Section: ARTICLES

REPRESENTATION IN COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: AN ANALYSIS OF THE AUSTINPLAN PROCESS

This article examines the representativeness of the process, known as Austinplan, by which the City of Austin involved over 1,000 citizens in preparing a new comprehensive plan. The participants were more affluent and better-educated than most Austin citizens; their views, however, were similar to those of the general public on problems, urban conditions, and values. On the other hand, significant differences occurred between these groups on some important public policy positions, perhaps resulting from knowledge gained from prior participation in civic affairs, or participation in Austinplan itself. Differences on policy between participants and the general public could lead to conflict about specific plans and strategies. This may be an instance of a classic issue: should representatives act as delegates of a citizenry less informed than they are about the subjects at hand, or should they act as trustees on behalf of the civic good as they perceive it to emerge from the process of deliberation?

Austin, the capitol of Texas and the home of the main campus of the University of Texas, has a history of an active citizenry. It is said that in Austin everything is done by committee. In light of that reputation, it is not surprising that Austin's 1989 comprehensive plan, known as Austinplan, was the productzz of an unusually extensive process of citizen involvement. In the Austinplan process, the planners, technical experts, and full-time politicians took a back seat to citizen participators.

This article reports a small portion of the findings from a multi-year research project examining the Austinplan process. It addresses the question of how representative the citizen participation process was. The analysis compared the socio-economic characteristics and policy attitudes of Austinplan participants with those of a random sample of Austin residents.[ 1]

The Austin experience holds considerable implication for citizen participation in land-use and comprehensive planning in other communities. We interpret it to mean that citizens can contribute effectively to substantive discussions, and that their opinions may reflect many opinions of the citizenry at large. But citizen participation does not guarantee against subsequent political conflict or ensure implementation of the plans proposed; in fact, participating in the deliberations may produce a more sophisticated sense of the trade-offs between competing values and the relationships among goals and policies, thus contributing to differences-of opinion between participants in the discussion and nonparticipants. One of the goals of this article is to explore whether, and why, differences of opinion may occur between citizens who participate in deliberative processes and citizens who do not participate.

The Importance of Representation

In designing processes and structures for citizen involvement in local planning, administrators and elected officials must be concerned with representation. The legitimacy and credibility of comprehensive plans may be questioned if sizable though sometimes uninfluential, or small but often influential groups have been excluded. Citizen participation is widely accepted as desirable in any local land-use or comprehensive planning process (Arnstein 1969; Burke 1968; Glass 1975). Indeed, the AICP/APA "Ethical Principles in Planning" call on planning process participants to "recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions," and "strive to give citizens . . . the opportunity to have a meaningful role in the development of plans and programs" (American Institute of Certified Planners/American Planning Association 1992, 1; Howe 1992; Lucy 1988).

How representative citizen participation processes are depends on which concept of representation is applied. The alternative definitions include:

"descriptive representation" (the extent to which participants are descriptively similar to the larger groups they are intended to represent);

"opinion representation" (also referred to as the "delegate" form of representation: the extent to which participant opinions are similar to those of the larger group); and

"trustee representation" (the assumption that participants will apply independent judgment and act according to conscience, while also considering what they have learned during deliberations, and will present the sum of their actions to the voters for approval or disapproval in the next election).

These criteria for representativeness of citizen participation processes are applied later in analyzing the Austinplan experience.

Planning professionals disagree, however, about how representative participation processes are, and about the impact participation has and should have on final plans; the literature reflects these debates. Some theorists argue that citizen participation mechanisms cannot be counted on for balanced and representative expression of community-wide opinions (Jackson and Slade 1973). One group of authors suggests that unbalanced participation occurs in large part because those involved generally have higher socio-economic status than do the nonparticipants, or because the participants make scant use of their resources in politics (Verba and Nie 1972; Verba et al. 1992). Others argue that because of the power and influence of certain groups and interests, neither direct nor indirect participation will necessarily bring about a representative policy (Gaventa 1980; Hunter 1954; Logan and Molotch 1987; Mollenkopf 1983; Stone 1976).

Some argue, however, that citizen participation processes are substantially representative. Gundry and Heberlein (1984), for example, compared the demographic characteristics and attitudes on issues of participants in public meetings with those of the broader public, for three policy issues: limiting the use of road salt in Madison, Wisconsin, changing the deer hunting season in Wisconsin, and resource management policy in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. They found that despite income and education differences between the participants and the broader public, there were few statistically significant differences between these groups on policy issues, leading to the conclusion that "public meetings may be a useful and valid tool for capturing a reasonably accurate picture of public opinion on a variety of issues" (Gundry and Heberlein 1984, 181).

On the other hand, much of the literature describes substantial differences of opinion between the most active participants, the less active participants and the general public. Political activists' opinions differ from inactivists' opinions on democracy, civil liberties, capitalism, and public policy issues (McClosky, Hoffman, and O'Hara 1960; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Verba and Nie 1972, 274-84). Opinions of office holders tend to resemble those of activists more than those of their less active constituents (Verba and Nie 1972, 305-08). Legislators have been shown to make inaccurate estimates of their constituents' preferences (Hedlund and Friesma 1972; Miller and Stokes 1966). Preferences stated in the letters legislators receive do not accurately reflect the views of constituents as a whole (Dexter 1956). Even survey responses can be misleading: some people may oppose a proposal because they believe others would be damaged by it, yet those who supposedly would be damaged may support the proposal. Such a pattern was discovered by Patton (1983) in an analysis of opinions about a redevelopment project; those who were being displaced from the site were found to favor the project. In addition, opinions may change rapidly during referenda campaigns, even reversing direction (Albrecht and Geertsen 1978). Voters also can retain erroneous impressions about issues right up to election day (Butler and Ranney 1978). Empirical research thus presents abundant grounds for skepticism about the ability of public officials to discern their constituents' opinions accurately, considerable evidence that activists and inactivists hold different opinions, and some evidence that opinions can reverse direction rapidly in response to campaign propaganda. All in all, the findings raise doubts that the opinions of citizen representatives will accurately mirror the opinions of the general populace.

