PLANNING & CULTURE Cultural Constraints to the Planning Process Submitted by:, David R. Adder In partial fulfillment of the require-ments for the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development. College of Design and Planning University of Colorado at Denver Summer, 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Statement of Problem 1 II. Introduction 3 A. Personal International Perspective 3 1. Communication 4 2. Problem Definition 5 B. Beyond the Melting Pot 6 1. The Importance of Community Participation 6 2. Cultural Lessons for the Planner 9 III. Culture Defined 13 A. Role of B. Foreign Aid Perspective C. Developing Culfural Sensitivity 1. Need Recognized 2. Culturemes 15 18 19 20 22 IV. Aspects of Culture 25 A. Physical 25 B. Social 28 V. Constraints of Culturally Sensitive Planning 31 A. Personal Planning Position 1. End User Bias 2. The Participant Planner 3. Similarities, too 31 31 32 35
B. Projecting the Future 36 c. Physical & Fiscal Constraints 38 D. Time 39 E. Developing Expertise 40 VI. Issues in Planning 43 A. Physical Planning 43 B. Social Planning 44 c. Scope of Concern 45 VI I. 11A Theory of Good City Form11 50 A. Performance Dimensions 51 B. Vitality 54 c. Sense 55 D. Fit 57 E. Access 58 F. Control 60 G. Metacriteria 65 VI I I. Conclusions and 69 Appendix Bibliography
I. Statement of Problem As the world continues to shrink due to the increased capacity for communication and travel, the varied cultures of the world come into closer and closer contact with each other. This contact is usually of interest or benefit, often fractious, and almost always misunderstood or misinterpreted. As problems arise within each society, solutions or assistance are more and more often sought from outside of that society. Expertise is sought to add its weight into the search for answers and methods for curing social ills. It is my contention in this study that answers found in one culture cannot automatically be applied to another culture. Further, the problem solvers or planners of one culture may no longer be expert at solving what may appear to be similar problems in another culture because the parameters are sufficiently changed by the cultural setting as to redefine the problem. It may well require an equally "redefined" expert. One objective of this study is to approach the problem both on a national as well as international scale, whether within the United States or any other multi-cultured nation. I view it as only natural that citizen participation and community development should be an integral part of a planning curriculum, for it is on the local community level that cultural traits and differences exert themselves most forcefully. In a culturally diverse city, it would be very useful to recognize the differences that arise from cultural background. For instance, this recognition could go a long way toward conflict reso-
lution as it would be an invaluable tool for appreciating other points of view. Compromise is a result of a willingness to give of oneself and such willingness is easier when you can appreciate the other person's position. 2 My fuller purpose in exploring the question of cross-cultural planning is to try to develop a better understanding of the nature of the problem the extent to which it is a problem, and to begin to work out a methodology for its solution. Questions as to when culture enters a planner's consideration and how to control plans for cultural variations need answers in our ever shrinking world. Finally, normative theory for planning has been replete with some lavish solutions, but none which prove very practical. Most fail because of the particularity of the solution. They do not allow for the variety of environmental and cultural conditions which exist. Kevin Lynch (1981) approaches the problemfrom a very broad perspective. He eliminates the theories developed to date as being too .restrictive or lacking comprehensiveness and draws out his proposal for a new normative theory. Within his work lies the possibility for sensitizing the planning process to cultural variety and I have chosen to examine his work because of this sensitivity.
II. Introduction A. Personal International Perspective I first became pointedly aware of cultural variation in problem solving while working overseas in the Peace Corps. I was assigned to the rural suspension bridge program in Nepal, a country as culturally different from America as is _possible. The very first thing that Peace Corps did was begin our language and cross-cultural training. It became immediately clear that here was the most difficult task! In order to function out in the hills, isolated from any other nonNepal!, we had to learn how to live in Nepali society. What a mystery! Each of us in the training group struggled at his own pace to master the language sufficiently enough to survive. That was the initial level of competence that Peace Corps required before we could be sent out to post survival. But survival is a long way from functional competence. Such compet-ence would require a surer grasp of the language and an understanding of the nuances of Nepali life. It is much to the credit of the Nepali people that I was able to complete one bridge and several surveys of other bridge sites. They are surely among the most helpful, gracious and understanding of people in the world. I arrived at the village with a very rudimentary grasp of the language and was treated with respect and care. The villagers arranged among themselves to provide my shelter and a cook/ helper. They patiently listened to my halting speech and tried to bring to me those in the village who were best able to understand me. 3
With their assistance, I settled into village life and began preparations for work on the bridge. 1. Communication Two things slowly became clear to me. One was that learning the vocabulary anq. syntax of a language is not sufficient. It is necessary to begin to.think in a language and then have those come out of one's feelings. It is a continual source of difficulty for a translator to try to translate those expressions of a foreign language which do not translate because the feeling and idea behind them have no direct counterpart in the lexicon of the other language. Approximations can be made, but it is much more satisfactory for someone to learn the language to the point of knowing without translation what is meant. For it is the sense and feeling of the words which must be perceived, not the equivalent word in one's native tongue. The translation is often misleading or inaccurate, if not truly incorrect. Study has gone so far as to hypothesize linguistic relativity which suggests a significant yariation in cognition between speakers of different languages. (LaGory and Pipkin, 1981:114) Thus, the first and highest hurdle to effective cross-cultural work is the difficulty of simple, clear communication. After two years of living in Nepal, nearly half of it at the job site, I was only beginning to see how much more I had to learn about the language. I take this as a personal failing or lack of capacity for learning languages. Others were far more successful. I do not believe that 4 it is coincidental that those who became most proficient at the language
were often those who felt most comfortable in Nepal and extended their time there. 2. Problem Definition The other situation which became clearer to me as I lived with the Nepalese concerned problem definition. Again, I can only claim to have scratched the surface of this dilemma, but. it is in problem definit.ion that a large part of the difficulty of cross cultural planning appears to lie. Cultural tolerance for life situations and 5 the traditional approaches to those situations clearly controlled the villagers' responses to problems. The very strong structural constraint of the caste system added another layer of automatic response. Often, a fatalistic response to problem statements was all that was elicited. Kay Garne?! What to do?! Also, what appeared to me as problems went unnoticed by most of the villagers. Improved sanitation, education for girls as well as boys and improved agricultural techniques were all areas which could have been addressed. Only a very few people in the village ever considered these as problems. If a situation is not perceived as problematic, no action will be deemed necessary. If it is deemed problematic, but no solution is obvious or available, no action will be taken either. Thus, there is a point here at which ignorance of possible solutions or methods is an obvious constraint. On the simplest level, my being there demonstrated that ignorance as it was necessary for an expert to come to build a very necessary, life-saving structure, a bridge. It was only the scale of the operation where I was necessary, though, as the people had been building shorter bridges for hundreds of years. Technology waa a clear advantage here. However, on the more subtle question of how the people dealt
daily with all of life's problems, it is how one defines the problems along with the perceived possible or probable solutions that control the realm of choices. An example is the need for fire wood in the village. Throughout most of Nepa_l, the forest is being rapidly depleted, both for fuel and to clear marginal land for agriculture. When asked about this problem, everyone agreed it was terrible. My friends in the village bemoaned the fact that they had to go so far for wood. 6 In their father's and grandfather's day the forest had been much closer. But, Kay Garne? So I asked why they didn't try to replant some trees to replenish the forest. Oh, but they had, but they could not keep the women from cutting them down or the goats from chewing off the bark. They could not organize the village sufficiently to control the destruction of even so essential a commodity. I was stunned, but I learned from other volunteers that exactly the same thing had occurred many times. Why? Why could these people not provide themselves with the fuel they needed for survival? They knew how to transplant trees for they had done so. But they lacked the societal skills or determination to implement the actions necessary, at least on this local level. There were forces at work here that I did not comprehend. Coming from a culture based on action, I could not comprehend this inaction. These people were not lazy. With the proper motivation they worked harder than most people I know. But I did not know how to motivate them, for their inner thoughts and desires remained very
much a mystery to me after all the time I had spent with them. B. Beyond the Melting Pot Beyond international development and planning, and cultural misfit lies intranational cultural misunderstanding and friction. In his book, Unmeltable Ethnic, Michael Novak (1973) chronicles the less than total sublimation of old world ethnic groups to "American Life." To this is added the continuing immigration from Latin America and Asia. Overlay all of this with the distinct black culture trying to exist in its midst and the picture becomes almost too complex to comprehend in total. Old time Chinatowns, Cuban Miami, almost innumberable latina barrios, newer agglomerations of Vietnamese, Thai, Korean, etc. and old time ethnic neighborhoods present a patchwork of delightful complexity. 1. The Importance of Community Participation It is to the credit of the planning profession that higher levels of community participation have been generated over the past 20 years ia the restructuring of the cities, at least in part due to a recognition of this complexity. This may be one of the most useful legacies of the Model Cities Program, although very often the tendency today is to pay more lip service to participation than to solicit effective input. The need for public participation seems to be looked on as an issue of vogue." It should not be. In order to make sense out of the patchwork of ethnic/cultural enclaves throughout a city or to work effectively within a particular city district, the planner/community developer must begin to understand the desires and 7
motivations of the people. Anunderstanding of the cultural outlook of the inhabitants will go far toward generating such understanding. Some writers feel that the ultimate relationship will be the citizen planner. (Friedman, Porteous, 1977) 8 An excellent example of missed cultural cues and misinterpretation of conditions is outlined by Jane Jacobs (1961). She recounts her disbelief of the city planner who steadfastly persisted in his assessment of the North End of Boston as being a slum. He did so in the face of social statistics and personal experience that such was not true. Indeed, it is the liveliest of city districts. But he did not listen to the inhabitants, to what they said they liked or disliked 'about their neighborhood or to what they might tell him about what he could truly do for them if he desired. Instead, his final assessment was, "We'll have to get thosepeople off the streets." (Jacobs, 1961: ) To me, one of the contributing factors to this health is the predominant Italian population which allows for strong community control based on a primary culture. This culture prizes self-help and strong family duty as well as a strong sense of community. Out of this selfhelp attitude came the energy and interest to redevelop and renovate the North End with little, if any, outside assistance. The physical setting of the North End strengthened the inhabitants' ability to control events by isolating it from the rest of the city by strong physical barriers. This isolation helped maintain the cultural puiity of the area, strengthened the sense of community, and added to its defensibility. For this culture, high density with a variety of
9 land uses is not only acceptable but also desired. Had the planner had a bit more cultural sensitivity, he may have been better able to look past his schooling to understand how a certain people could thrive under conditions he was trained.to regard as slums. 2. Lessons for the Planner I see three dynamics at work in the above situation which led the planner to his conclusion in spite of the facts. The first has been alluded to already in that ethnic America often chooses to live in a style more attuned to the mother country. This choice alters the criteria by which they view their neighborhood so that it is misaligned from the planner's criteria.. The melting pot has not homogenized these people with American society. Thus, the single set of criteria developed by the planning profession was not nearly compre-hensive enough to allow for such a radical, yet successful divergence. One of the prime causes behind this narrowed point of view is the second dynamic of the situation. This dynamic derives from the planning literature and history to date which has a predominant Anglophile per-1 spective. Reacting to 19th century industrial excesses, strict limits 1 Howard' s ideals were carried forward by a number of pov1erful proponents, among them were Lewis Munford, Sir Patrick Geddes, Catherine Bauer, Raymond Unwin, Clarence Stein and LeCorbusier. Although LeCorbusier was not British, he brought forth a purified version of the Garden City in his Radiant City, creating.the city in a park and thereby solidifying the concept of total separation of land uses. Man was not to be tainted with encounterswith life, only with open swards of grass. See Jacobs (1961:16-25) for a summary of this position.
