, flowers, parking, railroads/trains, small town, groceries, aesthetics, library and school/university. The remaining principal components 2, 3 and 4 represent between 5% and 7% of the variance. While the variance is small, they provide insight into the complexities of design for rural communities. Principal component 2 meets 7% of the variance and labeled “expression of community values”. Component contains four variables; three of them have positive direction and one negative. This indicates that if citizens mentioned one of three variables with positive direction, they tend to mention other two and do not mention variable with negative directions. Discreet variables with loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 2 are wildlife, nature, senior activities and history. The variable wildlife indicates such response as “bears, bird migration, 60 swans, etc”. The variable nature indicates such features as “natural beauty, rural beauty, etc”. The variable senior activities represents such citizens’ responses as “senior hot lunch program, senior citizen’s club” etc. The variable history has negative direction. For example, citizens who picked this variable did not pick any of the other discreet variables such as nature or wildlife. Based on such responses within the variable history as “family history, heritage, etc” allows investigator to state that citizens of small communities tend to have pride of their history and keep heritage of communities as one of the main characteristics of them. Appearance of this variable as polar to others in this component may indicate that some communities are more oriented towards historical value and some towards natural features. This can have a significant impact on direction for future design and highlights potential internal conflict of values impacting design decisions. For example, preservation of battle fields versus restoring them back to forest. Principal component 3 meets 6% of the variance and labeled “draw and access to the community”. Component contains six variables, three of them have positive direction and three negative direction. This indicates that if citizens mentioned one of three variables with positive direction, they tend to mention the other two with a positive direction and do not mention any of the three variables with negative directions. Variables with a loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 3 are landscape, trails/bike paths, farmers market, lake, traffic/speed and city services. Variables with negative direction are landscape, trails/bike paths and farmers market. The variance landscape represents such responses as “landscaped community, riverview landscape”, etc. The variance trails/bike paths indicates availability and convenience of trails and paths for such recreational activities as jogging and bicycling. The variance farmers market indicates availability of farmers market within the community. Appearance of this variable not in 61 all communities indicates that not all of the participated communities currently have this feature. The variance lake states for availability and condition of lakes in communities. The variance traffic/speed includes such responses as “good traffic flow, low traffic” etc. High traffic may be seen as positive feature for some communities as an indicator of good flow of business, for some communities low traffic is an indicator for safety. The variance city services include such features of community as “fire and police departments, snow plowing”, etc. Principal component 4 meets 5.4% of the variance and labeled “sports”. It contains only one variable sports with strong association. This variable includes such features as “ball fields, bowling alley, golf course”, etc. Majority of responses in this variance stand for increasing numbers of sports amenities. Lack of other significant variances within this component indicates its strengths and uniqueness. This may be a standalone issue that needs to be addressed. Principal component 5 meets 5.1% of the variance and labeled “attraction facilities and safety.” The cluster contains three variables; two of them have positive direction and one is negative. This indicates that if citizens mentioned one of two variables with positive direction, they tend to mention the other one and do not mention variable with negative directions. Variables with a loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 5 are tourism/recreation/lodging, safety and theater. The variable with negative direction is theater. The variable tourism/recreation/lodging includes such features as “bed and breakfast, horse track bringing people, outdoor recreational activities”. The variable safety indicates low crime rates and overall safety of the community. This assumption is based on such responses as “safe community, feeling of safety, do not have to lock doors”, etc. The variable theater indicates availability of such entertainment amenities as movie theaters and theaters. Appearance of this 62 variable as polar to tourism/recreation/lodging and safety determines that not all of the respondent communities have entertainment features currently. Second PCA analysis has been run for responses on question “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Based on the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) we can determine several connections between citizens’ responses. 