The Austinplan Process

Austinplan began in a charter amendment passed by referendum in January, 1985. The amendment required the city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan within a certain time. According to the mission statement adopted by the Austin City Council in February 1986, the plan was to be a legally binding document that would accomplish at least the following (City of Austin 1986, 7):

• Describe the community's vision of where it hoped to be in the year 2020;
• establish the policy direction needed to reach that future;
• specify the tools for implementing those policies; and
• evaluate the costs of carrying out the plan.

The process by which Austinplan was developed is in many ways as significant as the plan it produced. A key step was the appointment by the City Council of a 94-member Steering Committee to oversee preparation of the plan; a conscientious effort was made to include all factions and interest groups. Local officials believed that the failure of an earlier citywide planning effort, Austin Tomorrow, was due in large part to having excluded certain influential political interests (Beatley 1987). The Austinplan Steering Committee therefore represented nine groups: business, culture, environmental, ethnic minority, human services, neighborhoods, public sector, real estate, and community at large.

The 1989 comprehensive plan addressed fourteen subjects. They include transportation, the environment, land use, housing, economic development, and nine other subjects. Task groups were formed to deal with each of these substantive elements. For each, the task group was to determine "the key issues affecting future growth, . . . objectives and policies to accomplish City goals, . . . a program of implementation techniques to carry out these policies, and . . . a fiscal assessment of the implementation techniques" (City of Austin 1986, 7). Each of those components was to be "specific enough to be used in the evaluation of development projects and proposals for capital improvements" (City of Austin 1986, 8). Each member of the steering committee was also a member of one or more of the task groups.

Each task group completed three milestone reports: Milestone 1, a "context for evaluation" (assessing existing conditions and trends, and identifying important values and critical issues); Milestone 2, a "strategy for action" (stating goals, objectives and policies and exploring how such substantive policy relates to other areas); and Milestone 3, a "plan for implementation" (relevant criteria and standards, plans, maps, and ordinances). The three sets of reports were used to prepare plan elements, which were integrated into the draft plan submitted to the City Council; a special integration committee composed of steering committee and task group members helped with this process.

The work of the land-use task group, which formulated the spatial orientation and layout of the city through the year 2020, had major implications for the work of the other task groups. This task group considered five alternative growth scenarios. The responses of steering committee and task group members to these scenarios were considered in developing a preferred overall growth scenario, which the Steering Committee endorsed. The scenario mapped the city's areas of future urban and suburban growth, outlying growth centers, and areas for environmental protection and special management. This land use map was the foundation for more extensive sub-area or "sector" planning, a major component of Austinplan.

The planning for each of these geographic sectors of Austin has involved even more citizens in Austinplan. The process divided the city into 22 sectors, each usually including several neighborhoods. Each sector had its own sector council and bylaws for making decisions. More than 1,000 people were active in the steering committee, task groups, and sector planning programs.

The plan was completed and submitted to the city's planning commission in 1989. After extensive reviews by the city's boards and commissions, the planning commission forwarded the plan and suggested modifications to the city council, recommending its adoption with the changes suggested. The Council has never adopted the plan, however; it has been allowed to languish as a result of a major change in the composition of the city council and worsening economic conditions.[ 2] Despite the fate of the document itself, the history of Austinplan offers unique opportunities to test the representativeness of such extensive citizen-based planning processes.

Assessing the Representativeness of Austinplan

Representativeness was evaluated through several mail questionnaires which sought to gauge attitudes about growth and planning issues in Austin. The questionnaires were administered to two groups: Austinplan participants,[3] and a random sample of the general Austin population. Two sets of questionnaires were administered to Austinplan participants, one in 1987, approximately one year into the process, and another in 1989, as the process was ending. Only one questionnaire was administered to a general sample of the Austin citizenry, mailed at approximately the same time (1987) as the initial Austinplan participants' questionnaire. The assessment of representation to follow draws primarily upon comparisons between the results of: the Austin general population survey and the initial Austinplan participants' questionnaire. However, while this analysis does not undertake an extensive comparison of the 1987 and 1989 Austinplan participants' questionnaires, some insights are gleaned from the changes in responses of the Austinplan participants between the two questionnaires.

The Austinplan participants' questionnaires surveyed all regular participants in the process (members of the Steering Committee and the substantive task groups). In the case of the general Austin survey, a systematic random sample was employed, with names drawn from the city's records of residents receiving electricity, or public sewer and water service.[4]

We emphasize that the research findings presented here are speculative and exploratory. While the response rates for Austinplan participants were fairly good (61 percent and 41 percent for the 1987 and 1989 questionnaires, respectively), the response rate for the general Austin sample was considerably lower (about 20 percent). Moreover, the modest number of respondents in the latter survey (about 250) suggests a sizable sampling error.[5] We believe, however, that the findings presented here, while certainly not definitive, provide significant insights into the likely representativeness of similar programs of citizen participation.

One way to assess representation is to compare relevant characteristics of the representatives with those of the people whom they are representing. Pitkin (1980,61) refers to this as descriptive representation: "True representation . . . . requires that the legislature be so selected that its composition corresponds accurately to that of the whole nation; only then is it really a representative body." Our study used the 1980 U.S. Census of Population data for Austin. Demographic and other background information was collected from the Austinplan participants by using the mail questionnaire.