10 on population density coupled with total separation of uses and the "adequate" provision of amenities through a more open land use plan were seen as the solution'to urban ills. This solution derived directly from the British reformists' desire for order and their revulsion to 19th century i?dustrial exploitation. Its form derives from their particular perception of order or particular tolerance level for disorder. The North End of Boston does not fit the desired level of order as embodied by Ebenezer Howard. Within this literature also lies the concept of planner as ultimate form giver. The planner is to plan an'dthe inhabitants are to receive gratefully their new living conditions. The position of planner as benevolent dispenser of the public good was not to be assailed by the uneducated masses. Le Corbusier summarized this poition succinctly when he stated, "People have to be educated to appreciate the forms we make." (Cited in LaGory and Pipkin, 1981) The people in the North End had moved into a poor district and had themselves worked to revitalize it to their own liking. They feared that just such a form giver would impose upon them and destroy all they had achieved. The final dynamic driving this situation is cultur:al insensitivity. Insensitivity is of course the flip side of Anglomania or the adherence to any particular lifestyle to the exclusion of all others. It is generated out of ignorance, misconception, stupidity or malicious misinformation. It is the source of all stereotyping and leads to common acceptance of stereotype as fact. This eases the mental burden on people
in assimilating the confusion of life around them, but it leads to inaccurate conclusions and inappropriate autoreaction when someone steps beyond his home ground. At the extreme, the insensitivity goes beyond mere lack of acceptance of another's way of life to its total rejection. Our country was built on the principle that such rejection was intolerable, although it wasn't until only 20 years ago that we were able to actually codify the illegality of such rejection to align our judicial strictures with our constitutional mandate. It is important to note, though, that the insensitivity is nearly ubiquitous. All people suffer from the short-sightedness inherent in their lives. The differences arise from the relative degree of power each group controls as to who feels the insensitivity and the prejudicial treatment that derives from it. It is my position that a planner, being in the position of a change agent, must minimize this prejudicial treatment. He must sensit.ize the plans to the needs of all of the people affected by the plans. The term "adequate" becomes relative, not absolute as in Howard's or any other planner's determination. 11 In summary, culture plays an important role in developing effective plans and planning doctrine. Its constraints on effective communication and basic problem definition must be clarified as part of the initial stages in the planning process or all else that follows may become irrelevant. Without developing an appreciation for the culture of the inhabitants of the area under study, a planner will be at a loss as to how to proceed in developing the details of his plan.
Assuming the importance of culture, I intend to discuss culture, what it is as well as particular aspects of it and their relation to planning. I intend to establish its importance in planning through a review of literature which has addressed culture from a number of different points of view. I will also discuss some of the primary issues in planning and how culture impacts each of these. I will conclude with the discussion of Lynch's.book and its treatment of culture with his normative theory of urban planning. 12
III. Culture Defined The term of culture has a broad range of definition and pretation. As such, it can be as much a.point of confusion as of cd."ari"f"faat::kon in an argument about appropriate paths for action. Thus, some discussion of what is meant by culture and what that means to a planner is necessary. Webster defines culture as "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." Culture is therefore a source of continuity for a group of people. Imbedded in the culture will be the base values and viewpoints from which they see and organize their world. They will not easily alter these values or the way of life derived from them unless a definite benefit can be shown for the change and the change will not threaten their continued existence as a people. This resistance to change due to the threat to their existence is one of Novak's (1973) primary themes. The ethnic groups in the U.S. certainly changed a great deal in response to the greater political and economic opportunities of America, but they have been unwilling to let go of the traditions and viewpoints for which no commensurate gain was obvious. A people's "way of life" will reflect these cultural values and viewpoints, but it takes much study and questioning to articulate what they are. Therein lies the greatest difficulty for the planner. He must arrive at enough understanding of the culture to appreciate the values of that culture. Without this appreciation and an ability to 13
apply it to the formulation of the plans, he will be perceived at best as incompetent and at worst as a threat. will obviously undercut the effectiveness of any he may make. One practical outcome of culture is society, "a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members." It can be argued that it is at the levei of society that planning endeavors to act. Theoreticians are looking at human organization, usually as reflected in the built environment, for the points at which can be made in the functioning of societies. Planning professionals at all levels are attempting to do the They are attempting to provide the scenarios for the smoother functioning of society. These future scenarios can be derived by studying the current functioning or disfunctioning of society to determine the appropriate points for change. For a more complete picture, the study needs to be elevated to the level of culture to determine which driving forces within the .society are culturally generated, aligning the planning scenario to these base level cultural drives will work out to the smoother functioning of society. However, societies will often subsume more than one cultural group, adding more complexity to the planners concerns. The planner must then look for several groups of cultural conditioners to his work, their interaction together, and how the society supports or discourages cultural interaction among the groups. 14
15 A. Role of Culture, There is an ongoing debate in the anthropological literature on the role of culture in a changing world. A review by Norman Schwartz (1978:235-61) outlined the divergence in thinking which has occurred. Two schools of thought are vying for attention in the debate over community development efforts and cultural change. The first is characterized as the community-cultural approach and the second as the ecology-society approach. The first approach is the older and "assumes culture (values, attitudes, beliefs), tradition, and identity are resistant to rapid change and are themselves primary determinants of change and stability." (238) The second "assumes that tradition and identity are adaptations or labile responses to the environment. Cultural change follows rather than stimulates change in community adaptation to the environment. Social, economic, political, and material changes in the wider environment generate reactions in local communities." (236-7) Under the first approach, attitude, motives, values and lifestyles become critical variables and hurdles to change. "Adult personalities are compatible with community culture, role structure and local economic systems, but not with dynamic change.": (238) It is recognized that economic growth "requires social change, but it must not threaten identity and tradition . (238) Thus, the change agent must grasp local culture or else it surely will fail." (244) Indeed, earlier community development failures were often seen as an inability of the community to change to the degree required or because
of the change agent's ignorance of the community culture. The second, or ecology-society approach, is two-tiered. It examines the larger relationship between the local community and the larger systems of which it is a part, and then looks inward at intracommunity_ diversity. To me, this approach is an expansion of the previous methodology, notnecessarily a distinct departure from 16 it. It allows for more diversity and conflict than the first approach. "The scholars who examine community-system relationships tend to stress the material, ecological, economic, or coercive aspects of the links rather than their ideological, psycho-cultural, or integrative aspects." (249) While at the local level a lack of solidarity inhibits local attempts to solve local problems. When a of power, wealth and prestige' within a community fall apart, latent cleavages become overt conflicts . (249) This was obviously true in my Nepali in their attempt at reforestation. Overall, "Environment [is] the key concept in an analysis of behavior which minimizes the importance of culturally constituted symbol systems." (246) At times, we appear to be at a chicken and egg debate when in the concluding remarks it is stated, "there is a growing tendency to argue (or discover) that social, economic, and political events outside the community determine change and stability within it," (254) while at the same time, "at least in some cases, both external conditions and cultural traditions must be treated as coequal, independent variables in order to account for fundamental changes within a community." (255) To me, community change will be generated by both
external and internal stress. Change is almost always reactive and the underlying prerogative is survival. The planners position should be that of supporting that survival whether the survival requires accepting or resisting the change. Whichever is the driving force in a particular society, culture or environment, the analysis of a planned intervention needs to be accomplished in as clear and unbiased a manner as possible. Given the complexity of the analysis, I contend that the"foreign expert will be at a much greater disadvantage than a nat-ive student to see through the complex issue raised. Given the time constraint, it may never be possible for the foreign expert to get the grounding necessary in the local culture to be able to assess the impact of plans he is preparing. It is hoped that he will have native counterparts who can do such an assessment in o.rder to produce a more successful plan. One final note needs to be addressed to Schwartz's summary article. He states at the outset that he has focused his work on English-speaking scholars. He does so for two reasons. One is the sheer volume of work being done in developmental anthropology. The second is much more to the point of this paper and I feel may have a substantial biasing effect. He focused on English-speaking scholars "because the work of Latin American anthropologists has its own traditions and assumptions which require separate treatment to do them justice." (236) If it is truly only anthropological methodology that is the question, then the result of his article can stand. But if there is cultural bias in either the anglo scholar's work or in the 17
latina's work which would tend to muddy or clarify the results of the studies, then the conclusions could be altered accordingly. B. Foreign Aid Perspective Regardless of which side of the preceding argument is emphasized, it is recognized that culture plays an important role in the success or failure of development efforts. However, it is quite startling 18 to see how only recently this recognition has been given practical effect. Drawing on the experience of a number of practicing anthropologists, there has recently been published a Training Manual for Development Anthropologists Association. (Partridge & Warren, Ed., No Date) It reveals that, 11Until a decade or so ago, projects were designed almost exclusively by technical experts such as agronomists or engineers working with economists. In 1973, major shifts in project-design policy for both USAID and the World Bank had a dramatic impact on the increased role f anthropologists in the development process.11 (1) [Emphasis added]. This policy shift required host-country participation in all stages of the project, from identification to final evaluation. It also added social soundness (impact analysis) to the list required for project design to augment the technical and economic The prior lack of such an assessment to determine the overall impact on the affected people is at the same time astonishing to me yet understandable. The history of foreign aid as we know it today is quite short. I would say it is only since the end of World War II amid the dismantling of the colonial system that true foreign aid has
been a policy of the developed world. It is only since then that we have begun to dimly perceive the reality of a single world and the dependence of all of humanity on one another. That lesson is still in its infancy for the education of mankind. Be that as it may, 30 years of hit-and-miss aid programs designed with a wide variety of agendas does not seem like too long a time for the realization to dawn on the providers and receivers alike that the lives of those people on the direct receiving end of the aid will 9e affected in 19 some manner and that the affects should be studied with some thoroughness before proceeding. I have included as an appendix to this paper a short section from this Manual entitled, "Qualifications of the Development Anthropologist." Planners take note, "FIRST, prior experience in the language and culture of the human communities affected is requisite." (5-6) C. Developing Cultural Sensitivity The foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that it may be necessary to take on planning tasks which will require the conscientious practitioner to himself to another culture. Un fortunately, this is usually a time consuming effort, often frustrated by a lack of openness, yielding highly mixed results. However, the prospects of proceeding without an attempt to gain the sensitivity are all too bleak. The difficulty inherent in this effort is apparent in a second study by David Stea and Carol Buge. (No Date: 16-24) In an effort
to exert better control over their lands, the people of the PimaMaricopa Salt River Indian Reservation developed a Cultural Impact Statement which has to be completed for each proposed development. They received assistance in this by the Urban Innovations Group of UCLA. The UCLA team assembled a highly quantifiable list which contained thing-oriented listings that were to elicit potential impacts on people. The tribal elders were uncomfortable with this approach and produced a list of their own. Their list was directly people oriented, based more on subjective reaction. Thus, while the UCLA. list sought to imply impacts on the inhabitants, the tribal list asked directly how the development would impact the people. As the authors state, "the discrepancies may have more to do with fundamentally different ways of viewing the essential dimensionsof cultural impact." (Stea and Buge,l9) From my Anglo perspective, both lists would be useful and probably complementary. The decision makers will most likely rely on their own list. The UCLA team spent little or no time studying the culture of their clients. They either did not bother to determine how the people would make the assessment or totally misinterpretd the answers that they received. Instead, they determined how they themselves would assess development impact and passed on their list. The two lists appear in the appendix for those who wish to see the degree of divergence between them. 1. Need Recognized 20
21 As I stated earlier, the development community has been reassessing its position and methodologies. The social soundness analysis that has been ad'ded to the requirements for project design by USAID and the World'Bank is illustrative of this reassessment. The experience chrc;micled by Stea and Buge calls into question the methodology for performing that analysis unless it is doneby highly culturally sensitized people, if not by natives. Elsewhere in the anthropology literature, a change in the conceptual model of and for development used by planners has been noted. In his work, Allan Hoben (1982:349-75) concludes the following: "The most important of these changes in the development paradigms are increased awareness: (a) that low income rural people's economic behavior is based on pragmatic choice as much as tradition; (b) that local technologies and institutions are often adaptive and generally must be built upon, not merely swept away; (c) that equitable income and asset distribution are not only desireable ends but contribute to sustained growth; and (d) that programs will succeed in promoting equitable income and access to services only if they fine-tuned to local situations, needs, and interests." [Emphasis Such fine-tuning will require a sensitivity to the culture. (350) Mr. Hoben is clearly a supporter of the community-culture approach to community development. The early foreign aid position lacked this call for local sensitivity and had to be reoriented because of its failure. In fact, the early position was antithetical to this need. That position
22 stated that, "The process of modernization entails the progressive erosion of traditions, values, institutions, and practices and their replacement by those that are more rational, scientific, and (352) Modernization in this sense clearly meant stripping away the multitude of cu,ltures and replacing them with a superculture based an American/Western European model. This cultural imperialism was resisted both actively by open resistance and passively by merely continuing as though the aid giver had never arrived. In addition to this bias in approach to aid, the early emphasis was placed on inappropriate types of aid. It was.primarily urban, industrial development, infrastructure, and capital intensive technologies that ill-suit traditional societies . Progress was to trickle down to the peasant. Such heavy-handed treatment has been greatly discredited. Amos Rapoport (1976), as mentioned previously, has suggested a culture-specific design methodology. His chart of aspects of culture and their relation to the built environment is included in the appendix. He acknowledges throughout his writings the need for cultural knowledge in working in man-environment studies. 2. Culturemes One methodology for gaining that knowledge is presented in the same book as his idea for the culture-specific design. Fernando Poyatos (1976:265-74) presents. his methodology for acculturization. It is a method for disecting the settings and activities of a culture to a finer and finer grain in order to observe its functioning.