69 variables have been reduced to 23 components. All of the components have loading value greater than 1 and are significant (Burley and Brown, 1995). Further will be discussed only components containing discreet variables with loading value being equal or greater than .4 (Tables 4.14 and 4.15). PCA analysis just determines number of dimensions and variables; it does not explain connections between such and grouping of variables together. Such interpretation is to be done by investigator and open for criticism and debate. Following is a discussion of initial interpretation, explanations and inquiries for components, which meet criteria for strong association. Majority of responses to the question are starting with words “better, more, less”. This factor indicates that currently citizens of rural communities of Michigan are not satisfied with quality of mentioned subcategories and would like them to be improved in the future. Therefore, variables discussed further are considered to be elements of place, which are in need to be improved and/or developed based on views citizens of rural communities of Michigan. Principal component 1 named “desired assets”. It represents 10.5% of variance and meets criteria for strongest association in this data set. Component contains of 13 variables and they all have positive direction. It states for tendency of people choose them together; i.e. if citizens mention of the features they tend to mention other 12. Variables with loading value equal or 63 greater than .4 for component 1 are wildlife, sports, playgrounds, trails/bike paths, roads, walkability, other utilities, pollution, development, groceries, fast/quick food, aesthetics, signage and theater. The variable wildlife includes responses such as “many animals, more deer in the woods”, etc. It indicates desire of residents to see more of wild life in their communities. To support this variable preservation or creation of habitat is vital. Recreation for all age groups is another important asset. The variable sports include all types of sport amenities, their availability, quality, variations of sporting types, etc. This can be assumed based on such responses within this variable as “ice rink, baseball field, bowling alley”, etc. The variable playground indicates appearance of similar features as sports but for younger population. Responses within this variable are “better swings, playground, wooden play structure, etc”. Based on such citizens’ responses as “bike trail around lake, more bike paths” we can determine that trails/bike paths variable also indicates availability and condition of recreational options for residents The variable roads includes such responses of the citizens about quality of roads as “better access to back roads, better roads, brick streets restored”. The variable walkability may be seen in two different ways. On one hand it may refer to availability of walking options for residents within the community. Such assumption is made for such responses as “more sidewalks, better pedestrian access”, etc. On the other hand, along with variable roads it may represent main areas of main concern for citizens due to their poor quality. Due to weather conditions in Michigan, roads are being one of hardest infrastructure to maintain. Overall, citizens wanted vehicle and pedestrian access, in general, and in good condition. Another question that may be asked is how community defines quality of roads, what is aesthetically pleasing for communities. Such, some of rural communities appeared and emerged based on 64 highways location. Therefore, appearance of major roads, such as highways is vital for them. Other communities are located within suburban areas or bigger cities. Another factor which will have influence on these variables may be type of community. What difference, if there is one, does it make between farming and bedroom community (Mumford, 1968). In order to determine such, further and deeper research is needed. Other utilities include infrastructure utilities of communities, such as power lines, internet broadband, sewage and drainage systems, etc. This variable may be linked with roads. Roads and other utilities may be seen as features that need to be improved quality wise. And some of responses in other utilities and in roads refer to beautification of the communities. This is based on such comments of respondents as “would like to see buried power lines”, “paved streets”, etc. In general, communities would like to see buried power lines, better maintenance of septic systems and increasing of quality of communication features, such as internet. On the other hand, the variable other utilities may be tied together with pollution. This indicates water contamination for septic systems, air pollution from industry, to noise pollutions from traffic. Development is the variable that states that people want to see more development within their communities. Responses within this variable include “commercial and industrial growth, more development within downtown area”, etc. From a design perspective this variable needs to be considered in tandem with the “what are you proud of in your community” variable of “core strengths”, specifically “small town”. The following variables appear as desire of respondents to increase and improve life styles of people of rural communities of Michigan. This includes convenience, entertainment and groceries. Based on responses within the variable fast/quick food we can indicate desire of citizens to see such convenience establishments as “coffee shops, burger king”, etc in the future. 