The income levels for Austinplan participants were quite high--60 percent earned over $40,000 and only 6 percent earned $20,000 or less annually (as recorded in the 1987 survey). In contrast, fewer than 4 percent of Austin households earned over $50,000 in 1980, and 34 percent earned less than $10,000. The Austin planners were highly educated, with 56.6 percent holding graduate degrees; all had some college education. For the general population, the median number of years of schooling was 13.0, with 30 percent of the population having attended four or more years of college. In 1980, 18.7 percent of Austin's population was Hispanic, and 12.3 percent was black. As originally designed, the steering committee for Austinplan included places for minority members, representing about 6 percent of the original steering committee membership. The age distribution of Austinplan participants differed markedly from the city's age distribution as a whole. While the median age for Austin in 1980 was 27.1, there were no participants in Austinplan younger than 26. Thus, the demographic information reveals that the participants in the Austinplan process were not highly representative of the population at large.

Opinion Representation

The primary assumption of the "descriptive" notion of representation is that such characteristics bear directly on the attitudes and policy perspectives that participants express. This association has been described as "opinion-representation" (Perkins and Fowlkes 1980). Opinion representation can be partially tested by comparing responses to the questions administered to both Austinplan participants and the random sample of the general population (the 1987 surveys). T-tests were computed to determine whether differences between the two groups were statistically significant at the .05 level.

Respondents were asked a number of questions about problems, current conditions, and values related to the comprehensive plan. Substantial agreement emerged between the views of Austinplan participants and those of the general citizenry. Significant differences did occur, however, on several questions of public policy. The results of a survey question asking respondents to rank the importance of a list of community problems are presented in Table 1. There was a striking similarity between how Austinplan participants ranked issues and how the general population sample ranked them. Of the 21 specific issues, differences were statistically significant for only six. Moreover, the top ten issues of concern were almost identical for each group. Both groups agreed that the top three issues were water quality, traffic congestion, and loss of important natural areas, although they differed on their ordering.

Respondents also were asked a series of questions about the quality of life in Austin. The majority of both the Austinplan participants and the general public felt that the quality of life was either very good or excellent compared with that in other cities. Differences in the responses were not statistically significant. Most respondents in both groups believed that urban growth and development influence the quality of life, again with no statistical differences between the two groups. While both groups believed the quality of life was getting worse, the general population sample felt more strongly that this was the case (about 61 percent of the sample, compared with 49 percent of the Austinplan participants).

A substantial portion of both groups thought the rate of growth in the city was too high (no statistically significant difference). A majority of respondents believed either that the current population size was about right and should remain the same, or that it was about right and could accommodate additional population. The general public was more concerned about population growth, with a substantially larger percentage of respondents believing that the current population was too large (27 percent, compared to 13.5 percent for the Austinplan participants). Both groups strongly supported the need to manage urban growth (no statistically significant difference). There was almost complete consistency between the two respondent groups in attitudes about the deterioration of the natural environment in Austin (no statistically significant difference). Similar consistency existed on the need for parks and open space in Austin (no statistically significant difference).

Policy Differences

Several disagreements occurred between Austinplan participants and the general public on broad policy statements and some problems related to them. The strength of feeling in certain disagreements is noteworthy. Some of these opinions have a pattern that may bode ill for implementation of eventual plans.

Respondents were asked to strongly agree or strongly disagree with a number of policy and problem statements, with five possible gradations of strength of opinion. Those responses are reported in Table 2. In this discussion, we will summarize the scores in columns i and 2 as strongly agreeing and those in columns 4 and 5 as strongly disagreeing.

Austinplan participants strongly agreed (69.6 percent) on this point: "Urban sprawl is unsightly and leads to inefficiencies in the provision of public facilities such as sewer and water service. Government should seek to promote compact and contiguous growth." The Austin population did not feel as strongly about this; only 45.3 percent strongly agreed, a statistically significant difference. That was nevertheless substantial attitudinal support from the general populace. When this finding is matched with others, however; there is reason to question whether the general public supports the actions needed to promote compact development.

For example, significant differences occurred in responses to this statement: "The city should discourage the construction of high density/high rise types of development where it does not already exist." Many Austinplan participants (54.2 percent) disagreed strongly. In contrast, 59.0 percent of the general populace agreed strongly. Since more compact development requires greater density in some places, in responding to the previous statement about compact growth Austin residents may have been opposing sprawl and supporting compact development on the periphery, yet not supporting in fill development. From these viewpoints, serious conflicts could arise over the strategies for achieving more compact development.

Including developers in the decision-making process also could be controversial. Developers, of course, are likely to support more compact development, because more intense development of a particular piece of property promises more profit from it. Attitudes toward developers were distinctly different, however, in the two groups, as indicated by their responses to this statement: "Generally speaking, developers are mostly interested in turning a profit. We cannot count on them to consider the interests of the broader public." The Austin populace strongly agreed (72.2 percent) with these statements; Austinplan participants agreed somewhat (40.1 percent). But more than twice as many Austinplan participants as residents strongly disagreed (39.4 vs. 16.3 percent). This difference could reflect the willingness of Austinplanners to work with developers as a necessary means to achieve more compact development. The general public, on the other hand, may have had the attitude that "developers can't be trusted," which sometimes is associated with opposition to whatever developers favor.

The general public also expressed more skepticism about the fairness of using government regulations to achieve development patterns and other results. This statement was presented to both groups: "Government restrictions on the use of land represent unconstitutional 'takings' of private property and should be discouraged." The citizens in general were widely diverse in their opinions, including 37.5 percent who strongly disagreed. As for the Austinplanners, however, 63.6 percent strongly disagreed. Thus the Austinplanners seemed more open than the general public to working with developers, yet also more open to regulating the activities of developers.