His initial disection is between urban and rural, stating that most cultural patterns are not the same in these two societies. He makes the further distinction between the exterior and interior domains of activity. Finally, these four basic zones are again split between the human and non-human to create the eight primary culturemes, the basic unit for the analysis of a culture which Poyatos employs. Working down into his methodology, he next brings us to study all the possible settings (the home, church, school, square, office). It is at this level _that a planner will begin to see clues to effective arrangements of elements within the urban setting or begin to deal effectively with the smaller rural villages he may be asked to help develop. Studying arrangements such as urban-exterior-nonhuman could lead to an understanding of current urban patterns such as work places, living quarters and shopping area proxemics. Changing this to urban-exterior-human may reveal the effectiveness of current patterns, people's reaction to them and the need to restructure or reinforce these patterns. 23 Moving from this secondary level, the culture student begins to look for the sensory clues, actions, and reactions that occur within the particular setting. At this level, cultural systems become evident, as do subcultures as evidenced by their differing actions within the same setting or different patterning of the same setting. "After observing, for instance, the urban-interior-human-visual culture as reflected in the home, the school, the church, the cafeteria, the university, the theatre, the funeral parlor, the barber shop, the
supermarket, etc., we have enough material to deal with systems such as furniture, or proxemic arrangement of interior spaces across one whole culture." (Poyatos, 1976:271) 24
IV. Aspects of Culture. Mr. Poyatos has laid out a succinct method for observing a culture. How come the question, what are some of the aspects of culture "that will confront the planner? There are broadly two 25 distinc.t realms which need to be considered, the physical and the social. A. Physical There has been a large body of research into man-environment studies although this work lacks a central theme or themes or theory to bind it together. This makes tracing the pieces particularly difficult as much of the work appears to have been done without knowledge of other similar or related work. Amos Rapoport (1973) _has done extensive research on man-environment studies and presented an outline for the development of a theory for this work. One prime component of that theory is culture, particularly such social indicators as values, images, choices, preferences, etc. that derive from culture. J. Douglas Porteous (1977) proceeded even further by pulling together an overview of man-environment relations (MER). He acknowledged the confusion in the field and hoped that his book may lay the basis for continued interdisciplinary research and discussion. Throughout his work, the stress is placed on the individual and the individual's reaction to the world around him. In numerous instances, it is concluded that that reaction is culturally bound. The physical world has been both influenced by culture and culture influenced by the physical world. The latter is particularly clear when viewing traditional rural societies. The constraints of the
physical world on the inhabitants is initially more obvious in agrarian than in the city. But it is the fitness of the urban setting and man's ability to adapt to it that more often occupies planners energy. The first most obvious aspect of the physical world is architecture. In traditional rural societies this is usually highly .informal, based on local techniques and materials and on specifically local design and layout. In urban settings, the architecture becomes more formal and use specific. Cultural preference may try to dictate the degree of informality allowed to remain in the architecture. In addition, the architecture will be open, or allowingfor ease of entrance or view, or closed, with formal, controlled access depending on cultural preference. Materials, mass, height and density will all be subject to site specificity and cultural tolerance. Finally, spatial requirements and desires are very much sociallybound, both in size and layout. Much of manenvironment studies is directed at determining the effects of architectural design on people, and cutlure is a constant consideratiop. "Urban society is culturally heterogeneous; indeed, the city is characterized by its d!i.versity of life It stands to reason then that urban design must be diverse. Architects should focus not just on 4esigning for a set of universal, spatial requirements, but rather on culturally defined subsets of these-requirements. In many cases social scientists have yet to define these requirements." (LaGory and Pipkin, 1981:233-4) One role of planning should be in 26
assisting in the definition of those requirements. As a subheading of architecture, housing is of critical consideration to the planner. The size, type, quantity, density, and layout are all affected by cultural norms. Method of provision is also subject to.cultural consideration. In one study of housing, Dr. F. Grunfeld concluded that, nif, then, we want to create resi-: dential milieus where people can freely live their preferred way of life and feel to be at home, we must: (a) make the physical milieu flexible, and (b) have insight into their type of lifestyle.n (Grunfeld, 1976:104) He concluded so after observing, "The-many functions of the habitat are anchored in the social structure," and "they [housing preferences] seem to be connected with cultural aspirations that are current in one's reference groups." (Grunfeld, 1976:3) Beyond the buildings lie two important elements of spatial or ganization, landscape and transportation. The type of vista, interplay of organic and inorganic matter and general layout of landscaping all have preferences rooted in culture. Transportation is a very important aspect of physical "planning. It is perhaps the least culturally bound. But the acceptance ofvarious modes of transportation and tolerable distance of travel have some cultural ditioning. Overlying all these specifics of architecture and design elements is the spatial arrangement of the settlement or city. Here, the planner should feel most at ease until he starts to examine some of the base assumptions from which he works. The first assuwption 27
is probably some conception of what the ideal spatial orientation of residential, commercial, industrial and recreational land uses might 28 be. Numerous arrangements do exist and it is difficult to conclude which is optimal, if any. Tolerance levels for the integration of these elements into a mixed-use whole varies widely. The planner lacked any strong realization that his learned assumptions were open to question. Finally, climate is a strong constraint on the planners realm of choice. Climate is one of the key factors in early societal aggregation and cultural formation. It affects the type and style of architecture which has developed, creates opportunity o'r constraints on housing types and dictates plant variety and therefore the natural floral setting. Adjustments to extremes of temperature and amounts and types of precipitation can be difficult. B. Social On the societal side of the ledger, planners have an even more daunting array of factors to consider. The problem is compounded because societal differences are so much more profuse and less easily quantified than the physical aspects of culture. Family life, its structure and people's expectations for it vary greatly. Such things as its head of household, whether it is an extended family structure or a nuclear structure and the lifestyle preferences of the people weigh heavily on a myriad of planning issues. Existing and future patterns of work, where it will be done and by whom is a key element in the social structure. Great
stresses have been placed on a host of people because of this issue alone .and societies' failure to arrive at equitable solutions. Religion becomes of primary importance in many parts of the world and :i,.s a constant source of confusion, misunderstanding and strife. It can be vecy accepting of life's conditions or pose stringent demands on thefollowers. Each religion of the world has a differ;!nt implied condition for man's state on.earth. This implied-condition often dictates the scope of life's expectations, duties and rewar-ds. It is also often reflected in the roles that women and men assume in society and the relationship they have to oneanother. In all, religion can be benign to the interests of the planner or it can proscribe the limits to which a planner.can go. Other secular matters as education, health care and the role of various age groups all vary to some degree from culture to culture. Indeed, they are some of the basic "ways of living" that the people have built up iri order live. The planner proposes changes in any of these social structures only at dire risk to his plans. Finally, one might characterize world view as a kind of _pendium of all the social issues in culture. The question of world view, how it operates, its effects on individuals and societies and cross-cultural similarities and differences is a field of study unto itself. In a review article of ongoing work in the field, Michael Kearney (1975:247-70) uncovered the breadth of interest and extent of work undertaken to understand world view. While cross-cultural variations are obvious, the application or significance of these variations 29
have yet to be determined. Such research should be of keen interest to any planner who is searching for ways to implement more effective and efficient plans. Obviously, this is a, very brief overview of culture as it affects human life. The list is intended to be illustrative of the degree of conc.ern that planners should have for culture. It is .not ;intended as an exhaustive listing of all the aspects of culture which would certainly consume far more paper than this thesis. 30
V. Constraints of Culturally Senstive Planning A. Personal Position I think it's important at this point to stop and clarify:, as much as I can, my own normative position towarcd planning and how it should be done . I come to interest in plann;i.ng from a highly tech:... nical point of view, having received my undergraduate degree in civil engineering. A move from engineering to planningseemed a very reasonable progression although I have b.een surprised to see .-so few engineers pursuing the study.of planning. Perhaps most other engineers already feel as though they kriow how to plan. I feel, though, that my interest in planning had jelled into a true expression of my thoughts and interests as I have put my primary interest not in technique but in people. As an individual, I have more than enough methodology in my life as an engineer. What !want out of my planning studies is to see the effect of methodology on people, or perhaps the lack of effect. 1. End-User Bias Thus, my normative position to planning is that the people, the end-users" of the environment to be created by the plans, should have considerable input into the planning process. This appears to me as the only logical means of arriving at fair, equitable, usable plans. In John Friedmann's (1973) lexicon, I would advocate the participant style .of allocative planning. From a cross-cultural perspective this makes the most sense as it would drastically reduce or. eliminate the miscommunication and misunderstanding which I feel is inevitable if the 31
planner is not of the same culture or sensitive to the culture of the people with whom he is working. Participant planning implies that the people of the have the means and the power to control their own desti!lY to plan for their own future and implement the decisions based on those plans. By its very nature, this style of planning is more culturally sensitive. It is worthy of note that Porteous (1977) arrives at an-idealized planning scenario which is nearly identical with Friedmann's. This: he terms planning when he sees the people becoming the "inperts" replacing the experts as the planners. Unfortunately, we are not at this utopian stage in our social maturity. r am safe if I choose to pursue planning as a career because the "expert" is still in demand 2. The Participant Planner In fact, I would not support the conclusion that the expert will ever be subsumed into the general_populace except in some utopian contrivance, neither does Porteous (1977: 368). There are few com muni tees where individuals .will not be necessary to study the overall consequences of particular causes of action. or will be required to develop particular knowledge of the realm of issues which we. call planning. 32 In that context, the planner will fill two roles. She will first be an advisor to the citizens, clarifying the main issues and soliciting input from the citizens. It is in this role that communicati9n difficulties arising-from cultural differences between the planner and .the citizens can prove highly detrimental. The participation by the
citizens must be to the point of acquiring a plan fitted to their needs as the end-users. A poor understanding of those needs by a planner uninitiated to their cultural requirements is clearly counterproductive to the participatory process. However,'the planner who is willing to use the participatory process to develop her cultural insight will be in a better position to develop effective plans than one who is not. Within this advisory role, she will also have to bring particular information to the citizens about possible solutions which they may not .have considered. In other words, she must be a contact between the community and society-at-large. She must be able to present as full a range of possible solutions as-she can, even knowing that some of them may be culturally objectionable. It is the citizens' responsibility to make that decision, not hers. The second role the planner must fill is that of advocate for the citizens. She must be able to articulate their positions as accurately and clearly as possible. A clouded understanding of their cultural biases will lead to a faulty portrayal of their needs and desires. Therefore, the stronger the participatory effort, the clearer that portrayal will be as the citizens will have a better opportunity to transmit their cultural biases to the planner more fully. I will develop my argument for the particular expertise required in a later section. As Friedmann concludes, "allocative planning is an attempt to make decisions functionally rational." It is an attempt "to work out the practical implications of the implicit norms of a society." But, 33
"Allocative planning cannot be based on rational _grounds It inevitablyincludes a major normative reflecting not necessarily phe interests." (1973:57) It is clear .that such planning requires a great deal of societal input and guidance. It is equally clear that it requires a great deal -of sensitivity on the part of the planner to more than the .aggregate numbers of his data. .That is why I have always viewed planning as a participatory effort. But how can an American be senstive to the needs of a Hindu family in Bombay or rural Uttar or a Frenchman to the Algerian II!Ountain or the Englishman to the East Indian immigrant in a poor section of London? What is at issue is the "normative component" of any plan and whose normative position the plan reflects. Can the American b.e expected to have an Indian normative balance to his thinking? Or can the white, anglo planner in the U.S. have an East black normative balance to his work in such a neighborhood in an American city? Normative positiot).s are by definition culturally generated, reflecting the "implicit norms of a society." I feel that it is possible for the cultural gaps cited above 34 to be closed by a strong effort on ,the part of the planner to study the culture of the people with whom he. is If he enters into the participation process and can likewise solicit their full the chances for success are very good. Out of the participatory process itself can come the understanding and sensitivity necessary to carry out a successful planning process. The hurdle to be cleared will
be the willingness on the part of all the parties to conduct an open dialogue. Other issues which affect .the outcome will be discussed under Planning the Real World. 3. Similarities, Too Cultural. similarities will also become apparent to the planner as he develops a dialogue in a cross-cultural setting. These similarities will arise both from our common drives and goals as human beings as well as. out of particular cultural similarities in the solutions to the problems of life. Some of the aspects of to be studied for similarities are discussed later. These can be important to recognize as the differences, for it is in the similarities that cultural sensitivity can set some roots. Tolerance and appreciation for others' values are the fruit of this sensitivity, bringing people to the point of meeting others as. individuals, not as stereotypes, so that communication can take place. Ihave.stressed the need for cultural sensitivity on the part of the planner, and the awareness of simila:ities in his cultural background to that of his will be of use in developing that sensitivity. It is also possible for the people to gain a better understanding of the-planner through the same awareness._ They may be more willing to work out the difficulties of a planning proposal if they feel some common ground with the planner. They will also be more willing to work with other cultural groups if a common viewpoint can be arrived at through common cultural interests . The similarities in cultures also allow for a particular 35
