Public Participation in World Heritage Planning: From Evolution to Implementation
When Paul Davidoff introduced his theory of advocacy planning (Davidoff, 1965), he did not explicitly call for the active participation of the local communities that are affected by the planning decisions, but he urged the professional planner to become an advocate who represents the interests of constituencies. Davidoff also emphasized the need to provide choices and transparency: ‘great care must be taken [so] that choices remain in the area of public view and participation’ (Davidoff, 1965: 332). Inspired by marketing tactics, David Godschalk and William Mills (1966) introduced their collaborative planning theory that drew on the idea of marketing experts as ‘skilled counsellors’ who help consumers define their desires and who work ‘with rather than for’ the various sub-communities (Godschalk and Mills, 1966: 86). Unlike advocacy planning, collaborative planning underscored the representation of the needs and interests of the stakeholders rather than the representation of the constituencies themselves (Godschalk and Mills, 1966). Collaborative planning thus shifted the emphasis from ‘who is representing’ to ‘what is being represented’. Accordingly, the representation of the various sub-communities occurs either through the election of representatives or through direct self-representation, such as during public meetings. In contrast to these views, Edmund Burke (1968) considered the needs and objectives of the planning organization as the point of departure for any participatory planning process. Citizen participation, according to Burke, entailed five strategies, beginning with the education-therapy of constituencies in order to promote their self-confidence and self-reliance. This strategy of behavioural change supposedly induced change among select individuals who would then influence the behaviour of their own respective groups. The selection of skilled volunteers from the constituencies would also serve as a strategy to supplement the staff of the planning organization, which, in particular cases, might be elevated to cooptation so as to ‘prevent anticipated obstructionism’ (Burke, 1968: 291). Lastly, the planning organization could utilize the strategy of community power by identifying influential individuals or groups who, in turn, would exercise their will ‘over the opposition of others’ in order to achieve the objectives of the planning organization (Ibid.).