Another issue that the Austinplanners viewed as important was affordable housing. This statement was put to the respondents: "Affordable housing for low and moderate income residents is a problem in Austin." A majority of the general public agreed (52.9 percent), but considerably more of the Austinplanners (74.8 percent) did so. Construction of affordable housing is more likely with compact development; it also often involves in fill development, creating higher density, and working with developers. The Austin-planners' opinions on these subjects seem rather consistent, the general public's less so.

The feasibility of constructing affordable housing is influenced by the behavior of neighborhood organizations. The pertinent statement here was this: "Neighborhood and homeowner groups too often are interested only in land use issues which directly affect them and are little concerned with the broader public interest." Majorities in both groups agreed with this statement, but the agreement was stronger among the Austinplanners (63.0 percent vs. 50.6 percent).

The general public and the Austinplanners reacted similarly to several statements about the natural environment, parks and open space, historic structures, and the biases of environmentalists.

As noted, a second survey was conducted in 1989 with the same panel of Austinplanner participants as in 1987, but with only one-half the number of respondents.[6] Several survey statements that were repeated were germane to the question of differences between Austinplanners and the general public about policy preferences and implementation prospects. The Austinplanners became even more critical of urban sprawl and supportive of "compact and contiguous growth," an increase from 69.6 percent to 76.8 percent, which is a wider difference from the 1987 general public's view than they showed in 1987 (Table 3). The 1989 Austinplanners also were slightly more inclined to favor the public good over private land-use rights (46.6 percent) than they were in 1987 (42.7 percent). The Austinplanners also had a heightened sense of environmental deterioration in Austin; by 1989, they were more skeptical of developers, and less skeptical of environmentalists. In these answers, as in answers to new questions, the 1989 Austinplan respondents seemed inclined to use government power to try to achieve environmental and land use objectives. The greater inclination of Austinplanners in 1989 to use government power contrasts with the declining confidence in government shown in national surveys in 1987 and 1988, a 10 percent decline in one year (Washington Post 1991).

Populists and Realists

On the basis of these responses, Austin residents in general could be called naive populists. They favored protecting the environment, historic preservation, parks, trees, and private property rights, while providing affordable housing and compact development, but they were skeptical about the virtues of government regulation, higher density, developers, environmentalists, and even neighborhood organizations. The term "populist" is adapted from the 1890s' Populist Party, which opposed powerful capitalists, especially the private railroads, and the government that often was dominated by big money interests (Satire 1978, 552-53; Spencer and Trittschuh 1962, 331). Our term "naive populists" is intended to suggest citizens who distrust organized public and private power centers and are inclined to believe that they, "the little people," (Safire 1978) are unlikely to benefit from any joint action by government and private business. The answers by Austin residents indicate their suspicion of government and business, but provide nary a clue about what-if any-action might elicit their support.

The Austin citizenry may share in the national skepticism about both the responsiveness and the effectiveness of government and business. Citizen confidence that the national government will do what is right all or most of the time peaked at 78 percent in 1964, declined to 26 percent in 1980, and was at 50 percent in 1987 (Washington Post 1991). In December 1988, only 14 percent of respondents believed local office holders had high "honesty and ethical standards," according to a national Gallup Survey (1988,3), compared with 13 percent for real estate agents and stockbrokers, 11 percent for state officials, and 10 percent for insurance salesmen. Those scoring higher included Congressmen (16 percent), business executives (16 percent), lawyers (18 percent), senators (19 percent), building contractors (22 percent), journalists (23 percent), funeral directors (24 percent), bankers (26 percent), policemen (47 percent), engineers (48 percent), medical doctors (53 percent), college teachers (54 percent), clergyman (60 percent), and pharmacists (66 percent). Such low confidence in public officials may lead inevitably toward populist views.

The Austinplanners seemed to be idealistic realists or realistic idealists. They favored the same goals, sometimes even more strongly than the general public did. They also doubted that developers, environmentalists, and neighborhood organizations would act in support of the public interest rather than their own interests. But they had considerably more faith in government power as an instrument to achieve results, as indicated by their support for higher density and for regulating private property.

The possibility that individual learning occurred in the group deliberation process may be evaluated inferentially from the opinions about consensus in the second Austinplan survey. In 1989, 78.5 percent of the Austinplanners said that achieving consensus had been either somewhat difficult (37.1 percent) or very difficult (41.4 percent). Achieving consensus often requires that participants learn more about the concerns of others and give attention to a new set of facts. From the difficulty of achieving consensus, one can infer as well that in this process compromises occurred. The difficulty of consensus could have contributed to the pessimism felt by Austinplanners about the plan's implementation. In 1989, 78.9 percent of the Austinplanners said they were either somewhat pessimistic (40.9) or very pessimistic (38.0) about prospects that "if adopted the plan will be effectively implemented." Only 1.4 percent were very optimistic.

The Austinplanners and the Austin public also could be local examples of a difference of opinion typical of influential Americans versus the general public, about private property rights and community intervention. Some results of a national survey on Opinions and Values of Americans conducted from 1975 through 1977 are consistent with this interpretation. McClosky and Zaller (1984,143) found these differences:

"The way property is used should mainly be decided by the: individuals who own it-general public 58%, influentials 36%; community, since the earth belongs to everyone--general public 22%, influentils 30%."