solution to be effective over a range of circumstances. Although the solution may truly fit only one set of cultural norms, it Diay be possible for numerous user groups to feel comfortable with it or be able to make the modifications for. their uses. Thus, approximations become close enough for gopd cultural fit given.the proper balance of culturalsimilar.ities. Herein lies ground for -flexibility in plan preparation. It will be particularly useful to the planner working in a mult-i-cultured setting, but will also provide information and insights for the planner as he moves from one cultural setting .to another . Lessons will have a degree of carry-over depending on the degree of similarity found in a new setting compared with previous ones. Experience gained will sensitize the planner to the possibilities. for .carry-,over and the degree of modification -necess_ary from one setting to the next. B. Protec.ting the Future The professional planner is in a constant struggle to take his most desired plan, his ideal, and make it work in the reai world. It is a constant endeavor to bring the two info as close an alignment as possible. As an effort in future thinking, planners' are continually evaluating present conditions and projecting a future set of conditions which they are attempting to influence in some way. The evaluation requires an extensive data base of current conditions and the projections require an unbiased interpretation of the data. The problem with the data base is more qualitative than quan-36
titative. Unfortunately, quality is much more difficult to measure than quantity. It has been all too easy to get caught up in the qualifiers that bring the statistics into alignment with life experience. Qualifiers, such as people.'s expectations and aspirations, are difficult to monitor much less control or project. Chapin and Kaiser (1979) approach the issue_by talking-about preconditioning factors. "It has been .shown that the key preconditioning factors in activity analysis at the level of household are income, stage in the life cycle, and ethnicity." After some further discussion they conclude, "It would appear therefore that these three precond-itioning factors would provide a good basis for forming archetypical household categories." ( 1979: 212) It is of course the ethnic preconditioner, which is being stressed in this .Paper. Part of the problem inma:king projections-is that the future is necessarily couched in present terms. These present terms are in turn of the cultural values and world view which are held by a particular group of people. The planner must bring an understanding and appreciation of these values into his projections. Otherwise, he will miss his intended mark. In other words, he will misinterpret the factors. Corallary to this, he must have begun to arrive at his understanding sometime before or during the time he gathers his data. The questions he asks or doesn't ask will be the basis of his data and without some understanding of the people with whom he is working he may ask the wrong questions, not ask questions he should, or 37
interpret the answer incorrectly. The issue here is that of problem definition. Part of my failure to induce some action in my village to begin a reforestation project was.due to my inability to pose the problem in terms fully to.the villagers. I see now that I did not carry the inquiry far enough. The Nepali's con-. ception of the consequences of their inaction was not presented graphically enough for them to grasp. I only questioned them. to the point of their failure. This occurred early in the first year of my stay with them and I had not seen other avenues to pursue because of my inexperience with them. .There are many more which I would pursue now . It comes down to the funda-mental statement for computer garbage garbage out. The knowledge and appreciation of the values involved will keep the input from being garbage. C. Physical and Fiscal Constraints Within the planning world there as everywhere else, physical and fiscal restraints that act to limit the effectiveness of plans to something less than the ideal. The are more often greater than the resources to meet them. Abalance is striven f9r that will maximize the results. A clear means of maximizing efforts is to maximize the effectiveness a particular course of action and to minimize the probability of experiencing false .starts or major emphasis correction. By culturally sensitizing the data collection and user information, a. better picture of the desires of those users is possible. This clearer understanding at the beginning will help 38
to eliminate the necessity for radical course: adjustments farther into theprocess. Such adjustments are almost always costly in terms of resources wasted and may not even be possible given. a fixed initial budget. The work.of David Stea and Carol Buge (No date:B-15) contains a clear illustration of a proj_ect with less than maximun results. The first of their. studies covered a photovoltaic._power system set up at the Papago village of Schuchuli, Arizona It shows the inadequacy of efforts at aiding people without_ prior communication and consultation. As a result, the expectations of the people were never explored and they were left with unrealistically high expectations, which were not fulfilled by the installed system. Also, the type and setting_of the facilities did not match the village's well-defined patterns of life. This error was particularly disturbing because it would have been the easiest to rectify. Thus, as a scientific experiment in provi-ding photovoltaic energy to a remote area, it was a success. However, as an answer to the needs and desires, it was a shakey,.partial success. It could have been far more successful. D. Time Another ubiquitous constraint is time. Time is of the essence in all things and most action occurs before all the necessary information can be gathered to make totally rational decisions for the action. This constraint appears much more damaging to effective crosscultural planning than either money or facilities because of the com-39
40 plexity involved in acculturization... Ultimately . money will. become the issue. because funding will be time limited or construction schedules will demand progress. But the rush to build or develop.should be held up to an historical perspective. theproject pro-poses to do has_. until now, not been done. Inserting more lead time irito the schedule will be easier when viewed this way. Some of the urgency will be quieted. The extra lead timeto study the impact / on the culture can probably be regained. Community acceptance helps to free up development effort for development, not training the populace at large how to ada,pt to aproject of poor fit as with the Papago village. The time argument has been heatedly debated for decades and will continue to be a focus of debate within development and aid agencies. We never reach the point of perfect knowledge but it is the perception of knowing enough which allows us to proceed. E. Developing Expertise of the preceding aigument can be drawn down to one issue, the development of proper planning expertise. It is one thing -to learn the methodologies of planning and study planning history and theory to gain insight into proper application. However, the argu-ment to this point has stressed the need for end-user into the planning process and sufficient aptitude on the part of the planner to assimilate that input in a way that is compatible with those users. Even if one were to argue that sufficient knowledge can be obtained with only minimal input from the end-user because the nature of a particular project or proposal is fairly well defined, the
solution to the problem must still be couched in terms which will be acceptable to end-users. Thus, a key element in planning expertise should be a good grounding in the culture of the people for whom "the planning is intended. To develop this type of expertise, the time constraint looms as the primary obstacle, for there are two averlUes to traverse. The first is for aperson trained in planning to study the culture of the people with whom he will be working. Anthropology sheds the clearest light on the difficulties and time frames necessary to gain insight into and sensitivity for another I will discuss one methodology in detail later. The second is to train people native to a culture as planners and allow .them to develop the local planning expertise. This avenue appears even longer. Simply training a staff sufficient to handle the scope of planning issues in today's world is a major undertaking. Then, once trained, these new planners are faced with the problem of translation and adaptation of what they have learned to make it fit to their world. Someone from Nepal who is trained in England or the U.S. will be no more able to immediately plunge into plan preparation than an American or British counterpart traveling to Nepal with him. The automatic assumption of learned planning doctrine willnot suffice. His first endeavor will have to be to continue his education by learning what will work at home, adapting where he can, discarding what is useless, and filling in the gaps with new theory and methodology that fits his culture and circumstances. 41
42 My conclusions are supported by much of the work in manenvironment studies. Rapoport (1976:7-33) presents the idea of culturespecific designs, a parallel proposal to that of culture-specific planning. The two would have to proceed concurrently.
43 VI. Issues in Planning The urban planner will generally be interested either in the physical setting or the social setting of the city, with each specialist being more or less aware of the constraints that the other setting imposes. The traditional urban planner is primarily concerned with issues of spatial orientation. Particular elements will be discussed shortly within a discussion of the aspects of culture. A. Physical Planning Two general subheadings of a spatial orientation need to be addressed as well. These are the issues of quality control and conflict resolution. The latter concern is often the impetus for the request for planning assistance. It is certainly one of the primary motivatons for urban planning per se. When the conflict is one involving problem of safety, the technician may hold the necessary answers. However, as the perceived conflict becomes one of preference as opposed to necessity, the specifics of the culture come into play. American planning still insists.on near total separation of uses as the means of reducing conflict. Much work has been done to try to loosen zoning codes to allow for a more flexible use of land, but a true synthesis of land uses is still not possible in most jurisdictions. Much of the Bostonian planner's problem in not recognizing the vitality of the North End was his fixed idea about conflicting land uses. He saw conflicts where the inhabitants did not. He saw problems in commerce, industry and residence coexisting as
44 well as the use of the streets for so many purposes other than movement. The people saw it as the convenience of having home, work and shops all close at hand while using the streets for community, not merely passage. Thus, even a "healthy environment" is open to varied definitions and interpretations. Quality control issues are generally addressed both by general statements of intent about maintaining and enhancing the quality of life coupled with a listing of minimun standards for all development plans to address and hopefully surpass. No one will argue about the intent, but the standards had better be tuned to local expectations or they will be very difficult to maintain. The difficulty in arriving at a universal definition of quality is obvious. B. Social Planning Social planning was addressed in a recent work by Hardiman and Midgley (1982). Their conclusions about the problems of transplanted answers coincide exactly with mine. "A major concern of this book is the problem of inappropriate social policy in the Third World, when the social services of the industrial countries have been copied frequently without modification." (1982:5) Instead, they argue for the development of local social policy planning to deal with patently local problems as well as a more general policy to address problems shared by many developing countries. Much of the problem lies in the lack of native expertise and an ignorance of the consequences of that failing. "In most cases, the adoption of modern professional town planning has not been the result of a
deliberate political decision on the part of national leaders, but due rather to the willingness of many Third World governments to accept the advice of expatriate advisors and international agencies and to depend on techniques developed'in the industrial countries." (1982:152) The inherent problems in this approach are becoming more apparent, at least to the aid agencies, and some correction has been attempted. Some of the anthropological work reviewed in a subsequent section will address this changed perception. C. Scope of Concern When culture is accepted as an issue in planning, its impact will be mitigated by the scope of the area under study. It will also limit the breadth or the discussion for larger areas. A scale hierarchy of say, neighborhood, district, city, region, state, country, continent, hemisphere and world implies different application for cultural impacts. The cultural homogeneity of the scale under study will have a direct bearing on the depth of study necessary. In a country like Yugoslavia which subsumed several old, distinct cultural groups into a shakey federation, the scale of study may be crucial to the results. 45 Two critical areas of concern arise when the scale of the planning area is to be considered. The first is really only tangentially related to scale. It is the issue of the discriminatory use of information gathered for planning purposes. Statistics are morally neutral, but their use can be highly prejudicial. For the real world planner, this issue is potentially ruinous. Our unconscious
prejudices will shade our thinking. The more strident and unfettered the prejudices, the more damaging that thinking could be. All official policy in the U.S. is based on antidiscrimination statutes that prohibit judgement based on color, creed or national origin. Now I'm saying that such data is crucial to a competent It must be considered. The answer to the dilemma ties in the application of the. judgement. A planner who is fully aware of the cultural of the plans he is preparing must be acting in accordance with the users of the area being The degree of specificity will be the greatest at the local or neighborhood level and the least at the world level. In other words, the specificity of cultural input should be directly related to the specificity of the plans under formulation. All plans should address the issue of culture. Thus, world planning will include some statements about maintaining the integrity of the varied cultures of the world, while attempting to harmonize the confrontations that the cultural differences engender. Yugoslavianstate planning must strive for cultural balance among the various groups with no hint of favoritism to any one group. On the local level, the state planner working in Serbia had better know the limitations ofSerbic; acceptance within issues he addresses. Should he introduce too much from outside he may be accused of trying to subvert the Serbic people, or his plans will fail to have any impact because the users will simply.ignore them. 46
The Yugosiavian example is particularly appropriate to the next problem facing the planner in a multi-cultural world. The question concerns the balance between local concerns and societal needs in general. Parochial or provincial-attitudes can impede beneficial changes or infusions from outside. Positions taken that are too strident can lead to confrontation and conflict, and deterioration of the living conditions of the inhabitants of a region. Clearly, this is not the intent of the planning profession. However, provincialism can be a logical outcome of an attempt to deal with local by soliciting local answers. On the other hand, it is not a road block to progress either, as local opposition has often been characterized. To achieve the greatest results from a particular course of action, say, incumbent regeneration of a city neighborhood, raising local pride and expectations may be the primary road to success. Allowing local inhabitants to come up with the answers will go a long way toward their implementation. The planner can direct the process by presenting the concerns of society-at-large. The question can be asked in a different manner, i.e., to what extent is the fostering of cultural or ethnic pride a virtue or a vice? Can that line be drawn? If it can, can the planning profession perceive it? Thus, to what extent could South America benefit from an increased pride in shared values? Could an articulation of these values aid in the formulation of a better defined policy for South America in relation to the rest of the world? Could common regional problems received more effective treatment? Or does 47
