Who Takes Carriage of Public Participation and Does it Matter?

Planning theory and practice exist in various states of tension with ideas of public participation. The trajectory of planning theory, from the late 1960s onward, has asserted that participation is a core part of planning practice. Some even argue that participation is not simply a part of planning; it is planning. Yet, for many planners, public participation can be a source of considerable angst and disillusionment. It is also not necessarily a core and uniting element of their practice. Instead, the design and facilitation of participatory processes are increasingly being done by specially trained practitioners drawn from within the planning profession as well as outside of it. These public participation practitioners are professionalizing their work through training and certification schemes offered by organizations like the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). This transition in who “takes carriage” of participatory processes presents a compelling paradox. On one hand, it signals a deepening commitment to inclusive public engagement in planning. On the other hand, it risks restricting what counts as high-quality participation and who gets to decide. 

At the 2024 OPPI conference, our presentation shared findings from a research project examining how IAP2 is intersecting with planning practice in Canada and Australia. First, the research explored how IAP2 principles and frameworks are being adopted in local governments’ community engagement strategies, raising questions about the impact of this standardization on the quality and value of participation. Second, it looked at IAP2’s training and certification schemes, which were found to enhance credibility and support for those working in this challenging yet often under-recognized area of practice. However, standardization and professionalization also risk further narrowing the field of participatory planning – both in terms of who is doing the work and the principles that guide the practice. Overall, the research raised critical questions: Are organizations like IAP2 improving planning practice by clarifying and consolidating ideas about effective public participation? Or are they contributing to a growing divide between planning and participation?




Figure 1: ‘Participatory Planning Provocations’ from the OPPI conference session (generated using Mentimeter)

The audience members then participated in an online polling exercise to compare the research findings with their own experiences and observations. Of the 19 participants, most were municipal or private sector planners, with at least a ‘moderate’ level of involvement in public participation or community engagement. Most also had at least some level of familiarity with IAP2 and its core documents, such as the Spectrum of Public Participation. We then asked the audience a series of ‘participatory planning provocations’ (Figure 1) to gauge their reactions to the shift toward a more standardized and professionalized approach, including the increasing reliance on outside professionals. The responses were mixed and sometimes even contradictory. While this small exercise was not intended to be representative of the opinions of professional planners, we believe it highlights the need for more in-depth conversations about the changing face of public participation. As a profession, we ought to ask ourselves: Who takes carriage of public participation, and does it matter?