If the Austinplan participants and average citizens are local examples of a generic American difference between influential citizens and the general public, that would argue against a "social learning through deliberation" explanation of the Austinplan process. Rather, Austinplan deliberation would have been a confirming process. However, the opinion differences could have emerged as a consequence of other, earlier participations in deliberative settings, just as "influentials" in the national survey had been experienced as participants in policy deliberations. Furthermore, the Austinplanners' willingness to support government regulation of private property stands in contrast to the generally declining support especially among highly educated and affluent persons, in the 1970s and at least through 1981, for regulation of business by the national government (Lipset and Schneider 1983, 240-41).

One reason for citizens' support for private property rights is their traditional association in the minds of Americans with political freedom. Tocqueville observed in 1835 that in "no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned" (McCloskey and Zaller 1984, 138). The persistence of this American attachment to private property was apparent in the survey of Opinions and Values of Americans. In that survey 78 percent of the general public responded that private ownership of property is as important to a good society as freedom; 63 percent of "influentials" agreed (McCloskey and Zaller 1984, 140).

Implications and Conclusions

Austinplan was imaginative in conception, and used one of the most extensive citizen-based comprehensive planning processes ever attempted. As to representation, it failed a test of descriptive (demographic) representation, but it succeeded substantially in opinion representation of perceptions of problems, values, and current conditions. When the focus turned to public policies and the value choices directly connected to them, significant differences emerged between the opinions of Austinplan participants and the population of Austin.

These opinion differences fell into constellations. The Austin residents can be described as naive populists. They aspired to have a clean environment and abundant parks and trees, preserve historic structures, provide affordable housing, and have more compact and efficient development patterns. But since they also distrusted both government and special interests, they seemed also to aspire to being left alone. Their skepticism did not recognize any avenue for achieving results.

The Austinplanners were realistic idealists. They aspired to the same results as the general citizenry, but they were less distrustful of government and some special interests. They believed in using government to achieve public purposes and in cooperating with the private sector to obtain desirable development patterns. Their opinions were more consistent with pursuing the results in which they believed.

An important question for planning theory concerns the role and positions of public officials and those whom they recruit or grant access to the planning process. Recruiting knowledgeable previous participants in civic affairs may necessitate involving persons who are neither representative descriptively, nor fully representative in opinions, of their constituencies. Participatory experience itself may tend to create realistic idealists. Participation may increase a pre-existing awareness that trade-offs among values are necessary to achieve partial progress. Perhaps the Austinplan process also was creating some new realistic idealists, even as it was reinforcing realistic idealism in the experienced participants from previous civic activities.

Such a finding would be consistent with the common pattern that activists in numerous versions of politics have different views than do the rank-and-file. As noted earlier, these differences have been found in national nominating conventions, local political party committees, contributors to and workers in campaigns, voters versus nonvoters, letter writers versus others, and public opinion leaders versus the general public.

It should be expected, therefore, that participants in serious deliberative processes will arrive at some opinions that differ from the opinions of non-participants. The process of participation itself may lead almost inevitably to opinions that are no longer representative of the general public. That contradiction raises a problem, in the sense that the gap created may foretell opposition to the proposals for public action. But in a sense that evolution can also be regarded as a triumph. After all, democratic deliberation should be a learning process. If planning deliberations are not serious enough to lead to anyone changing their opinions, certainly the planning process has lacked something important.

Such a learning process returns democratic participants to the old, never-ending dilemma-shall they act as trustees, representing their consciences and being true to what they have learned, or shall they be delegates, trying to represent their constituents according to what they surmise about the constituents' beliefs? Edmund Burke remains the most prominent defender of the trustee model, believing that the appropriate focus of representation is not on gauging the opinions of individual constituents but on promoting and protecting broader "unattached interests." These are, in Pitkins's words (1970,210), "interests to which no particular persons were so specially related that they could claim to be privileged to define the interest." Burke believed that representation was more a matter of wisdom, judgement, and reasoning than of will, and depended greatly on debate and "rational parliamentary deliberation" (Pitkin 1970, 170). Burkean views, however, fly in the face of many of the basic tenets of liberal theory, which value representation of actual individuals and the notion of "democratic responsiveness to the electorate" (Pitkin 1970, 170). Much of the support for citizen participation in the planning field appears founded on such liberal concepts. Both delegate and trustee perspectives can be seen in the Austinplan process. The Austinplanners were delegates, probably without recognizing the fact, in their opinions about problems, values, and conditions. But when it came to value choices related to public policies, they acted more as trustees.

The desire to incorporate substantial citizen participation into comprehensive planning is likely to remain, and we believe there is much to recommend approaches like Austinplan. While better descriptive representation of substantial minorities in such processes should certainly be established, inevitably certain individuals with the time, interest, and personal facility to become involved will also be included. Our conclusions suggest that such citizen processes can be representative as to perceptions of values, problems and conditions (i.e. can reflect the delegate model), even when participants are quite different demo-graphically from the general public. On the other hand, such a deliberative process leads participants to confront the realities of policy and planning solutions, and to develop more realistic judgments about how to respond to problems, conditions and values (i.e. to embody the trustee model). Ideally, then, citizen participants in such a-process enter with values and perceptions of problems and conditions that are representative of the general public, but are afforded the flexibility to develop opinions about solutions that reflect the complexity and necessary tradeoffs typical of planning and policy issues.

AUTHORS' NOTE

The authors wish to thank the staff of the Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management for their help in conducting this study. In particular, we wish to thank Norman Standefer and Karen Walz, former Director of Planning and Growth Management and Chief of Comprehensive Planning, respectively, for their limitless hospitality, enthusiasm and valued collaboration on all aspects of the research. We also wish to thank the co-chairs of the Austinplan Steering Committee, James Smith and Brooks Kasson, who afforded us tremendous access to the Austinplan process. Finally, we would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose comments have improved this article substantially.