South America suffer from parochial myopia, being unable to integrate applicable solutions to their problems from other sources? Bringing the scale down, segregation could be abetted by an insistance on totally local control. Society is enriched by an exchange of ideas and ideals. Segregation, more often than not, hurts those who are segregated the most, even if they chose to .be segregated. Hasidic Jews and the Amish are two examples of distinct groups who have successfully segregated most of their life from that of the surrounding society. Their cultural tradition allows them to succeed. Other ethnic groups have been able to maintain less stringent separation of portions of their life. It is the balance that needs constant attention and periodic adjustment to guard against the damage of overly exclusive control or the ravages of cultural nearsightedness. The scales can be adjusted using cultural sensitivity and tolerance. One balancing criteria is the degree of benefits and resources that the local group wishes to derive from the greater society vs. what service they are willing to render for these benefits. The Amish succeed in their separate lives by providing for themselves and demanding little from others. Their tolerance for the busy world around them has become matched by community tolerance for their chosen way of life, and a peaceful coexistence is possible. We are now at the heart of this treatise. For people to live 48
full, enriched lives, they need to be secure within their own cultures yet able to draw on other cultures and society-at-large for assistance when necessary or stimulation when desired. Part of a planner's responsibility lies in assisting people to achieve that inherent balance. 49
VII. "A Theory of Good City Form" Although the daily, descriptive planning literature appears bereft of detailed reference to cultural .variation, the theory of planning must expand -its vision if it is to bridge societal gaps to find broader application without constant translation. Indeed, cultural variation is one the key stumbling blocks to arriVing at a cohesive, workable theory. Noting the shortcomings and fragmentation of planning theory, Kevin Lynch (1981) has written a compelling work which lays out the foundation for a normative theory-for urban planning. He has striven to allow for the full range of societal form by using environmental performance as judged by.the users as the basis for the theory. In doing so, he hopes to avoid the dogma of. particular solutions or unrealistic leaps of faith by grounding the theory in the daily lives of the inhabitants . It is the quality of the urban environment that Lynch is interested in defining in order to generate, and regenerate it through the application of the theory. In order to make the theory normative for all human society, he strives to arrive at a set of universal performance criteria.. These need to be general in not specific standards, although such standards may derive from the general criteria for specific applications. He calls these universal criteria dimensions of performance. Whereas he wants these to be universal to all of human society, they can be reactive to specific cultural requirements by allowing for different satisfying criteria 50
within the dimension based on cultural preferences. Each dimension is to be measureable so that a subjective determinator can be made of the performance of a particular setting in meeting that dimension. The need for this specificity is stated in his opening remarks about _performance characteristics when he states, . we know that the quality of a place is due to the joint -effect of the place and the society which occupies it. II (111) Thus, it is up to that society to determine the performance of the place. A. Performance Dimensions Lynch identifies five performance dimensions plus two overriding standards which he terms metacriteria. The five are vitality, sense, fit, access and control while the two are efficiency and justice. I do not intend to discuss the completeness of this list or to define them beyond the necessity for the discussion of the cultural relevance of each and whether or not Lynch dealt with this relevance. I leave his fuller discussion to the interested reader. In developing the performance dimensions, Lynch lists specific criteria for the dimensions. In this list, he recognizes that the characteristics of these dimensions will be value laden. He specifically calls for the cultural variation in the value set to be made explicit. However, the cultural variation will only affect the degree of satisfaction within the dimension, not the use and analysis of the dimension. Thus, fit will be judged on the basis of the values of the culture occupying a particular place. Once the degree of fitness has been determined, action can then be taken, 51
if necessary, to improve or alter the fit to better align with the values inherent in the decision of fitness. Or, as Lynch puts it, "It should be possible to connect these characteristics to the important goals and values of any culture, at least through a chain of reasonable (113) Out of this connection grows the ability to determine -the location on each dimension of a particular place. The overall issue in this paper, though is who makes that determination. Beyond that determination there lies the attempt at correcting the discovered faults in order to obtain a more desirable point within that dimension. I would stress -that the determination of the position within a performance dimension is one which must be made by the user. Here is the opportunity for the end-user to be heard through the citizen participation process. As the scale of place being analyzed increases so too does the number of users, whether as individuals or as groups of various sizes, composition and purpose. The complexity of the analysis also increases and a range within the dimension is more likely to evolve rather than a single point. Whatever the case may be, the planning professional must be extremely cautious not to intercede his own value system for that of the user. He must use the participatory process to educate the users as. to the characteristics of the dimensions for them to better understand what it is and for them to clarify their own feelings about it. This may be the most useful function for the professional at this point. As he is outlining the characteristics of, say, sense, he will 52
be able to gain insight into the value system of the users in their response to him. The professional must also strive to understand his own value grounding and make it as obvious as possible to the users during these discussions. Thus, his characterization of the dimension may contain subjective statements and the ones that do come through can be more readily identified as such. As for rectifying action, it is my contention that the professional will need a ver-y solid grounding in the culture in order to determine the range of acceptable solutions open to him. It is hoped that the discussion of each dimension will sow the seeds for such action. This is not to argue that there are not some universal problems which may lend themselves to particular adaptations of a common set of solutions. Someone well versed in those problems may. 53 be able to make the transfer of the solution from one culture to another very successfully. It is the adaptation of the solution to fit the new situation which is critical. The similarties to be found in cultures will assist the planner in this effort. From all of the above discussion, I would suggest that a user/ planner would be an optimum situation. Slightly less optimum would be a member of the same culture as planner followed by others with descending understanding and sensitivity to the cutlure of the user. Each professional will be more or less effective based on his own competency first and based on the subjectiveness of the issue he is dealing with and the performance dimension involved. For the more culturally bounded dimensions of fit, sense, and control, the
subtleties involved will soon leave the cultural alien floundering. B. Vitality The first dimension Lynch uses is vitality, or the ability of the habitat to support "the health and biological well-functioning of the individual and the survival of the species." (121) This he breaks into-sustenance, "an adequate supply of food, energy, water, -and air, and a -proper disposal of wastes," (121) safety, the absence or control_of hazards, poisons, and diseases as well as a low expec of them, and consonance, the fitting of the environment to the basic biological structure of the human being. He adds to these a regard first for other plant and animal species which are useful to man and finally the entire ecosystem. Human -ignorance appears a's a stronger constraint to the inclusion of this full range of consideration than a_rty particular cultural preference. Much work has been done worldwide on the issue of sustenance as well as safety with particular regard to the suppression of disease. Great progress has been made in both areas, but not_ without numerous stumbles and errors along the way. But these errors are more often due to failing within the other dimensions than within vitality. Few will argue the merits of p-roviding for a vital environment although concern for the individual will vary with cultural perception. Issues that fall directly within_ vitality which are culturally do exert themselves. Work, or jobs, who performs which jobs, 54
and where they are located.are. all tied into vitality by providing the means of acquiring life sustenance. Sustenance is one of the primary inpu.ts in generating family structure within each culture. The quantity and density of housing are integral in vital environment and continues to be one of the most pressing needs throughout the-world. Religion and political structure.both have bearing on the issue of vitality bY limiting the individual's realm of choice and the concern for individual vs. group well-being. Agricultural reform for increased crop yields will vary from Colombia to Nepal to the Soviet Union in part because of religious and political cons.traints and expectations for C. Sense. The next two dimensions seem to be the most culturally bound. The first of these is sense. the sense of a settlement [is] the clarity with which it can be perceived and identified This is the join between the form of the environment and the human processes of perception and cognition Thus the sense of a particular place will vary for different observers." (131) However, similarities will arise out of "the common cultural norms that may be found among those who habitually use any particular place." (131) Thus senseis integrally related to the observer whose reaction is culturally bounded. Lynch states several times. that any analysis of sense must'be controled for cultural bias and dependent on cultural: sensitivity. Again, there are a number of subheadings under sense which Lynch 55
pursues in some detail. The first are identity, both of place and of events, and structure, which together-"allow us to recognize and pattern space and time is themselves." (138) Both of these Lynch recognizes from his own experience to have cultural specificity. He hits at the heart of the issue by addressing the degrees of identity and the reasons behind people's perceptions. He cautions here against the substitution of the analyst's perceptions for tho.se of the inhabitants. His end-user bias is as apparent here as mine. Lynch moves on to what he characterizes as "specific components which connect environment to other aspects of our lives." (143) These are congruenc_e, transparency, and legibility. To the degree that the environment must reflect the cultural aspects of our lives, these components are obviously culture. bound. Congruence at first thought seems to be the most strongly bounded component. It appears that for congruence to be achieved, the cultural traits which are to be exhibited must b"e made explicit in order to determine congruence. But on this issue, cultures are more malable than one might suppose. The adaptability of the human race speaks to a far greater satisfying range for congruence. Transparency, on the other hand, is severely culturally bounded. The eastern European is much more withdrawn and self-controlled than his Mediterranean neighbor, particularly around strangers. The lifestyle promoted by particular cultures is the issue here. Lynch states, "The subject can be sensitive, but culture seems to be .shifting toward a greater openness." (139) Ask Gorbachov or Khomeini 56
57 how. open a should be and the answer is sure to be quite dif-ferent. Legibility is accorded a near total social creation which is "often unintelligible to the cultural stranger." (141) Again and again he goes -back to the need for verification by the inhabi-tants of any _analysis of these components. I Lastly, Lynch attempts to summarize the sense of a place as its symbolic significance. "To what degree, in the minds of its users, is the form of any settlement a complex symbol of basic values, life processes, historic events, fundamental social structure or the nature of the universe?" (142) The cultural specificity is apparent. In order to tap the common meanings underlying this significance, interviewing devices have been developed, but. Lynch suggests another route. He suggests empathy, extended discussion, and living with the inhabitants as a better avenue for exploration. In other words, one must acculturize himself in order to be sensitive to the feelings and meaning expressed by the people. D. Fit The third dimension in Lynch's lexicon is fit. He spends more time on his discussion of fit than any other dimension. This is due to the range of human activity and the diversity of settings for that activity. "The fit of a settlement refers to how well its spatial and temporal pattern matches the cutomary behavior of its inhabitants." (151) As he states, it is intimately dependent on culture," and "it is not possible to evaluate fit if one is ignorant of the culture
of the occupants." (151-2) ::!However, I do not think it is possible to doso for vitality either. as he implies. At best the observer will uncover the "illth" as he would uncover a misfit. The cause_ may be easier to arrive at when dealing with vitality, but is no means assur.ed and can _be totally obscured to the un:i,nitiated. I lived in Nepal for two years and I still did not come up with a remedy for the villagers' inability to reforest their land. Be that as it may, the tie to culture is.so strong for fit that its influence is pervasive. It is.easily concluded that the native professional will have a far greater a])ility than the foreigner to determ.ine the fitness of a location. D. Access The fourth dimens;ion of access is less culturally bounded than the three previous dimensions except in one significant area. This one aspe<;t is the control of access. Lynch talks of the range of access as access to people, activities, material resources, places. and information. Cultural scrictures will often decide who has access to what. In traditional societies, access is often severely limited by the resources available. The women of the villages in the particular river valley of Nepal where I worked would seldom travel more than 15 or 20 miles from their place of birth. Many never did. The only time they traveled was when their family got displaced or they married and went to live with her husband's fam_ily. The latter was usually in a village in the immediate vicinity, usually just across 58
the Other traditional groups like the Masai require a much greater range for the_ grazing of their cattle. But these traditional social groups are not the primary focus in this discussion. Lynch is dealing with the urban realm of human association. Here the overriding constraint on access is politicaL As much as the politics of a people are the outcome of their cultural backgrounq, then culture determines this access. This linkage is 59 often not very direct and it is far easier to deal directly with the political system. The constraint on access is usually all too obvious. These political constraints may require some extensive study before specific action is recommended. Control of access is also exerted on the sociocultural level, however, and must be studied very carefully. Association wi,th other members of a community may be frowned upon and activities may be restricted to certain groups as well as particular resources, places and information. Information is of particular interest and is usually the most closely guarded as a means of maintaining the existing social, economic and political structure. Individual opportunity, one of the cornerstones of western society, is not assumed to be as important in many parts of the world. While access to resources and information is important, the planner will be more involved in cccess to people, activities and places. In a Hindu society, this access is severely regulated by caste. In the U.S., ethnic diversity influences patterns of association, choices of residence and availability of work, even