65 The variable signage represents such features as adequate and accurate signage. They include both directional signs and signage of businesses within community. Such may be determined based on such responses as “neon sign for plaza, better signs at the exit from highway, etc.” The variable theater includes both “movie theaters” and “theatres”. The variable groceries indicates desire of citizens to have “grocery stores” and “farmers market” within their communities. Principal component 2 represents 6.6% of the variance. It is named “natural assets activities”. Component contains six variables; three of them have positive direction and three negative. This indicates that if citizens mentioned variable with positive direction, they tend to mention other three variables and tend not to mention any of three variables with negative directions. Variables with loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 2 are marina, park, fishing/hunting, zoning/planning/land use, quality/calm/pace and lighting. Variables with negative directions are park, zoning/planning/land use and lighting. Tendency of respondents to pick these variables together may be explained by different criteria. Park is a recreational activity, which is related to zoning/planning/land use category. Respondents may connect them due to importance of park feature in the communities and to indicate importance of planning process and land use in creation of such. Lighting is the variable that may be related to parks as well. This variable includes responses of citizens indicating such features as aesthetics of lighting in community, availability of such and may indicate concerns about safety issues. Safety issues related to lighting usually appear on big open spaces, and park is one of places, which may be considered such. Variables with positive direction in this component represent various activities within communities. The variable fishing/hunting represents both recreational and tourist activities. Responses of citizens in the variable marina included such features as availability of clean 66 marina and development of it. Depending on definition of “development of marina”, it may be seen as an amenity for recreational activities, such as kayaking, canoeing, fishing, etc. Further, the variable quality/calm/slow represents that communities would like to be calm and pace places for living in the future. This may be seen as a type of activity of community as well, which indicates that citizens would like to see peaceful community with quite activities in the future, and with activities which will increase quality of lives. Principal component 3 is named “liquor/drugs” and represents 5.8% of the variance. It contains only one variable liquor/drugs with strong association. This variable includes such features of communities as availability and quality of liquor and drug stores. Majority of responses in this variable stands for reducing numbers of such establishments. Lack of other significant variances within this component indicates its strengths and unique. Stand alone issue to be addressed. Principal component 4 represents 5.6% of the variance. It is named “desired natural features”. Component contains four variables; three of them have positive direction and one negative. This indicates that if citizens mentioned the variable with positive direction, they tend to mention other two variables and tend not to mention the variable with negative directions. Variables with loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 4 are wood/forest, lake, nature and teens and kids activities. The variable with negative directions is teens and kids activities. Features with positive direction represent natural features of communities. Teens and kids activities represent availability of amenities and quality of such for younger population. This variable does not represent a natural feature, and this may be the reason why respondents tend not to mention them together with natural features. Keeping in mind that this data set is done for indicating elements that citizens would like to see more developed or established in the future, 67 another assumption is made. Such tendency appears due to the fact that some of communities have well developed established amenities and opportunities for different activities for younger crowd. Therefore, being happy with current conditions of such establishments, citizens of such communities do not desire future development of them. Principal component 5 represents 5.1% of the variance and labeled “better access to public convenience”. Component contains three variables; two of them have positive direction and one negative. This indicates that if citizens mentioned variable with positive direction, they tend to mention other one and tend not to mention variable with negative direction. Variables with loading value equal or greater than .4 for component 5 are river, school/university and convenient stores. The variable with negative direction is school/university. School/university is potentially a feature which enhances the value of a community. Different communities have different basic needs. Such, for some communities availability of university establishment may be basic need, which brings revenue and values to the community. School feature may have different explanation as well. Due to low population of the rural communities, schools may exist within one community and serve