NOTES

1. It should be noted that this article does not attempt to provide an overall evaluation of the Austinplan process. Rather it seeks to examine one dimension--the representativeness of the process and of its participants as compared with the general Austinplan population. There are other bases on which the experience could be judged, and other political, organizational, and methodological factors which should be assessed. We do not attempt to explain in detail why the plan was not adopted and whether the structure of process was a significant cause. These evaluative questions about Austinplan will have to await subsequent articles and papers.

2. In the end, Austinplan may have suffered from the lengthy deliberative process. In 1989, the composition of City Council changed dramatically and was much less supportive of planning and the value of a guiding document like Austinplan. Moreover, the new council members had not participated in the Austinplan process and felt no commitment to it. Worsening economic conditions and the collapse of the local real estate market further changed the political climate, since developers blamed planning and land-use regulations for local economic problems.

While the plan has not been officially adopted, some administrators have been consulting it, and certain parts have been put into effect (e.g., policies in the downtown sector plans, portions of the urban design component).

• 3. Volunteer community facilitators were also surveyed, but their responses were later eliminated from the respondent pool. It was felt that though they conducted Austinplan meetings they were, in fact, more like neutral staff than active policymaking participants. In addition to the citywide Austinplan process, a number of sector-level planning meetings took place (see text); no attempt was made to survey those participants (although many participants in the citywide process were also active at the sector level).
• 4. The issue of potential biases in the sampling frame is an important one. We believe that drawing the Austin general population sample from the city's utility rolls is an effective approach. This sample equally includes renters and homeowners, and thus is insensitive to housing tenure. Very few houses, if any, receive neither electric service nor public sewer and water. Thus, our sampling frame is likely to provide greater coverage of households in Austin than would random digit dialing, a common sampling approach.
• 5. For a sample size of between 200 and 400 respondents, sampling error is estimated at between $ percent and 7 percent; see Healey 1992. Consequently, caution should be exercised in reaching strong conclusions from our survey findings. However, we have employed throughout the analysis a statistical significance threshold of .05, relatively high given the low sample size, which is an appropriately conservative approach to interpreting the results. Budget constraints, it should be noted, placed substantial limits on the size of the sample drawn.

In interpreting the comparative analysis of the Austinplan participants' responses and those of the general population, additional possible bias must be acknowledged. The relatively small response rate for the general population sample might suggest, for example, that those responding are generally more civic-minded, and especially concerned about planning and growth management issues, that is, less representative of a cross section of the public. In this sense the Austinite sample may be more similar to Austinplan participants than average citizens are. If this is an important bias, statistical differences between the groups are even more significant, while similarities are perhaps less surprising. Counterbalancing this potential bias is the fact that Austinite respondents are clearly more demographically similar to the makeup of the larger Austin population than are Austinplan participants. Overall, though, the findings here should be considered speculative and interpreted cautiously.

6. Note that the composition of this group had changed somewhat over time, as some individuals left and others were appointed to the steering committee and task groups: Analysis here compares the aggregate responses of each group; no attempt was made to analyze paired responses.

Legend for Chart:

A - Issues:
B - Austinplan Participants: Freq.[*]
C - Austinplan Participants: Rank Order
D - General Population: Freq.[*]
E - General Population: Rank Order
F - T-Statistic
G - Statistical Significance

A
                     B           C            D
                     E           F            G

1. Water quality
                    98            1          171
                     2       -.3542         N.S.

2. Traffic congestion
                    88            2          192
                     1      -2.5594        .0111

3. Loss of important natural areas
                    88            3          148
                     3       -.5156         N.S.

4. Attracting new industry and commerce
                    82            4          103
                     6       1.7113         N.S.

5. Sewer and water facilities
                    72            5          144
                     4       -.9370         N.S.

6. High cost of city service
                    61            6           98
                     7        .5938         N.S.

7. Need to increase city's tax base
                    61            7           45
                    17       5.6101        .0001

8. Housing affordability
                    58            8           69
                    10       2.2533        .0248

9. Air pollution
                    56            9          130
                     5      -2.1348        .0334

10. Loss of open space
                    51           10           97
                     8       -.8160         N.S.

11. Mass/public transit
                    44           11           61
                    13       1.6601         N.S.

12. Inappropriate scale and intensity of new development
                    42           12           75
                     9      -1.3308         N.S.

13. Improvement/revitalization of downtown
                    38           13           39
                    18       3.0656        .0023

14. Reduction of flood hazards
                    28           14           67
                    11      -1.5712         N.S.

15. Substandard housing
                    27           15           46
                    16        .1014         N.S.

16. Historic preservation
                    24           16           58
                    14       -.5713         N.S.

17. Medical/health care facilities
                    23           17           64
                    12      -2.3073        .0170

18. Regulation/control of signs and billboards
                    22           18           49
                    15       -.2553         N.S.

19. Need for tennis courts, golf courses, other recreational
facilities
                    17           19           33
                    20       1.5308         N.S.

20. Need for pedestrian and bike routes/ facilities
                    11           20           37
                    19       -.3190         N.S.

21. Ugly/aesthetically displeasing architecture
                    13           21           31
                    21      -1.2287         N.S.

               N = 149                   N = 250

* Number of respondents ranking the issue of "highest importance."

Legend for Chart:

A - Attitudinal Statements
B - Percent Distribution: Strongly Agree 1
C - Percent Distribution: 2
D - Percent Distribution: 3
E - Percent Distribution: 4
F - Percent Distribution: Strongly Disagree
G - Number of Respondents
H - T-Statistic
I - Statistical Significance (.05 level)

A
          B                  C               D             E
          F                  G               H             I

1. "The natural environment in Austin has been deteriorating in
recent years."