though'civil law requires that ethnic background not be used in any of those decisions .. Cultural bias and preference maintain patterns of association 'mtich more s.trongly than legal strictures. The planner who is blind to. these associations and the influence of cutlural on the issues of access will be most inneffectual. These are areas of concern .which can be .. very defende4 and kept hidden from outsiders. Only someone well-versed in the culture may be able to understand the subtleties inherent in this control. It is here that the native may be indispensable. F. Control The final dimension that Lynch employs is control, that is, who controls the spaces within the settlement. This is the ultimate social battleground, one in which our territoriality comes to fore to the near exclusion of any other consideration_. Politics blurr the use and the. importance of control. Politics 60 has evolved as a means for control f.or the full range of human activity. One of that activity, property rights, lies at the heart of all modern political systems. Because of the vagaries of the indi-vidual, it is less complex to establish property; a fixed, definable entity, as the controlling idiom for political structures. Its im-perfection is obvious for its focus on a single realm of human interaction. Still; as the limitation of this idiom becomes apparent, we strive to expand our. political concern to a wider range of human interest. The increased complexity leads us to even more imperfect solutions. Of course, my owri cultural bias makes it difficult for me to I d appreciate how other systems of control can exist. We are use to
61 ownership as the key element of control, and we react violently whenever any portion of that control is infringed upon. Thus., systems that don't recognize individual ownership or where ultimate control rests with some suprapowerful entity are very difficult to conceive, much less accept. It is when we begin to explore the various spa.tiai rights that Lynch uses that we can begin to see that the role of culture and the use of control becomes evident, although its exact effects are often difficult to define. Presence is the first spatial right, that is, the right to occupy a place and its obverse, the right to exclude someone else. Perhaps in no other realm of control do cultural norms operate as strongly. As a foreign expert, I was to. be treated with respect and honor, but the constraints of caste disallowed 'my entry into some Nepali households. The means for exerting control are most generally applied toward controlling presence as well. This should be app_arent because it is easier to control presence than it is to control action. Architecture has evolved to exert this control with pro-nounced cultural variation. The home is probably the prime example of this control. The separation from public to semi-private to private space is most ap-parent but the variations in deriving this separation between cul-tures can be Yery subtle. Some grosser examples would be the needfor separate entrances in a formal Moslem home for men and women or the central hallway of American homes and our need for separate rooms versus the lack of such a hallway or privacy being built into the Jap:-
62 anese home. The home is also the area where we exert our greatest indi-vidual influence. In studying domestic space, Roderick (1981: ) observed yet another example of how dynamic this influence can be. He studied several townhouse estates in England and Australia. In addition to differeing internal uses, he pointed out the appropri-ation of the space in front of the English unit by the tenants by various landscaping means. These spaces became semi-private domains for each household. The Australians were not allowed to modify their landscaping but were provided a large common open area. This remained sparsely used because no part of it could be person-alized and controlled. Use of facilities or action within a place are the second spatial right enumerated by Lynch. The appropriateness of actions is obviously culturally bounded. "This may be restricted within certain explicit or commonly understood limits." (207) In public places in Nepal, any physical contact between men and women, even married couples, was unacceptable. My program officer visited my site one time and arranged for his wife to meet him there. They are both former volunteers and have a keen awareness of Nepali custom. So, when they met for the first time in over three weeks, they were standing in the middle of the main gathering point in the village. They stood a respectable or seven feet apart and exhanged greetings. The nature of the environment-behavior relationship has been extensively studied to the point of attempting to better understand
the exact nature of that relationship. The usual question is how much influence does a particular setting exert on behavior or the converse, which settings are most conducive _to particular behaviors. Thus, the term behavior settings was coined. In dealing with be-. havior settings, the issues raised by fit, sense-and control all become "interrelated; but the separation of these elements could lead to a better understanding of the successes or failures. of particular settings. The importance variation is built into the definition of behavior settings as well as being recognized throughout the t:nan-environment literature. LaGory and Pipkin summarize it by stating, "The physical setting is.embedded in' specific social and cultural systems, so that context and social structure are dynamically interrelated;" (1981 :216) I am going to skip to Lynch;s fourth right, the right of modification, because of its relation to use. Modification implies the right to change the physical setting in some way.. When allowed, settings will be individualized such as the British modification to the townhomes in Lawrence.'s work. The type of modification may be affected by culture, but the right of modification is more directly related to ownership. Ownership is the issue also in the other two rights enumerated, appropriation and disposition. Many Third World countries have been faced with the problem of appropriation as rural people have migrated to the cities and occupied. squatter settlements. How to combat this activity, or legitimize those people already in place is a difficult .63
problem. To the degree that individual ownership is accepted or allowed, culture has some bearing on this issue. However, politics and economics have greater influence on issues of ownership.for most ofthe world's societies. Finally, Lynch returns to a discussion of congruence. In this 64 case, he is talking about the match between the user and the.controller. Does the current user of a space also have control over the space beyond its use? As long as the control is an issue of ownership and the ownership is by members of the same culture, then congruence is .not a cultural issue. However, when ownership is by other cultural groups, two issues come to the fore. The first is the cumulative effect of the other rights as di-scussed by Lynch. Differences in the expected use or action which may occur, who might be there and when, what may be used or modified .and what not, and how the property is to be maintained are all issues with varyip.g cultural expectations. These will be defined by the 'relationship between the user and The second issue is the relationship between the planner and bothparties. Resolution of a planning issue such as rehabilitation, change of use, or displacement will require the planner to deal successfully with both parties. The' above differences is cultural perception over.the control and use of a space can add an immeasurable complexity to the problem. The. usual reaction is to discount the user's opinion and proceed according to the owner's wishes. In a society dominated by property rights, this is the only logical action.
Where other issues of equity are raised, the cultural perceptionswill become important in coming to a resolution. My discussion of is all too brief. This one topic could easily be the subject of an entire study . Lynch does not deal directly with the cultural input to control in his discussion. Cultural variation drops out as his analysis of control is focused on a limited area. Yet in order to carry out his analysis, the observer had better be grounded in the local .culture or .the answers to some of Lynch's questions.will not be Such an abstract question as, "Is there a c.onsensus among users about the reality and the rightness of control? Do they feel free to act as they wish, and as they think. proper for the place.?" (219) require adept. presentation as well as interpretation. G. Metacriteria Finally, we arrive at Lynch's metacriteria, efficiency and justice. "Efficiencies of settlements can be compared only by seeing which achieve the best level in some one dimension, given a fixed amount of other values expended or achieved." (221) The key, of course, is values. Thecultural values of a society will greatly affect the solutions it arrives at for its environment. ,In fact, inefficiencies will be continued for the sake of tradition. Kay Garne? Or are they only apparent inefficiencies as viewed by the cultural neophyte who does not or cannot appreciate the full range of benefits realized by the present condition? Justice is far trickier to define. In traditional society, 65
justice.was in the hetnds of the elders, theking, orpriest and dispensed at their will. Today, justice more often lies in a system of jurisprudence, of law, although we obviously.maintain a great number.of dictatorial systems of rule as well. None of our systems .approach the truly. just, although western man has the idea more than others that his is the best. Indeed, justice is not a key element in many societies. The definition of _justice and. the parameters of human endeavor or interact'ion used to analyze -justice are as value laden as efficiency and even more strongly culturally bounded. Lynch, concludes his OWJl assessment of justice with the admission of strong cultural indebtedness. "The comments above are clearly culture-bound.and cannot be defended as eternally just. They reflect Western.preoccupations with equality and freedom and theauthor's preoccupation with individual de:velopment." (230) Lynch makes his own assessment of the five dimensions in relation to culture. The.!limensions are designed to allow for different value positions resulting rom different cultural value systems. Here, Lynch is questioning the definition of.the dimensions themselves. If the definition of each dimension i$ itself culturally dependent, then 66 the theory falls apart_as a.normative theory. In other words, are these dimensionspure derivatives of environmental form or does the planner need to define the relationship of the form to the culture before using the dimension? Oniy one dimension fails this test in Lynch's estimation, the of fit. Because the definition of fit is culture-dependent,
"few generalizations can be made about the features of form which are effective for achieving good fit, such.as canbe inade for.. the other dimensions" (232) Given the vast amount man-environment research that has.takenplace with fewgenerally applicable principles having been derived, LYIJ:ch appears supported in his opinion. The most that can be summarized is that the environment should be made as flexible as possible and leave the rest to the basic adaptability of human beings. All this may mean, however, is that fit is the most difficult dimension to apply. Perhaps fit is one of the prime reasons for the rise of the city as a form of human habitat. Given the variety of form inherent in an urban environment, the probability of achieving a better fit to a greater realm of desired behavior was increased. Thus, many of the. tures of the world urbanized even though the urban forms varied to maximize the fit desired.by each culture. In all, Lynch's work shows his keen awareness the end-user's needs in developing. effective plans. He has striven to make this an integral :part of his theory by drawing his arcguments. down to their impact on.the individual. His sense of the need for this particularity has been honed by years of studying individual r_eaction to the built environment. He sees no universal criteria to be applied, only_ the dimensions he outlines for universal use tempered by local judgement." (235) To me, this ilnplies a strong program of citizen aimed at developing local judgement of each dimension. Thesejudgements will guide the planner in his efforts to maximize 67
the location within each dimension, while balancing the effects of all five dimensions; 68
VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations Thrilugh this I have tried to point out how and where culture impacts the planning process. Culture and.the values .and lifestyles that are both inherent in it and derive from it is one primary. means of definition of life. It is integrally involved inhow we communicate with each other, both in substance and in style. It is.reflected in the diversity of lifestyles as well .as the variety of physical and. social settings which mankind has to fit his diverse needs and desires. Therefore, it has compounded the problem for the planner by presenting a highly complex set of variables to be deciphered. At the same time, culture can be viewed as a means of arriving at solutions as a study of the culture can reveal common goals and aspirations as well as desired levels of satisfaction.for spatial.needs and social interaction. Therefore, the study of culture can become a tool-for planners to use to help tie their plans .to the specificity of the setting in which they are working. It was pointed out that in order to generate th:Ls specificity, the data base used by the planner must become culturally qualified. Using such a data base, it should be possible to make more accurate predictions as to the desires of the inhabitants for a particular change or the effects a proposed change will have on them. Accuracy of prediction can lead to. more effective ailocation of resources. The impact of a course of action can be measured more accurately and. the resources necessary for the action can be predicted with a 69
commensurate increase in accuracy. Costly adjustments will be mini-mized. To me, all of this _implied a. greater end-user bias for the planning process, with one primary means for reaching the end-user _being through citizen participation. By_ soliciting greater input from the citizens to arrive at end:-user tempered with the cultural insights available from end-user enco?nters, the planner will be better able to arrive at plans which will more fully match their needs. He will be a better facilitator, one of the primary functions I saw for planni:ng. He will also be a better-advocate as he will have a better in the end-users' wants and needs. Only frol!l such grounding can he project those needs into the world to make others aware of those needs and the consequences of action in light of that awareness. 70 Lastly, I have discussed a work by Kevin Lynch on normative theory for planning. This I undertook because allowing for cultural variations in planning requires a theory suitedto arriving at a range of solutions. Lynch's work takes a broad based In it he does not attempt to control the theory for culture b'1.1t takes the much more benign ap_: preach of allowing for culture This is precisely what I am advocating, that culture be allowed to manifest itself in planning to the degree that it manifests itself .in the world. It is my conclusion that culture is one of the overall constraints oh the effectiveness of the planning process. Its recognition as such and appropriate action to sensitize to the constraints imposed by culture will go far toward making planning a more credible and forceful activity.
Three broad areas of further research are apparent from my study thus far. The first is the need to develop the llieansfor de-. veloping culturally sensitive information pertinent to the planning process. The information must remain fluid with an ability to change both in content and interpretation based on.theparticular problem being addressed. Ari. overly simplified approach run.s the risk of stereotyping the people being studied. It _should also be possible to compare or contrast data across cultural boundaries. This. analysis will.be invaluable to determine points of conflict or congruence 71 within a planning scheme. The. dangers of the misuse of this information is all too .real .and this stumbling block will require a great deal of in itself. However, planning cannot be done if the planner is blind to the basic needs of the people he is planning for. Roland Warren (1954) recognized this need years ago and advocated a very thorough community study. The second area of concern for additional study is the development of culturally sensitive planning expertise. My first choice for this is to induce-as broad a cultural set of planners as possible. Someone working within her own culture has an obvious advantage over the-outsider. But even the native may need to develop cultural insight for her own culture, to be applied directly and to be used to screen through the planning literature for appropriate and inappropriate planning practices and proposals. For the planning student, what needs to be determined is how much stress needs to be put on cultural problems in planning and what means exist' for introducing culture into an already
72 overcrowded curriculum. The overall concern is to bring cultural constraints into common consideration within the planning profession. If cultural sensitivity can become an issue of common professional practice, a substantial level of expertise can be assumed to follow. Finally, citizen participation techniques aimed at soliciting cultural information and preferences and cross-cultural dialogue require development. The current development of participation could be studied with an eye on cultural and ethnic questions. The demand for a relevant planning process is to a great degree a demand for one which relates plans to.cultural aspirations of people. Tuning the participation process to culture is one means of gaining that relevancy.