students from neighboring communities and small towns. Therefore, for communities where school presents, such feature may be basic and not in need of developing or establishing. Such communities may be more oriented towards developing natural features, presented by the variable river within this component and basic needs, presented by convenient stores within this component. However, current set of data does not allow investigator to fully analyze such pattern without additional studies. Conclusion 68 This investigation is an initial step in identifying key elements of place in rural communities across Michigan. PCA allows identification of hidden patterns and dimensions of citizens' responses to two questions. The more challenging task is to interpret these findings. Initial interpretations that are discussed in this chapter may be considered as hypotheses for future research and will be tested in future investigations. In order to test such hypothesis responses must be tested for communities based on their population, location and type; i.e. if a community is “bedroom” or farming/agricultural. Sorting responses for research is more likely to yield several subcategories and determine if the size, location and type of community have a significant influence on citizens' choices. With further research it may be determined if there are commonplace signature elements across diverse rural Michigan communities Table 5.1 List of principal components and discreet variables within them with most significant loading values for both data sets. Principal component PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5 What are you proud of in your community? Core strengths Parking, flowers, railroads/trains Expression of community’s values Wildlife, seniors activities, nature Draw and access to community Landscape, lake, city services Sports Attraction Facilities and Safety Tourism/recreation/lodging, theater, safety 69 “If you would fly over (name of community) in a hot air balloon 5-10 years from now, what would you like to see?” Assets Sports, roads, signage Natural assets and activities Marina, fishing/hunting, quality/calm/slow Liquor/Drugs Desired natural features Nature, lake, teens and kids activities Better Access to public convenience School/universities, convenient stores, river Even with the limitations of this study, broad design implications can be presented. Based on the table 5.1 we can see most important and valuable elements of place for citizens. One of most interesting and needed to be taken in account for future design implementations is possible conflict within principal component 2 “Expression of community’s values”. This conflict arises between historical preservation and recreation of green features of community, such as habitat for wildlife. Designer should keep this conflict in mind in order to create suitable design for specific community. Such conflict appears between polar variables, which indicate that communities can be divided into ones that put more value towards historical preservation and those who put more value towards natural features. Design of the community must recognize and indicate which of these features is more important for specific community and why. Another two significant components for future considerations in designing process are “Sports” and “Liquor/drugs”. These components have only one significant variance within each and named after them. These features and considerations of citizens about them must be included into design process in the future. Based on the literature review we can see that there is no one particular unique technique, which may be used to determine key elements of place in various communities. In order to do such additional studies needed to determine possible ways of grouping communities by various features, such as location, size and type. This proves that hypothesis there are participation methods, which are most suitable and successful for each particular type of community, i.e. for urban or rural, is false. Current methods also did not allow the investigator to determine which of the responses have the strongest and most important values for respondents. Such investigation may be done using additional surveys with close-ended responses. Survey may be done in two different ways 70 and potentially will have different outcomes. Developing and collecting of responses in written survey will allow the investigator to determine which of the selected variables (subcategories) in particular have stronger values. However, if the survey will include illustrations of the elements of places, potentially it will allow an investigator to determine the physical appearance of elements of place more accurately. Current research identified key elements for rural communities. Rural communities for this particular study were identified as communities with a population not exceeding 15,000 residents. Additional studies may be done in order to determine if there is a significant difference between rural and urban communities. Urban communities may be determined based on their population and location. Therefore, research may be done for different sets of both rural and urban communities, defined by similar characteristics; i.e. if urban is defined by population, rural communities need to be defined in same way. A weakness of the collected data may be that collected responses are only from rural communities of Michigan. However, in order to see if there is significant difference between rural and urban communities, similar research must be done for urban communities. Different investigators may define an urban community in different ways. Some define urban by population size, some by distance from rural settings. In order to define differences between rural and urban communities, such decisions should be made and additional data must be collected. Despite of all the critiques discussed above, one can assume that all methods and data represent views of successful rural communities of Michigan, additional research question could include how chosen features may be improved. 