Austinplan Participants
     45 (30.4%)          42 (28.4%)     32 (21.6%)    20 (13.5%)
       9 (6.1%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     81 (32.9%)          72 (29.3%)     53 (21.5%)    28 (11.4%)
      12 (4.9%)      N=246 (100.0%)         -.7260          N.S.

2. "There are not enough parks and open spaces in Austin."

Austinplan Participants
     20 (13.5%)          41 (27.7%)     37 (25.0%)    30 (20.3%)
     20 (13.5%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     44 (18.0%)          58 (23.7%)     72 (29.4%)    46 (18.8%)
     25 (10.2%)      N=245 (100.0%)         -.7523          N.S.

3. "The city should discourage the construction of high
density/high rise types of development where it does not already
exist."

Austinplan Participants
     16 (11.1%)          21 (14.6%)     29 (20.1%)    41 (28.5%)
     37 (25.7%)      N=144 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     86 (35.2%)          58 (23.8%)     32 (13.1%)    40 (16.4%)
     28 (11.5%)      N=244 (100.0%)        -6.6766         .0000

4. "Affordable housing for low and moderate income residents is
a problem in Austin."

Austinplan Participants
     46 (31.3%)          64 (43.5%)     26 (17.7%)      8 (5.4%)
       3 (2.0%)      N=147 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     57 (23.6%)          71 (29.3%)     58 (24.0%)    32 (13.0%)
      24 (9.9%)      N=242 (100.0%)         4.4848         .0001

5. "Urban sprawl is unsightly and leads to inefficiencies in the
provision of public facilities such as sewer and water service.
Government should seek to promote compact and contiguous growth."

Austinplan Participants
     39 (26.4%)          64 (43.2%)     24 (16.2%)     13 (8.8%)
       8 (5.4%)      N=148 (100.0%)

Austin Population
     50 (20.4%)          61 (24.9%)     68 (27.8%)    37 (15.1%)
     29 (11.8%)      N=245 (100.0%)         3.6237         .0003

6. "The city should place a high importance on protecting trees
and vegetation."

Austinplan Participants
     50 (33.8%)          62 (41.9%)     28 (18.9%)      2 (1.4%)
       6 (4.1%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
    134 (54.9%)          71 (29.1%)      23 (9.4%)     12 (4.9%)
       4 (1.6%)      N=244 (100.0%)        -3.0401         .0025

7. "It is important that the city's historic areas be protected."

Austinplan Participants
     43 (29.1%)          69 (46.6%)     25 (16.9%)      5 (3.4%)
       6 (4.1%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
    118 (48.2%)          75 (30.6%)     37 (15.1%)     13 (5.3%)
        2 (.8%)      N=245 (100.0%)        -2.6840         .0076

8. "Government restrictions on the use of land represent
unconstitutional 'takings' of private property and should be
discouraged."

Austinplan Participants
       8 (5.4%)          21 (14.2%)     25 (16.9%)    46 (31.2%)
     48 (32.4%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     48 (19.6%)          39 (15.9%)     66 (26.9%)    52 (21.2%)
     40 (16.3%)      N=245 (100.0%)        -5.2591         .0000

9. "The interests of the public good must take precedence over the
rights of individuals to freely use their land."

Austinplan Participants
     19 (13.3%)          42 (29.4%)     40 (28.0%)    29 (20.3%)
      13 (9.1%)      N=143 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     43 (17.3%)          46 (18.5%)     60 (24.1%)    55 (22.8%)
     45 (18.1%)      N=249 (100.0%)        -1.6833          N.S.

10. "Generally speaking, developers are mostly interested in
turning a profit. We cannot count on them to consider the
interests of the broader public."

Austinplan Participants
      14 (9.5%)          45 (30.6%)     30 (20.4%)    30 (20.4%)
     28 (19.0%)      N=147 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
    128 (52.2%)          49 (20.0%)     28 (11.4%)     22 (9.0%)
      18 (7.3%)      N=245 (100.0%)        -8.3787         .0000

11. "Environmentalists, and advocates of environmental protection,
are often too narrow and unrealistic in their demands and are not
willing to consider the costs of environmental protection."

Austinplan Participants
     26 (17.6%)          53 (35.8%)     25 (16.9%)    36 (24.3%)
       8 (5.4%)      N=148 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     48 (19.6%)          59 (24.1%)     53 (21.6%)    51 (20.8%)
     34 (13.9%)      N=245 (100.0%)         1.8073          N.S.

12. "Neighborhood and homeowner groups too often are interested
only in land use issues which directly affect them and are little
concerned with the broader public interest."

Austinplan Participants
     30 (21.7%)          57 (41.3%)     23 (16.7%)    26 (18.8%)
       2 (1.4%)      N=138 (100.0%)             --            --

Austin Population
     55 (22.6%)          68 (28.0%)     56 (23.0%)    40 (16.5%)
      24 (9.9%)      N=243 (100.0%)         2.2195         .0271

* Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements.

For each of the following statements, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with it.