If the buill environment is the expression of a conceptual environment, then this provides another way of distinguishing between the simple societies, which anthropologists have traditionally studied, and more complex ones. In the former there exists a clear and consistent fit (con gruence) between physical and conceptual space which is not found in more complex situations where there are many sets of cOnceptual spaces and groups which do not shape their own environment. The result is a less j,erfect fit and congruence is more difficult to trace. Thus in traditional culture one finds an environment that. through clear and consistent choices, fits a particular image or schema and pro duces a better fit between physical and conceptual space and hence bet ter congruence between the built environment, culture, behavior, and communication. This can be seen at all scales from the landscape to the room. Currently, the built environment often is not congruent with schemata and images, especially for particular groups. One can, therefore, see man-environment interaction in terms of the congruence of the physical and conceptual environments -a hypothesis which needs to be tested cro!!s-culturally for both cOmplex and simple societies. THE CONCEPT OF "CULTURE" IN ALL THIS Since "'culture" is central to anthropology, it may be useful to examine very briefly whether, and iri what way, this concept may prove useful in studying man-environment interaction If the shaping of the built environment is, indeed, related to images, values, and symbols and if the environment acts on people partly through communication and code legibility, then it must be intimately linked with culture. In fact, if the argument in the preceding sections is correct, a major characteristic of traditional environments is that they provide a fit between spatial organization and culture, communication, behavior, and human activities. Since the models used in shaping such traditional environments are shared and widely accepted, they communicate; and since they com 1 While there is a peat deal or resean::h on environmental cognition in man-environ ment studies, it has been mainly from a psychological perspective. The anthropological approach has been neslected, yet, as I have argued at a symposium at EDRA 4 in April, 1973, this IaUer approach is more aeneral and potentially most useful. Rapoport, 1976:23. It might be suggested, that the term "culture" is too broad to be useful in trying to relate built environment and the concepts sub sumed by this term. Is there a way of usefully starting to relate built environment and aspects of culture? Consider the hypothetical schema in Figure6. L_ SubCuliUJ'e;;;;;: . I Culture-" "'-. 1mi.ps ACTIVITIES . ,. Odtun worldJ'lftr Yolun LU'Ntyle ActMtits There are veiy This is dearly Theso are part This conalsta or These are the maay definipart or culture, or a world view mlbllera, rules. most specific lions or this is related to and are easier choices, role andmayofl'er conoept in choices, and to identify, bUt allocations, the most useful anthropoiOBY. reflects an still toO comallocation or entry point into At the very ideal. It is stiU pie-, at this resources, etc relatina built least It Is in diflic:ultto uso step, to Unk to and has been environment and aomeway and operatiODthe built eavl. more userully cullure Startina about a aroup alize (See ror ronment. used In rela with or people who aample, Jones Values are Lion to the hmlshtbe share a world 19n:szalay frequently built enVironpossible to view, bdiels, and Maday embodied In ment the identify dil values, etc. 1971; Szalay linaps. concept ol rerences in life which are and Bryson 1trrrrb11itln style, values, learned and 1971.) French cui world views, tnnsmiued. turalpoa lmases,and Tbaeaeatea raphy; culture as they or ru1e1 also Michaelson relate to the andbabitt and Reed built environ whk:h are con-(1910). ment. litteotand related (at least theo-retically) F'epre6. Alpem ttl c:u1t1n lftd t1111r rcJatlun to the built environment Let U. CODsider aetivitiee. Traditionally, in studying environments and in planninaand desip. activities and activity systems (in space and time) bave been wry important. Yet activities, even at the level of sa.called buic Deeds. .em extRmely variable, and one can pose the question whether they can be operationalil.ed. The flnt point is the im.,Ortance of dealing with specifics so that, for example, while sitting is a universal activity, whether one sits on the
TABLE I GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR. .. CULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT,* NATIVE AMERICAN AREAS *(as per U.C.L.A. group) :n each of the sections below, a change in that area is _presumed to have oposed (e.g., under "housing," it is assumed that "new housing" is :onsidered). The statements are therefore guidelines to the evaluation proposed change.* materials: are the materials used consistent with cultural prescriptions and method of construction: _same as "1". house blessing: if the culture provides for a blessing ceremony, is there opportunity for this to be performed in t'he required way? -20user. input: are aids to understanding the method of construction provided? Are opportunities made available for the occupant to participate in housing himself? house form/color: are these acceptable? If -preference is expressed for certain Anglo house forms, are these preferences associated with the form per..!!. or other of the house, e.g., utilities and conveniences? interior divisions: are divisions appropriate** both in number and kind? Are the subdivisions of the interior functional, symbolically, and ceremonially relevant, or, at very least unoffensive in these areas? bouse orientation: is the compass orientation of any significant part of the house (e.g., front door) appropriate? house surroundings: assess landscaping provision for gardens ease of maintenance of grounds outbuildings .. ... utilities/services: assess location inside and outside the house. Are occupants informed as to how these should be maintained, as well as cost-reducing systems of maintenance/energy conservation? final set of guidelines for a particular Community must be provided by affected Native American group itself. ropriate" is understood to mean "culturally appropriate". and Buge, no date.: 20-24
laintenance: how much maintenance can be done by the householder with rdinary tools? Is it traditional in the society to replace (build 1new) rather than repair worn housing stock? Have ways been explored f providing incentives for adequate maintenance? Lement spacing between houses: is it adequate? -21of openings (windows, doors) to similar openings in rteighbor tng are houses so designed/sited that they do not look into aach other? arrangement of houses in the settlement: is the overall geometry appropriate? assignment to houses: is this made on the basis of S':lCJ.'= culturally relevant criterion (e.g., kinship or clan membership) or order of application? In other words, is the arrangement of people within the determined by cultural factors or the chronology o-f an application list? if common services (e.g., wash houses) are part of the settlement/ development do they allow for "fringe benefits" (e.g., socializing) of the activity to occur easily? Use land tenure: is land individually owned (allotments) or communally owned (individual use of the land allowed by assignment or permit)? is there any way, within: the means provided by the society, of making the allotment system (if Community land is allotted) somehow more with ideas of Community-held land (e.g., a common pool of land whose tenure is determined by use)? if zoning is adopted, are culturally uses appropriately ,. separated? if zoning is adopted; are culturally and functionally compatible uses appropriately close together? are kin and clan aspects of land use respected? are ritually sacred or otherwise significant pieces of territory respected? .omics are sources of income primarily tribal or individual, i.e., does money come into. the tribe for use in collective improvement or for division among the people or does it come to the people directly? i I I I I I I i i i I I I I I
are possibilities for enterprises over which the tribe itself can main control being explored? is there an emphasis on opportunities for real work rather than. "jobs" or "empioyment"? in conjunction with "3", are people being encouraged to enhance existing skills, or to develop.new skills, so as to be able to work in culturally meaningful occupations? is work scheduled in such a way that workers are allowed time for other important activities, e.g., time for ceremonies (which, in some groups, cannot be scheduled more than a few days in advance)? what incentives-monetary and.otherwise-are _provided for working? are leases provided to outside companies who wish to utilize the Communi human and material resources a. fair to all members? b. renegotiable under any unanticipated circumstances? or periodically renegotiable, on a regular basis, and subject to the Community's decision to terminate if certain agreements are not being met? are new systems of Community revenue -generation (taxation, etc.) being explored which will make the Community self-sufficient? are ways being explored of insuring that individual income somehow benefits individuals? Lth, Education, and General Welfare are the compatibilities between "native" and "modern" medicines being explored? is there consideration given to making hospitals and clinics less frightening/threatening places? ... is there provision for training off-Reservation or non-Indian personnel in the health and education field in the history, culture, and tradi tions of the People, wherever and in whatever way these are relevant to the performance of their tasks? are members of the Community being trained as paramedics? are possibilities for bicultural/bilingual Community schools being ex'plored'l ia any attempt being made to accommodate Community transportation and travel needs, especially for people lacking private transportation? are ther:a ways of assuring Welfare recipients that they mem-: bers of the Communit::, .. a:..ling .. to participate in skill-developing projects (e.g., using Welfare payments as "scholarships," and so treating them)? i j I .I I I I
TABLE II CULTUB.AL IMPACT STATEMENT CURRENTLY USED BY SALT IIVEll COMMUNITY Ll the proposed development change the relationships between members the Community in such a way as to increase disputes between Community nbers and prevent Community members from working together in a way.to lp all of the members of the cOmmunity? 11 the proposed development bring into the Community .people and influ ces that will disturb the normal relationships that members ve with each other? 11 the proposed development create influences which will make the young ople of the Community less accepting .of their Indian 11 the proposed development make it more difficult for the members of .e Community to pass on their Indian culture to their children and audchildren? .11 the proposed development change the land in such a way so as to :parate members of the Community froDI. one auother? .11 the proposed development put buUdillgs on the land of the Community Lich will be unpleasant to look at? .11 the proposed development create health hazards for of the tmmunity? the proposed development create opportunities for jobs for members : the Community which will enable members of the Community to both themselves economically and remain a part of the Salt River tmmunity? .11 the proposed development cause people in surrounding communities to 1se respect for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and its mbers1 .. the proposed development cause members of the Community to be 1hamed of themselves or of other members of the Community? . 11 the proposed development have an effect on the feeling of members the Community that they are Ptmas and Maricopas? .11 the proposed development increase the danger to Community members d .their property from disruptive and criminal elements? .. I .11 the proposed development disturb important or natural aces within the Salt ltiver Community? .11 the proposed development encourage aittmbers to ignore .eas and ways of living? -23I I i l j I ,. I i I I I I I
Will the proposed development be so large li.S to prevent Co111111Wiity members from having a wide choice of job opportunities and usee for their land within the Community? -24Will the proposed development help secure for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and its members sufficient iilcome to allow members of the Community to secure higher standards of liviJig or allow the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community to provide greater services for its members? Will the proposed development make use of resources within the Community in such a way that the children and grandchildren of members of the Communi ty will be .able to make use of the same resources in the future. or will the proposed use up the resources of the Community? Do any of the answers to the questions listed above show that there will be bad effects on thesalt River Community and on Indian culture which can not be avoided if the proposed development happens? I! so. make a list of thosebad effects. Are there ways to change. the so that the bad effects which we think will happen will not happen? Does the proposed development require the Salt River Community .to make a decision now with which the children and grandchildren of members of the Community will have to live and which they will not be able to change? . : . ., ... '. .. -i I
IIUWICY'I;I 1 an; 31\ICJili\;GI Ul liiiC \;UIIU IOUliUII Ul iiUillll u pology, such as a few technicians in agronomy, medicine, or engineering who regard human cultural and social factors as largely irrelevant to their work and view anthropologists as impractical antiquarians. Others have an exaggerated respect for anthropology, viewing anthropologists as keepers of the master keys to other cultures that can open up the doors to lance by local people of even the most unacceptable development project. The truth is that neither image tells us much about the skills anthropologists have, and should be required to have, that permit them to contribute to the goal of enhancing benefits and mitigating negative consequences of development projects for the human communities affec,ed. Two kinds of expertise qualify an anthropologist to play a productive role in a development project First, prior field-research experience in the language and culture or the tiuman conimunities affected by a development effort is requisite. Second, prior experience with the specific development project at issue-such as a schistosomiasis-control campaign, hydroelectric dams, pulp mills, highways, or agricultural credit schemes-is a necessity. Not all anthropologists are qualified to consult on a development project or to serve on the staff of a development organization. The best are those who have both kinds of expertise called for here. However, the anthropologist's role in a specific development project or development organization may re quire more or less of these two kinds of experience, depending on the capacity in which the anthropologist must functidn. Anthropologists employed as consultants must have expertise in both areas. This is because the major role played is usually to provide recommen dations based on sound ethnographic information, information that the staff of development organizations, the local government, and the people themselves may not be able to provide as efficiently. Equally important, the consulting anthropologist must have experience with the specific type of development project under way to be able to likely sources of problems, the key technical questions to raise (and when to raise them in the project cycle), the internal and interorganizational structures that govern the project, and the outcomes of similar projects elsewhere in the world. In fact, some of the most effective anthropologists have accumulated sufficient cross-cultural experience with certain kinds of projects to have become ex perts throughout the world (e.g., in livestock credit schemes, resettlement design and. implementation, or irrigation systems). Nevertheless, knowledgeable consulting anthropologists must always supplement such global experience with the contributions of counterpart anthropologists 'ikilled in the language and culture of the people affected. Therefore, the role of consulting anthropologist must always combine both expertise in the . ___ kind of project and expertise. Partredge and Warren, no date.: 5-7. ,---. national-government ministries, or private development firms) should have special expertise in the specific kinds of development projects in their area of responsibility. Culturally-specific ethnographic expertise, while always useful (in order, for example, to articulate within the organization the analytical framework of anthropology), is not as important as experience in certain development efforts. For the role of the anthropologist in develop ment organizations is to raise issues regarding human factors and human consequences of development in a timely manner so that they can be suc cessfully addressed as the project proceeds. To do this the anthropologist must be familiar with administrative procedure in the organization, with the vehicles for communication among departments and officers of the organization, the professional resources within and outside the organization that might be tapped, with the organizati