71 One of the hypotheses that can be raised based on this research is that respondents tend to choose the same subcategories and features for future development and improvements that they have within their communities presently, features that they are comfortable with and consider as basics. Since this statement appeared to be true based on this research, additional techniques of public participation may be developed, where people are being “forced” to think “outside of the box”. This hypothesis needs additional research. Based on number of responses in participated communities (see table 3.9) we can determine that respondents showed interest in the studies. Such interest should be taken further. Planners must include the public into the planning process. Today we are facing the idea that public opinion is not always being included into the planning process on a deep level. This has been supported by the literature review of this research. The majority of communities take into account public interest, opinions, and views of community, only the final revision step of community planning. This does not allow the public to make decisions specifically on design aspect of projects. However, in the end of citizens are land decision makers. Such a process does not always allow citizens to participate in the design process and fully understand the project. This research and suggested studies are one of first steps in identifying key elements of communities. They allow planners to indicate which design elements are needed for citizens based on their opinion. Despite acknowledgements of necessity and importance of participatory in community planning, there is much further study and research needed. This research allows planners to implement some elements of design in rural communities of Michigan, however in order to create successful communities similar studies must be done the various types of each. 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY 73 Bibliography: 1. Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224. 2. Barbara Faga, FASLA (2006). Designing Public Consensus. The Civic Theater for Community Participation for Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners and Urban Designers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. 3. Beatley, Timothy. (2004) Native to Nowhere. Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age. Washington: Islandpress 4. Brooks, Michael P.(2002) Planning Theory for Practitioners, APA Planners Press, Chicago, Ill. 5. Bruner, Jerome (1967). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press 6. Bryson, J.M. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. JosseyBass, San Francisco. 7. Burley, J.B., and Brown, T.J. (1995). Constructing interpretable environments from multidimensional data: GIS suitability overlays principle component analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 38: 537-50 8. Campbell, Scott & Fainstein, Susan.(2003) Readings in Planning Theory. 2nd edition Blackwell Publishers. 9. Checkoway,B. (1986) Building Citizen Support for Planning and the Community Level, New Brunswick, NJ 10. Clavel, Pierre. (1994) The Evolution of Advocacy Planning, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol.60, No.2, American Planning Association. Chicago. IL 74 11. Connor, Desmond D.(1988) A New Ladder of Citizen Participation. National Civic Review, Vol. 77, Iss. 3, pages 248-257 12. Creighton, J.L. (1981). The public involvement manual. Cambridge, MA. 13. Crowe, Norman. (1995). Nature and the idea of a man-made world: An investigation into the evolutionary roots of form and order in built environment. London: MIT press. 14. Davidoff, Paul. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning (196). In Readings in Planning Theory. Edited by Scott Campbell and Susan Fainstein. Malden,MA: Blackwell, 1996 15. Francis, Mark and Lorenzo, Ray. (2002) Seven Realms of Children’s participation, Journal of environmental psychology,22: 157-169 16. Frank, Kathryn I. (2006).The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning, Journal of Planning Literature, May, vol. 20 no. 4, pp. 351-371 17. Friedman, Zimring and Zube. (1978) Environmental Design Evolution, New York: Plenum Press 18. Glass, James J. (1979) Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1939-0130, Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 180 – 189 19. Gray, J.E. and Chapin, L.W. (1998) Targeted community initiative:”Putting citizens first”. In “Government is us”, Thousand Oaks, CA. 20. Gurstein, Penny and Lovato, Chris and Ross, Sally (2003) Youth Participation in Planning: Strategies for Social Action. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Vol. 12 75 21. Hamdi, N., Goethert,R. (1997) Action Planning for Cities. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 22. Hester, Randolph T. Jr. (1984). Planning Neighborhood space with People, Second edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinold Company. 23. Hiss, Tony. (1990). The experience of place: A new way of looking at and dealing with out radically changing cities and countryside. New York: Vintage Books 24. Hooks, Bell. (1990) Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics, South End Press, Boston, MA. 25. Hough, Michael. (1990). Out of place: Restoring identity to the regional landscape. London: Yale University Press. 26. IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation) (2000) Public Participation Spectrum. International Association for Public Participation. Retrieved from http://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/spectrum.html. 27. IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation) (2003) The IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox. International Association for Public Participation. Retrieved from http://www.iap2.org/boardlink/toolbox.pdf. 28. Irazabal, Clara (2005). City Making and Urban Governance in the Americas. University of Southern California: ASHGATE 29. Jolliffe, I.T. (2002). Principal Component Analysis, Second edition, Journal of Educational Psychology 24, pp.417–441, 498–520. 30. Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via reference: a strategy for studying how the environmental is experienced. Landscape planning 12: 161-76 31. King, C.S., Feltey, K.M., and Susel, B.O.(1998) The question of Participation toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, Vol.58, No.4. 76 32. Langton S. (1978). What is citizen participation? Citizen participation in America, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 33. Lindsley, Gail and Todd, Joel Ann and Hayter, Sheila J. (2003) A handbook for Planning and conducting charrettes for High-performance projects. NREL. 34. Marris, Peter (1994) Advocacy Planning as a Bridge Between the Professional and the Political, Journal of American Planning Association, American Planning Association Vol.60, No.2. Chicago. IL, 35. May, J.V.(1969) Two model cities: development on the local level. Presented at the Convention of the American Political Science Association, New York city. 36. McClure, Wendy R. and Bartuska, Tom J.(2007). The Built Environment: A collaborative Inquiry into Design and Planning, Second edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2007 37. Mumford, Lewis (1968). The Urban Prospect: The Highway and the City., New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 92-107 38. Naparstek, A.J., Dooley, D. and Smith. (1997) Community Building in Public Housing, Washington DC. 39. New urbanism: Comprehensive report & best practices guide. (2003), written and edited by the staff of New Urban News with special contributors, Ithaca, N.Y: New Urban Pub. 40. Okubo, D. (1997) The Community Visioning and Strategic Planning Handbook. National Civic League Press, Denver, CO. 41. Pittman, K.J. (1996) Community, Youth, Development: Three Goals in Search of Connection, New Designs for Youth Development, 12. 42. Potapchuk, William R.(1991) New Approaches to Citizen Participation: Building Consent. National Civic Review, Vol. 82, Iss. 2, pages 158-168. 43. Concept of Pure Michigan, retrieved from www.michigan.org 77 44. Ramasubramanian, L. (1994). Integrating, Theory, Method and Knowledge: Strategies for Improving research Utilization. University of Wisconsin 45. Rosner, J.(1978). Matching Method to Purpose: The Challenges of Planning Citizens Participation activities. In Citizen Participation in America, Lexington Books, New York. 46. Sanoff, Henry, (2000). Community participation methods in Design and Plannning, John Wiley and Sons. 47. Schlerenth, Thomas J. (1983). Burnham’s Plan and Moody’s Manual: City Planning as Progressive Reform, Journal of the American Planning Association 47, 1: 71-83. 48. Smith, Carl (2005). The plan of Chicago. The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago, Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, retrieved from www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/10537.html 49. Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 50. Stieglitz, Orit.(1999) Advocacy Planning and the Question of the Self and the Other, Critical Planning, V 6:57-62 51. Strauss, Anselm and Corbin, Juliet. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Second edition, California, US: Sage Publications. 52. Sugrue, Thomas (1996) Origins of the Urban Crisis. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 53. Swanson B.E., R.A. Cohen and Swanson E.P. (1979) Small towns and small towners. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 54. Sweet, Stephen and Swisher, Raymond and Moen, Phyllis. (2005) Selecting and Assessing the Family-Friendly Community: Adaptive Strategies of Middle-Class, Dual78 Earner Couples. Family Relations, Vol. 54, No. 5: pp. 596-606. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40005264 55. The USA population tables, retrieved from www.census.gov 56. Thomas, R.L., M.C. Means, M.A. Grieve. (1988) Taking Charge: How Communities are Planning Their Futures. International City Management Association, Washington, D.C 57. U.S. Standard Enabling Acts retrieved from http://planning.org/search/results.htm?Keyword=enabling+acts 58. White, Bradford J. and Edmondson, Paul W. (2001) Procedural Due Process in Plain English: A Guide for Preservation Commissions. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 79