Scholars have identified group learning as both an outcome of effective participatory planning processes and as the means to achieving agreement on planning outputs and to building constituencies for plan implementation. This article examines the challenges of designing empirical studies of group learning in participatory planning processes that have strong internal and external validity and reports the results of a quasiexperimental analysis of how different degrees of participation increase mutual understanding of planning problems and solutions.
Argyris, C., and D.A. Schon.1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
2.
Ashby, W.R.1952. Design for a brain. New York: Wiley.
3.
Brody, S.D., D.R. Godschalk, and R.J. Burby.2003. Mandating citizen participating in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association69 (3): 245-64.
4.
Burby, R.J.2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 69 (1): 33-9.
5.
Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley.1963. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
6.
Conover, W.J.1980. Practical nonparametric statistics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Cook, T.D., and D.T. Campbell.1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & field analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Draper, S.W.2008. The Hawthorne, Pygmalion, placebo and other effects of expectation: Some notes. www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/hawth.html#Finding (accessed July 31, 2008).
9.
Florida Department of Community Affairs.1997 . The local mitigation strategy: A guidebook for Florida cities and counties. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Community Affairs.
10.
Forester, J.1998. Rationality, dialogue and learning: What community and environmental mediators can teach us about the practice of civil society. In Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age, ed. M. Douglass and J. Friedmann.New York: John Wiley.
11.
Friedmann, J.1971. The future of comprehensive urban planning: A critique . Public Administration Review31 (3): 315-26.
12.
Friedmann, J.1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
Godschalk, D.R., D.J. Brower, and T. Beately.1989. Catastrophic coastal storms: Hazard mitigation and development management. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
14.
Godschalk, D.R., and B. Stiftel.1981. Making waves: Public participation in state water planningJournal of Applied Behavioral Science17 (4): 597-614.
15.
Gray, B.1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multi-party problems . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Habermas, J.1981. The theory of communicative action: Reason and rationalization of society. Vol 1., trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.
17.
Innes, J.E.1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management in Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (4): 440-53.
18.
Innes, J.E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-89.
19.
Innes, J.E.1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (4): 460-72.
20.
Innes, J.E.1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (1): 52-63.
21.
Innes, J.E.2004. Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory3 (1): 5-20.
22.
Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher.1999a. Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (1): 9-26.
23.
Innes, J.E., and D.E. Booher.1999b. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (4): 412-23.
24.
Innes, J.E., J. Gruber, R. Thompson, and M. Neuman.1994. Coordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar, University of California.
25.
Kaiser, E.J., D.R. Godschalk, and F.S. Chapin.1995. Urban land use planning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
26.
Little, D.2003. Endogenous variable. Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. www.sage-ereference.com/socialscience/Article_n280.html (accessed January 2, 2009).
27.
Mandarano, L.A.2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: Restoring and protecting habitat and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (4): 456-68.
28.
Margerum, R.D.2002. Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research21 (3): 237-53.
29.
May, P.J., R.J. Burby, N.J. Ericksen, J.W. Handmer, J.E. Dixon, S. Michaels, and D.I. Smith.1996. Environmental management and governance: Intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability. New York: Routledge.
30.
Schively, C.2007. A quantitative analysis of consensus building in local environmental review. Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (1): 82-98.
31.
Yin, R.K.2003. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