'< Dl c+ 0 1/) ...... \0 ........ m .. N ........ N Table I. Aoalysia or II cullwe lbrouah liS cullurcmcs Phue.One PhueTwo .I Phase Three PhllllO Four .I Deiived Phases Bulc Zones Primary .e Secondary Culturemes Tenlary Culturemes Derived Baste Culturcmes Culturemes I Nonhuman Home, School, Oflii:e, VIsual, Acoustic, Clothin1 I Exterior Classroom, Theater, Tactile (Kinesthetic, ,!! KinesiC's ..c:'1 .D 2 Human u Restaurant, Bar, Park, Skin Senses), Olrac-e Church, Square, etc:. tory, Gustatory. Urban a:! Chronemics, SOc:ial "1:1 a."' <:I Allill..ides. g l Nonhuman _q (according to specific: : .. 2 Interior 0 c:ulcures) "3 4.Hurnan jG .H -;.! :I PROGRESS IVE ANALYSIS rn S Nonhuman "1:1 -+ :ii J ";::: '1: u I 6 Human C I Syn'chronic Diachronic: u u Rural en= rn "' -e :I 7 Nonhuman B a 1 "3 4 Interior g J B Human Biophysicopsycholosic:al Soc:iogeographic:al u '>. Conditionin& .!! 13 .cu 0 -e :I "Bu Q,-0 0 5 Background -0 0 -= 5 :I "1:1 b -a. ;;; .c ;:;; :.a .]a :I IL u >. ft u c :.0 je ri ..c: >. J:u H o < a. :c &: .5 0 Note: Italicized words indicate sample c:ulturcmes broken down runher into successive cuiturcmes. Derived Derived Culturemes 1 Culturemc:s Z Kinesics Kinesics at tilt table at the table according to social class Derived Cultureines J Eye contact at the table Socioeconomic: 8 ] ol 1 .. >. rl.2 .!! "'::IJ -ga. .!i iE a.I.IJ ------
BIBLIOGRAPHY Chapin, F. Stuart and Edward J, Kaiser, 1979. Land Use Planning, Third Edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Friedman, John, 1973. Retracking America, A Theoryof Transactive Planning. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Grunfeld, Dr. F., Habitat and A Pilot Study. Amsterdam: N: Samson NV-A. W. Sitjoff. Gutman, Robert, 1972. People and Buildings; Chapter 3: Cultural Variability in Physical Standards. New York: Basic Books. Hardiman, Margaret and James Midgley, 1982. The Social Dimensions of Development, Social Policy and Planning in the Third World. London: John Wiley & Sons. Hoben, Allan, 1982. Anthropology & Development. In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 11: 349-375. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Review. Jacobs, Jane, 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Kearney, Michael, 1975. World View, Theory and Study. In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4: 247-270. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Review. LaGory, Mark and John Pipkin, 1981. Urban Social Space. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Lawrence, Roderick J., 1981. The Appropriateness of Domestic Space: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In ERDA 12 Design Research Interactions: 46-55. Edited by Arvid E. Osterberg. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Lynch, Kevin, 1981. A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Mi che 1 son, Wi 11 i am H. 1976. Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Novak, Michael, 1973. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New York: MacMillan. Pacion, Michael, ed., 1981. Problem and Planning in Third World Cities. London: Croom-Helm.
Pahl, R. E., 1975. Whose City? and Other Essays on Urban Society. Baltimore: Penquin Books. Poyatos, Ferdinand, 1976, Analysys of a Ci:JJture Through its Culturemes: Theory and Method. In The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment, a Cross-Cultural Perspe'ctive. Ed. by Amos Rapoport. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Partridge, William L. and Dennis M. Warren, ed., no date. Training Manual for Development Anthropologists Association. Porteous, J. Douglas, 1977. Environment & Behavior, Planning and Everyday !_ : ;-,j Life. Reading, Mass.: Rapoport, Amos, 1973. An Approach to the Construction of Man-Environment Theory. In Environment Design Reasearch, Vol. 2, Symposia and Workshops: 124-135. Ed. by Wolfgang F. E. Preiser. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 1976. Sociocultural Aspects of Man-Environment Studies. In The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment, a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Ed. by Amos Rapoport. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Schwartz, Norman B., 1978. Community Development and Cultural Change in Latin America. In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7: 235-261. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Review. Stea, David and CarolBuge, no date. Cultural Impact Assessment on Native American Reservations: Two Case Studies. Fourth World Studies in Planning, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, U.C.L.A. Tuan, Yi-Fu, 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliff, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Warren, Roland L. 1965. Studying Your Community. New York; The Free Press/MacMillan.
PLANNING & CULTURE Cultural Constraints to the Planning Process Submitted by:, David R. Addor In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of of Planning and Community Development. College of Design and Planning University of Colorado at Denver Sunmer, 1985
SYNOPSIS I. Intent It was my intent to study cultural impact on planning to discover the extent of the impact and what adjustments are necessary to address that impact. It is my conclusion that the constraints of culture are endemic but vary in im-(1 'I portance with each particular project. Therefore, a sensitivity to culture @ must be br9ught to bear on most planning issues. To do so, planning doctrine must be expanded toallow ) end-user input becomes of for a more diverse base for acceptable solutions, determinant importance, planner must be illing to participate with them in developing the plans. I. Introduction My work overseas and my observations at home have led me to two initial conclusions about cross cultural interaction. The first is the most obvious and one which affects all human endeavor and can be subsumed under the head-ing of communication. The second is more specifically culture bound. It concerns problem definition. Effectiv.e communication is a universal concern but impinges more force-fully upon cross cultural The planner involved in a cross cultural setting will be in the position of having to clarify the definitions and perceptual differences arising from the cultural differences before proceeding into the planning process. After establishing a sufficient commun-ication with the people involved, the planner must arrive at a common state-ment of the problem and then present solutions which are acceptable to the people and which they are capable of achieving. These two problems will occur whether the planner is working outside his
culture overseas or in a diverse cultural setting in his native country. In order to successfully settle these issues and begin to get to the actual planning concerns, the planner must be constantly aware of three dynamics. The first is the.life style choice inherent in the culture and the criteria that this life style implies for judging the adequacy of the environment in which they live; The second is the match between the people's criteria and the criteria es.tablished within the planning literature. To date, this literature is too confined to allow for the existing diversity of cultural reaction to environment. Finally, a_sensitivi_t:y __ cultural criteria must.be developed along with an understanding of the attitudes and disposi --. tion arising from the planner's insensitivity or prejudice toward the cul-ture in which he is working. These three interrelated factors are the keys '<.-to effective cross cultural planning. III. Culture Defined To define culture, I have started with a literal definition to try to keep the idea as clear as possible. From Webster, culture is "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." A benevolent change in these "ways of living" comes about when the benefits of the change clearly outweigh the losses. The planner as change agent must study culture in order to deter-mine which changes would appear beneficial or at least neutral from this point of view. I am assuming a very influential role for culture. The anthropological literature reveals a debate over the precise role of culture in a changing
world. The first position takes culture as a determinant of change while the second position takes envirorunental forces, both human and natural, as determinants of change including cultural change. I take the broad view that both have substantial influence on human activity while the degree of importance varies depending on the particulars of the case in point. Further, my interest isn't in defining which is most active in general but in how the analy$is of each case is undertaken. The cultural concerns need to be enumerated in order to discover if they are of importance. The foreign aid community has come to the same conclusion in that they now require a social impact analysis to accompany the I have reiterated the for technical analysis for an aid project. cultural sensitivity in several places. To that end, I found one highly structured methodology for viewing culture in the anthropology literature. Following that, I have briefly discussed some areas where cu1ture confronts the planner. Within the physical world, architecture, and particularly housing, and the spatial arrangement of the city are the most demanding areas of concerniug for the planner. Transporta-tion and landscaping are integral in these concerns as well, and the over-all constraint of climate m6st be taken into account. Man-environment studies have developed as a field of research which is attempting to find correlations between this physical mileau and human action in it or reaction to it. The cuitural context is a key element in this work, although the particulars of its impact have yet to be determined. Within the social world, an even broader range of categories face the planner for objective observation. It starts with family life and goes on through work patterns' education, health care' .and the role of different age groups. One structural element key to understanding social interaction is
religion. Another is characterized as world view and has become the subject of. extensive research. All this is intended to imply the scope of concern for the planner, not to lay out a definitive list to be followed. Such a list would be a subject for extensive research in itself. v. Constraints on Culturally Sensitive-Planning. I arrived at the point of advocating a participatory style of planning as the most .culturally-sensitive, with an end-.user/inhabitant emphasis as a means fqr controling for culture and for.acculturizing the planner. The participatory planner can truly fill the role of advisor, bringing her expertise to bear on the problems as defined by the people._ Participation is necessary not only to define the problems but;also to clarify the definition and perceptual differences noted previously. Once the communication. is established and the planner begins to grasp the needs and desires of her clients, she can then fulfill the second role of advocate for that con1munity in the larger wor1d. Acculturation is most difficult when the differences arE\ the greatest, but I do not feel that there are any absolute rcadblocks inherent in cultural differences. However, there must be at least a willingness on everyone's part to try to communicate. If communication can be initiated, similarities in cultural viewpoint can be made obvious as well, and common ground for action can then reached. Continued discussion will hopefully lead to the developmeQ.t of effective plar.s for all._ Having stated this prefered approach to planning, there are a number of constraints to culturally sensitive planning. The first is making accurate projections, oneof the key requirements of planning. Data collection must.
be tuned to cultural information while the projections must be made from people t s point of vie\v. Physical and fiscal restraints press on the issue because of the additional burden of structuring an effective citizen participation program, the cost of additional data collection and perhaps tional expertise to interpret the cultural input. Hm.;rever, efficiencies reflected in more effective plans can balance out these additional costs. Time is, ah1ays a problem. It appears even more so when extra lead time is necessary to acculturize the planning staff. The greater effectiveness and easier implementation likly with culturally attuned plans should mitigate the problem. Failures are the worst waste of resources and time possible, and ignoring cultural necessities is one way of producing failures. Finally, it will be necessary to develop culturally sensitive expertise. My prefered route is training natives as planners and allowing them to plan their own world, adapting what they have learned to fit. Lastly, overall issues in planning are discussed briefly in the light of cultural variation. Conflict resolution and quality control are two driving forces behind planning. Conflicts can be as much a perceptual problem as a real one, while quality suffers strong definition constraints that make it open to cultural relativity. As for social planning, the need to develop local policy for local conditions is becoming very apparent. Finally, the scope of the project has definite impact on the degree of cultural specificity necessaryin the plans. Greater effort is required at the local level with decreasing levels of importance as the scope broadens. Of overall concern in the scope of the planning process is the discriminatory use of the information gathered for planning purposed. Also, provincialism
could be fostered by a total adherence to local input. A balance must be struck between the local need for autonomy_and sopieties needs to draw on all its elements for support and enjoyment. V. Kevin Lynch To end my work, I have chosen Lynch's "A Theory of Good City Form" to critique. I did so because I found in his work the end-user position and allowance for cultural diversity that I see as essential to effective planning. He incorporates these qualities by the use of performance dimensions as the criteria for judging city form. It is the inhabitants who make that judgement. to:'. develop plans for improving the performance, he must have an ongoing citizen participation -program. The effects of culture may not be obvious, but the control is built in because the local culture is making the assessment. It is in multi-cultured settings that the cultural differences will appear, and their existance will be obvious of a different judgement on a particular dimension. At that point, the necessity for a culturally sensitive planner comes into play in order to accomodate the differences. All in all, Lynch's development of this theory appears to me as a much needed link in planning doctrine to sensitize us to the cultural constraints to the planning process.