Legend for Chart:

A - Strongly Agree 1
B - 2
C - 3
D - 4
E - Strongly Disagree 5

        A            B            C            D            E

1. The natural environment in Austin has been deteriorating in
recent years. N=74

         32           22           14            4            2
    (43.2%)      (29.7%)      (18.9%)       (5.4%)       (2.7%)

2. The interests of the public good must take precedence over the
rights of individuals to freely use their land. N=73

          9           25           17           12           10
    (12.3%)      (34.3%)      (23.3%)      (16.4%)      (13.7%)

3. Urban sprawl is unsightly and leads to inefficiencies in the
provision of public Facilities such as sewer and water service.
Government should seek to promote compact and contiguous growth.
N=73

         28           28            8            8            1
    (38.4%)      (38.4%)      (11.0%)      (11.0%)       (1.4%)

4. Continued community growth means new jobs and new jobs mean a
healthy community. It is better to assure ourselves that there are
plenty of jobs than to worry too much about harming the
environment. N=73

          2            5           13           23           30
    (92.7%)       (6.9%)      (17.9%)      (31.5%)      (41.1%)

5. Urban growth is not always good and it should be carefully
managed to reduce environmental damage, traffic congestion, and
other negative side effects. N=73

         38           21            8            3            3
    (52.1%)      (28.8%)      (11.0%)       (4.1%)       (4.1%)

6. Growth management programs often serve to keep out the poor and
"undesirables." Growth management programs must strive to maximize
choice for all social classes. N=71

         22           32           10            5            2
    (31.0%)      (45.1%)      (14.1%)       (7.0%)       (2.8%)

7. Growth management decisions should allow the participation of
all individuals and groups that are benefited or harmed by these
programs. N=74

         39           22            8            2            3
    (52.7%)      (29.7%)      (10.8%)       (2.7%)       (4.1%)

8. Generally speaking, developers are mostly interested in turning
a profit. We cannot count on them to consider the interests of the
broader public. N=74

         17           25            8           19            5
    (23.0%)      (33.8%)      (10.8%)      (25.7%)       (6.8%)

9. Environmentalists, and advocates of environmental protection,
are often too narrow and unrealistic in their demands and are not
willing to consider the costs of environmental protection. N=74

          8           20           17           25            4
    (10.8%)      (27.0%)      (23.0%)      (33.8%)       (5.4%)

10. Neighborhood and homeowner groups too often are interested
only in land use issues which directly affect them and are little
concerned with the broader public interest. N=74

         14           32           13           12            3
    (19.0%)      (43.2%)      (17.6%)      (16.2%)       (4.1%)

REFERENCES

Albrecht, Stan, and H. Reed Geertsen. 1978. Land Use Planning: Attitudes and Behavior of Elected Officials and Their Constituents. Social Science Quarterly 59, June: 20-36.

American Planning Association/American Institute for Certified Planners. 1992. Ethical Principles in Planning. Chicago: APA.

Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216-24.

Beatley, Timothy. 1987. Initial Observations about the Austinplan Process. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and Regional Studies.

Beatley, Timothy, and David J. Brower. 1987. Attitudes About Growth and Development: Results of a Survey of Austinplan Participants. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Center for Urban and Regional Studies.

Burke, Edmund K. 1968. Citizen Participation Strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 287-94.

Butler, David, and Austin Ranney, eds. 1978. Referendums. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

City of Austin, Texas. 1986. Austinplan Process. Department of Planning and Growth Management.

City of Austin, Texas. 1988. Austinplan Progress Report. Department of Planning and Growth Management.

Dexter, Lewis. 1956. What Do Congressmen Hear: The Mail? Public Opinion Quarterly 20, Spring: 16-27.

Gallup Report. 1988. December.

Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Glass, James. 1976. Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship between Objectives and Techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association 45:180-89.

Gundry, Kathleen G., and Thomas Heberlein. 1984. Do Public Meetings Represent the Public? Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 175-82.

Healey, Joseph F. 1992. Statistics: A Tool for Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Howe, Elizabeth. 1992. Professional Roles and the Public Interest in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 6, February: 228-48.

Hutcheson, John D. 1984. Citizen Representation in Neighborhood Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 50: 183-93.

Jackson, John S., and William Slade. 1973. Citizen Participation, Democratic Representation and Survey Research. Urban Affairs Quarterly 9: 57-89.

Lipset, Seymour M, and William Schneider. 1983. The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. New York: The Free Press.

Logan, John R., and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lucy, William H. 1988. APA's Ethical Principles Include Simplistic Planning Theories. Journal of the American Planning Association 54: 147-49.

McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McClosky, Herbert, Paul Hoffman, and Rosemary O'Hara. 1960. Issue Conflict and Consensus among Party Leaders and Followers. American Political Science Review 54, June: 406-27.

Miller, Warren, and Donald Stokes. 1966, Constituency Influences in Congress. In Angus Campbell et al., eds., Elections and the Political Order. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Patton, Carl. 1983. Citizen Input and Professional Responsibility. Journal of Planning Education and Research 3, Summer: 46-50.

Perkins, Jerry, and Diana L. Fowlkes. 1980. Opinion Representation Versus Social Representation; Or, Why Women Can't Run as Women and Win. American Political Science Review 74: 92-103.

Pitkin, Hanna. 1980. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Safire, William. 1978. Safire's Political Dictionary. New York: Random House.

Sperber, Hans, and Travis Trittschuh. 1962. American Political Terms. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Stone, Clarence N. 1976. Economic Growth and Neighborhood Discontent: System Bias in the Urban Renewal Program of Atlanta. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Scholozman, Norman Nie, and Henry Brady. 1992. The Citizen Participation Project. Washington Post, October 8, A25.

Washington Post. 1991. Across U.S., A Tide of Pessimism and Political Powerlessness Rises. November 3.

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, No. 2, Spring 1994. (C) American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

~~~~~~~~

By Timothy Beatley, David J. Brower, and William H. Lucy

Timothy Beatley is an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, School of Architecture, at the University of Virginia

David J. Brower is a Research Professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning, and Associate Director of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

William H. Lucy is a Professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, School of Architecture, at the University of Virginia.